Yak

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by scJazz
[Sorry about hijacking this thread...

There is no doubt in my mind that AC guns are not modeled correctly in dealing with armored vehicles.

You should do a search in the aircraft/vehicle forum. there's a ton of data in there on this stuff.

-Sik

[scJazz]

I know... read a whole bunch of it which is why I'm certain that things are not right.

TY though...

[Ecliptik]

It is possible that "averaging" of damage effects is causing the problem, because when it comes to armor penetration, it's all or nothing.  

If aircraft ammo belts should have alternating HE/AP/Incindiery rounds, and you instead average the effects of all three so that every round has a combined, lessened effect, then you reduce your overall ability to penetrate armor.  

If a hypothetical AP round has 30mm of armor penetration, it might be enough to punch through the skin on various vehicles.  If you give, say, half that penetration to every round in the belt instead of having half or one third of the rounds in the belt with proper penetration, then now you have all of your bullets with 10-15mm penetration.  If a certain vehicle has 25mm of armor, now you can't pierce it, where before you could.

[Animal]

Yak9t is one of my favorite tank busters.
Very effective.

[Soda]

Originally posted by Ecliptik
It is possible that "averaging" of damage effects is causing the problem, because when it comes to armor penetration, it's all or nothing.  

I think you misunderstood, each aircraft round has the full properties of both an AP and HE round, not that they less effective, if anything they are way over-effective inheriting the best of both types of ammunition.

-Soda

[MOSQ]

I love the Yak 9-T. When I first flew it I assumed the 37 mm would be as bad or worse than the German 30mm.

I recall exactly when my perception changed. I was flying base defense against GVs when a P-38 JABOED in and popped a few rounds at me as he screamed by. I was down to 2 shells left, so what the heck, I pulled nose up and fired at D 1.1. To my surprise, and no doubt the P-38's, his tail blew off!

That's when I read up on the weapon and discovered it has as high or higher muzzle velocity as the vaunted hizzookas. So I practiced with the .target command. Holy Cow, this thing shoots flat and far !

Since then I've had a blast with it. I make regular kills on unsuspecting bogies who blow by and quit manouvering when they think they are out of range at D800.

My best luck in killing Panzers comes with a high angle (near straight down) attack. This keeps them from knocking out your radiator, which happens constantly in  a low level, low angle attack. But it also gets more outright kills, not just wounded panzers.

However the GV damage model is porked (how many threads are there on "I hit the Panzer 5 times with my Tiger and he survived"), so it's hard to be consistent killing Panzers with the Yak 9-T.

Against fighters, I have never once had to land more than 1 hit to take them out. As soon as I see the flash of the ping I turn away to assess the SA, because they always end in a kill.  (I only fire the cannon in the Yak 9-T, so no confusing 12.7 mm mg hits.

It's not a multi kill wonder plane. It has lots of vices. But I sure have fun in it.

[Fariz]

Small tip, when you fly yakT, unload .50s on the runway.

[save]

most aircraft guns are not meant to, and are not effective against medium tanks and heavier.

the exception is 37mm stuka with tungsten shots.

Even larger bombs had a hard time to inflict damage if they did not hit very close or ontop of an tank.


Here is an excellent site about guns



http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

[Batz]

TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2

Of the single-engined aircraft, the Yak-9T and P-39 were not intended as ground attack planes, but they had the potential as their layouts permitted the carrying of heavy guns.

The Yak-9T, with one NS-37 mounted on the engine and a synchronised 12.7mm Berezin, was a good fighter well able to look after itself, but it wasn't perfect in the anti-tank role. The gun's heavy recoil pushed the nose out of alignment, so only two or three shots could be fired before the pilot had to correct the aim, and it carried insufficient armour to protect its vulnerable engine cooling system from ground fire (it took only a single bullet to penetrate the radiator or coolant lines of a liquid-cooled engine to ensure that the plane would not return to base). There was also room behind the engine for only 32 rounds of cannon ammunition. Our 'ideal' gun would be a bit lighter, and the ammunition would be slightly smaller, allowing weight and space for more armour and ammunition (or alternatively an additional Berezin). However, to provide the kind of comprehensive armour protection carried by the Il-2 would probably have crippled the performance.

The yak9t was typically flown in the a2a role not as a tank buster and didnt typically carry ap rounds.

Here is another good quote

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

[Batz]

Heres an old thread in which Tony Williams answer the ap in Yak9t:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83309