190F8 vs GVs

[Sikboy]

Yanno, Jug pilots used to bounce the 50 cal rounds off the pavement and into the underside of enemy tanks!




-Sik

[Crumpp]

That's a huge myth Sikboy.  Especially when you know the "skipping" characteristics of bullets.  Bullets do not bounce off objects and "richochet" at an angle.  The strike an object and then travel parallel to it.  

This is why in urban combat (the real thing, not on your computer or TV) you do not get into the prone in the street nor get against the walls.  You stay standing in the street using verticle cover and at least 2 feet off the walls.

Crumpp

[GODO]

A 50mm gun was needed to knock the rear of a PzIV tower. I dont expect anything below that to do anything but kill, with a lot of luck, some optics equipment or even the tracks (all 12mm stories knocking tanks are raw fantasy). Not a single german gun (including Mk103 monster gun) was found really effective against heavy armoured tanks. On the other hand, normal 20mm HE would be very effective against armoured transports or armoured artillery. In real life, may be 1 of every 30 enemy vehicles was a tank, so 190F guns may be still considered more than adecuate against ground targets.

[Kweassa]

I dunno about the cluster bomb. It's a real resource hog to the computer.

 Maybe they could implement it in a compromised method... like dropping one bomb, and giving it a very large blast radius but much weaker power...  but that'll definately ruin the feel.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Strafing with 20mm or less can do alot of damage.  It cannot however take out a tank.

Their is no doubt the 190F8 was an effective Ground Attack plane.  Just look at the variety of ordinance it could deliver.

Crumpp

There are a couple schools of thought on that.  In real life, it is extraordinarely unlikely that a tank would have been strafed to "death" by an airplane in WW2.

However, it was also undoubtedly *possible* for a .50 caliber, 20mm Hispano, or Mg151 (the AP rounds for the MG-151 & .50, SAPI rounds for the Hispano) to penetrate the top armor of a Panzer IV.  

In Aces High, the Hispano and .50 can penetrate the armor roughly as above (~300 yards, ~30 degree dive), but the Mg151 is practically incapable of penetration at any range/angle.  Since HTC has gone with the "since it was technically possible IRL, it is possible here" approach for the .50 and Hispano, I would like the same modelling for the Mg-151.  

I don't know much about how HTC has the ammunition modelled.  I was under the impression that the most "common" belting was used, which on the Western Front IIRC was 2xHE, 2XAP, and 1Xmine.  I think on the Eastern Front they used a different belting, but I'm not positive.  The most common belting for the RAF IIRC was 2xSAPI, 2XHE.  Not a clue what the most common belting was for the .50.  

What I don't entirely understand is why the Mg-151 is incapable of penetrating the top armor on the Panzer IV.  I can only assume that the 2XHE and 1Xmine "average" pulls down the armor penetration enough that it can't penetrate any armor from any range or angle.  If that is the case, I would really like to see an all-AP loadout for the 190F-8, because as was shown above, the MG-151 AP round has roughly the same penetration as the .50 and Hispano.  Thus, since it was technically possible for the 190F-8 to penetrate the armor on tanks, I would like it to be possible in the game.  

I've no idea how hard it would be to implement, but it would be a vast improvement over the current F-8s capabilities.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Crumpp
That's a huge myth Sikboy.  Especially when you know the "skipping" characteristics of bullets.  Bullets do not bounce off objects and "richochet" at an angle.  The strike an object and then travel parallel to it.  

This is why in urban combat (the real thing, not on your computer or TV) you do not get into the prone in the street nor get against the walls.  You stay standing in the street using verticle cover and at least 2 feet off the walls.

Crumpp

I know, that's why I was ... I just don't think any Gun vs. GV thread is compleat without the .50 Cal Ping Pong Post.

-Sik

[Kweassa]

I believe HTC also dabbles on the concept of "historical representation, rather than technical recreation" - meaning, some factors or issues are altered, left out, or controlled by game play concessions to give out historical situations, rather than try to recreate every historical fact which might bring out the opposite results of making the game ahistoric.

 Such examples are flap deployment speeds, combat trims, auto trim sets, etc.

 Some things are technically possible but practically impossible - such as, like you pointed out, it was technically possible that some times 20mm shells could penetrate tank armour, but in real life, no one would be crazy enough to drive their plane in such angle and speeds at such low altitudes, to strafe a single tank.

 However, in game playing, people do crazy stuff all the time, and go as far as to exploit things which should be pretty much impossible in real life.

 So what it comes down to is historical feel over technical facts in some cases. Like the combat trim.

 ..


 I'd rather that all tanks should be rendered impervious to machine gun fire, and 20mm and 30mm cannons.

 Only the NS-37 37mm(if our Yak-9T carries an AP version of it...), IL-2 23mms, and VickerS should be allowed to hurt tanks.

 Is that realistic? No. But the consequences it brings is historic.

 People should readily acknowledge the fact that they should up a suitable anti-tank platform, if they wish to strafe tanks dead.

 .....

 In turn, change the tank pintle guns, so that when an onboard gunner, or a driver is in the pintle gun position, the tank can be easily disabled/killed by strafing.

[Wotan]

Some things are technically possible but practically impossible - such as, like you pointed out, it was technically possible that some times 20mm shells could penetrate tank armour, but in real life, no one would be crazy enough to drive their plane in such angle and speeds at such low altitudes, to strafe a single tank.

That's not necessarily the case. Read the pilot account I posted above:

Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons.

In Kurland F-8s from SG 3 and 4 routinely strafed armor with their "onboard" weapons (cannons).

The effect of the strafing was enough to send the Soviet armor running for cover. That’s not to say they destroyed mbts with mg151s but they did strafe them.

Same with the western allies, they still strafed German mbts. So let’s stick to the facts.

They may not have killed or destroyed mbts but the certainly strafed them.

[moot]

Originally posted by Kweassa
I dunno about the cluster bomb. It's a real resource hog to the computer.

 Maybe they could implement it in a compromised method... like dropping one bomb, and giving it a very large blast radius but much weaker power...  but that'll definately ruin the feel.

The ju88s can already make large salvos, double that and I doubt a PC would stutter even then..  What else would you need to model?  Just the dispersion, any intermediary trajectory effects (wind etc, anything else?), and the impact+detonation.

Pretty much the same as we already have with regular one-piece bombs.
Maybe the detonation+damage calculation?  I doubt it.

[moot]

and re: the historical VS technical modeling, what you said works, but only within a certain range of effect.

I mean, if there was something the WWII planes could have done, but didn't, that doesn't mean it should be substracted from our game because our range of possibilities includes more than just WWII's.

Pilots back then could have done what we do, because we are (hypotheticaly) in the same model space.  

109s are fighting along side F6Fs and planes are being loaded with 25% fuel, planes are all using imperial units in their cockpits, WEP parameters are standardized thruout the planeset, etc..

[Crumpp]

I agree Kweassa on the MG-Cannon not being able to hurt Armour unless that Armour is unbuttoned.    It is entirely possible (but not likely for an unbuttoned AFV to have a shell enter the crew compartment and kill/wound them.  Chances are much higher that the poor unfortunate maning the pintle gun will have a lead lunch. IF shell did enter the AFV,  it would most likely richochet around and even possible cause spauling.  One lucky shell could cause alot of damage.

IMO AH should adjust for the Historical role A/C played.  Only certain A/C were noted Panzer Knacker.  It certainly was not the .50 cal armed A/C.  They used ordinance just like the 190F8.  

I wonder if anyone has any data on the Armour penetration of the SD-2 or if a HEAT submunition was produced for the AB series weapons delivery system?

At the very least PB2 rockets were used by the Schlachtfliegers.

Crumpp

[Rasker]

In speaking about strafing angles, I seem to recall a German plane with angled cannon, like "Schrage Musik", but pointing down and forward for gv's instead of up and forward for bombers.  Perhaps the Hs-129?  Does anyone else have more on this?

Since the roof is usually the most vulnerable point of any AFV reachable by aircraft, a gun pointed downward to minimize the angle of penetration and avoid having to dive makes a lot of sense.  
Bring this plane weapon combo to AH2!

But if they give us the Ju-87G "Kannonenvogel", paint it as Hans Rudels plane, pls.

[Urchin]

Rasker, the Luftwaffe had used a rocket system similar to what you describe, but afaik it never went past the testing stage because it didn't work so well.  

In theory, a plane equipped with this system would fly over a tank and some kind of photocell system would recognize the tank and fire off a rocket downward at like a 60 degree angle.  In practice, the system didn't work because it couldn't recognize targets.

[Urchin]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I agree Kweassa on the MG-Cannon not being able to hurt Armour unless that Armour is unbuttoned.    It is entirely possible (but not likely for an unbuttoned AFV to have a shell enter the crew compartment and kill/wound them.  Chances are much higher that the poor unfortunate maning the pintle gun will have a lead lunch. IF shell did enter the AFV,  it would most likely richochet around and even possible cause spauling.  One lucky shell could cause alot of damage.

IMO AH should adjust for the Historical role A/C played.  Only certain A/C were noted Panzer Knacker.  It certainly was not the .50 cal armed A/C.  They used ordinance just like the 190F8.  

I wonder if anyone has any data on the Armour penetration of the SD-2 or if a HEAT submunition was produced for the AB series weapons delivery system?

At the very least PB2 rockets were used by the Schlachtfliegers.

Crumpp

I understand what you and Kweassa are saying.  The problem is HTC doesn't agree with it.  Their position on the issue is that if it were possible for a weapon system to damage something, it will damage something, no matter how likely it was to happen in real life.  

I've actually got no problem with this with the new ground terrain, as GVs can now usually find some sort of cover against planes flying overhead (playing hide and seek with planes in a forest is fun ), I would just like the same consideration applied to at least the 190F-8.  

My reasoning is that the 190F-8 WAS a dedicated ground attack plane, it should be at least as good against GVs as a Spitfire or a P-51.  In the game, it isn't.  

A Spit 9 can drop a bomb on 1 panzer for a kill, kill another with its rockets, then strafe and disable (or kill outright) a few more before it has to rearm.  

A P-51 can kill 2 panzers with bombs, probably 3 with rockets, then strafe and disable (or kill outright) a few more before it has to rearm.  

A 190F-8 can kill 1 panzer with the 500 kg bomb, maybe 2 (if they are exceedingly lucky) with the 4 50-kg bombs, then they have to rearm.

So the 190F-8 is about half as effective against tanks as two common "general purpose" aircraft.  If it could at least strafe tanks effectively, it would be at least as effective at fighting GVs as the non-specialized general purpose aircraft.

I'm not even asking for a wholesale change to be made to the Mg-151.  I'd just like to see an AP loadout made available for this one plane, because its job was to attack tanks.  I don't think they would have used an ammo loadout that was completely ineffective against tanks if they could use one that actually had a chance of doing some damage.

[Crumpp]

Urchin,

The fact that general purpose fighters can kill tanks with their MG's/Cannon is NOT correct.  In fact its silly.

Making the 190F8 able to destroy tanks with it's guns is not the answer IMO.  Removing the ability of a .50 cal armed A/C to kill AFV's is the answer.

Reread the chapter in "FW-190 Aces of the Eastern Front" by Osprey Books last night.  One line struck me.  During the battle of Kursk Schlachtfliegergeschwaders equipped with the 190 where sent after troops and artillery positions.  Hs-129's/Ju 87G's were assigned the role of armour interdiction.

When Tour of Duty comes out the LW will need it's "PanzerKnacker's".  That means either modeling the Hs-129 or Ju-87G.

In the meantime to maintain balance either ALL or NONE when it comes to cannon's killing armour.  To balance the rocket wielding allied A/C then the Panzerblitz rockets will need to be modeled.
Better yet we need the SD-4HI anti-armour bomblets for the AB-250.   That would make hiding in the woods a little more salamanderly for the tanks.

Check out this article on the development of Luftwaffe Close Air Support.

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/features/luftwaffecas/index.shtml

Crumpp