Plane I Would like to see #2 (Hs 129 article)

[Wotan]

I don't care anything about keeping you 'straight'. It's more entertaining watching you twisting yourself into a knot.

Just like that thread where you and Gruen spent 3 pages insulting each other only for you to finally admit you were wrong. As Gruen said he's not the first guy to notice that about you. I bet he won't be the last.

We can just save this for your 'where's our PB1's and 2's...' thread.

[Crumpp]

Just like that thread where you and Gruen spent 3 pages insulting each other only for you to finally admit you were wrong.

I think you need reread that thread.  You have a great way with twisting events to suit your world.

Just like the:

 

I was not crapping on you suggestion just to start a flame war.

BS your trying to throw around.  If you were not trying to start a flame war then you should have used a little tact.

So:



Crumpp

[storch]

Ahhhhhh wotox, what a human being.    For a guy who doesn't play you sure do bother people enough don't cha?

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Karnak
The only effective aircraft in AH fro killing tanks with guns is now the IL-2.  The Hurri IID is simply too hard to use and rarely gets any kills.

I'm surprised at that. In RL, the Il-2's main weapons against tanks were rockets and bombs - the VYa-23 most were armed with could only penetrate 25-30mm so was really only effective against lightly-armoured tanks. OTOH, the Hurri's 40mm guns could penetrate 50+mm and achieved a good scoresheet - until the Tiger came along.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Karnak]

Tony,

So far as I know there are no aircraft guns in this game that do more than scratch the paint on the Tiger.  I hear some players are able to use the Hurri IID against it by doing nearly suicidal dives to hit it in the decking.  Nobody in reality would have tried those manuvers, but nobody dies here so....


With the Il-2 it can get through the 12mm deck armor and 20mm rear armor of the Panzer IV H.  That is about the limit of where it can get through.  The Hurricane IID can as well, but it is much more vulnerable to ground fire and has a very limited supply of ammo.  Most people prefer the Il-2 for that reason.  Bombs and rockets first, then cannon.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Waffle BAS
- 3 - as other options instead of more 38s, p47s, ju87s... ect..

I wouldn't mind seeing some of the more 'exotic' aircraft that flew in the war like the ME410 and planes like that before we get any new P-38s.  As long as it doesn't delay the revamping of the current P-38 graphical model to AH2 standards.



ack-ack

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I think you need reread that thread.  You have a great way with twisting events to suit your world.

GH:

And I am still offended that you did not disclose the fact that K4 data was from an early test that leacked MW50. In other words I am offended because the other day it seemed to me that you tried to decieve me with faulty data.

It went like that back and forth for atleast a whole page if not more.

Finally you end up acknowledging what GH had claimed:

Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"?

Any one can read the thread the themselves.

Quoting GH again:

Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.

Unlike you I no interest in 'shutting any one up' especially you. It's too much fun watching.

BS your trying to throw around.  If you were not trying to start a flame war then you should have used a little tact.

I said exactly what I meant and in clear language and with out any insult.

I'll quote it for you...

Besides that the Hs 129 adds nothing to the game. Its slow, under powered and will be a death trap.

If we prioritize our suggestions based on what is need for ToD and not things that just seem 'cool' HTC maybe more encouraged to fill gaps in the planeset leading to a better level of gameplay (at least for ToD). Just look what they are running for a late '43 ETO in the CT this week.

 How you or anyone choses to interpret that is not my concern. I am not responsible for your 'feelings'. "Tact' is for politicians.

Anyway don't you have some fiction book to write?

Storch,

You better not stray to far from the CT they might miss your complaining.

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>I'm surprised at that. In RL, the Il-2's main weapons against tanks were rockets and bombs - the VYa-23 most were armed with could only penetrate 25-30mm so was really only effective against lightly-armoured tanks. OTOH, the Hurri's 40mm guns could penetrate 50+mm and achieved a good scoresheet - until the Tiger came along.

It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.

From Rudel's "Stuka":

"The sight of these masses of tanks reminds me of my cannon-carrying aircraft of the experimental unit, which I have brought with me from the Crimea. With this enormous target of enemy tanks it should be possible to try it out. It is true the flak defences covering the Soviet tank units are very heavy, but I say to myself that both groups are facing each other at a distance of 1200 to 1800 yards, and unless I am brought down like a stone by a direct hit by flak it must always be possible to crash-land the damaged aircraft in our own tank lines. The first flight therefore flies with bombs behind me in the only cannon-carrying aeroplane. So the attempt is made.

In the first attack four tanks explode under the hammer blows of my cannons; by the evening the total rises to twelve. We are all seized with a kind of passion for the chase from the glorious feeling of having saved much German bloodshed with every tank destroyed.

After the first day the fitters have their hands full, for the aircraft have been heavily damaged by flak. The life of such an aeroplane will always be limited. But the main thing is: the evil spell is broken, and in this aircraft we possess a weapon which can speedily be employed everywhere and is capable of dealing successfully with the formidable numbers of Soviet tanks. There is great rejoicing in the flight, the squadron, the wing and the group over this newly-gained discovery and its practical confirmation."

However, Rudel confirms that it's only possible to attack tanks outside the statical front, which is too well protected by AAA, and mentions that the cannon Stukas usually have to be escorted by bomb-carrying Stukas to take out the AAA in the vicinity of the attacked tanks as well as to foil attacks by fighters.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.

That is interesting, Hohun.  I had heard the opposite.

Tanks in WWII were very hard to kill from the air period.  IIRC there was a report the USAAF did as part of their after action review.  It said a rather ridiculously low number of tanks were actually destroyed from the air.

Anyway here is the report on the effectiveness of 20mm vs. 40 mm:



Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
That is interesting, Hohun.  I had heard the opposite.

Tanks in WWII were very hard to kill from the air period.  IIRC there was a report the USAAF did as part of their after action review.  It said a rather ridiculously low number of tanks were actually destroyed from the air.

Crumpp

Argh????

Did not Henning not say that tanks were very hard to kill with bombs?

quote: It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.

So what is this opposite you heard of?

[Furball]

nice document crumpp.

Am i right in thinking that although aircraft may not be that good at killing the armour, they were very good at killing the support units?

So although the armour may be intact, if you destroy all their logisitics the armoured unit becomes useless?

[MiloMorai]

Furball,

you might find this thread interesting, and entertaining.

http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3601

Another link to look at http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

[Crumpp]

Am i right in thinking that although aircraft may not be that good at killing the armour, they were very good at killing the support units?

I think your right Furball.  There were very effective on troops in the open and light skinned vehicles.  If you ever watch guncamera footage, it was not hard to walk your fire and be extremely accurate.  

If you can't get gas and ammo a tank is worthless.

Crumpp

[Angus]

I've seen gun camera films of Tempests starfing Vehicles, - quite impressive, - vehicles blew up!
I have one account of a Spitfire disabling a Tiger (rather than a panzer) with cannon fire. Bullets bounced under the tank somehow and disabled it. The tank was found abandoned in an undrivable state.
(I think some of the crew had written "Bravo Tommy" on it actually)
I also remember a tale where a P51 pilot spotted a tank train. He dived in and put the tractor out. Rocket firin Tiffies took care of the rest. IMHO they might really have destroyed it, sincer the train was sropped, tanks were on top of the wagons, nice, still and elevated, and hardly any flak.....so..

But still, to kill a tank properly you either need a direct hit on a soft spot with an ap rocket, or almost a direct hit with a bomb, preferably no less than 500 lbs.

[gear]

Ok... How about the Ju 88P-1 with 75-mm (2.95 in) PaK 40 cannon, a 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 81 forward-firing machine-gun being used by the pilot for aiming the cannon. The usual ventral and dorsal rear-firing machine guns were carried for defence. Other sub-variants with different forward-firing cannon were the Ju 88P-2 and Ju 88P-3 (two 37 mm BK cannon) and the Ju 88P-4 (one 50 mm BK5 cannon). Think what a formation of these could do.