tank buster

[Jester]

Would have to go with the Typhoon also.  

[Warspawn]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Which Il-2 are we talking about here? Or more importantly, which gun?

-Sik

Sorry, the VYa, early model with the 152mm cartridge case (the weapon we have on our IL-2).  In the same sentence though they talk about the 1942 NS-37, where they mention armor penetration-->it was this gun that they were referring to.

I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament.  The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon.  How effective could this really be when applied to AHII?  Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.

[Tails]

Originally posted by Warspawn

I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament.  The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon.  How effective could this really be when applied to AHII?  Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.

Well, depends on if someone wants multiple kills or just one. For just one brewed tank, 6 rnd/gun is enough (assuming they can keep the bird steady during repeated shots). With multiple kills per sortie in mind, that load would require some good aim and tactics.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Warspawn
The M9 in the P-63 would penetrate 2cm more armor than the typical tank buster in the IL-2, which was typically said to be able to bust through 4cm of plate.  

Unfortunately only one single P-63D prototype was fitted with the M9; the production jobs started with the M4, then later got the M10 (various improvements, but same poor ballistics).

On a side note, what was the main difference between the RS-82 and 132 rockets on the IL-2?  ...and tell me more about the cluster bombs that should be available for the IL-2 and the Stuka!!

On the rockets:

Il-2s attacked with rockets and bombs as well as guns. They had eight Type RO rails underwing, which could take RS-82 unguided air-to-ground rockets. These were 82 mm in diameter, 560 mm long and carried a 585 g warhead. They were initially developed for air-to-air fighting in the late 1930s but proved insufficiently accurate for that role, so were switched to ground attack. During early 1942 the RS-132 rocket was introduced, 132 mm in diameter, 864 mm long and with a 2.25 kg warhead. Later in the same year improved RBS-82 and RBS-132 rockets, with anti-tank (presumably hollow-charge) warheads, became available.

Although a direct hit from the RBS-82 could knock out a light tank, and from the RBS-132 any tank, their limited accuracy meant that they were usually fired simultaneously against dense concentrations of vehicles or similar area targets. A small-scale study of the results of attack on a column of tanks showed that of 178 RS-82s fired, just seven hit their targets; a success rate of four percent. By comparison, the hit-rate for shells from the ShVAK and VYa guns also used in the attack was 9.4% and 16% respectively. Following extensive tests, an Il-2 firing a salvo of four RS-82s at a tank was assessed as having an 8% chance of scoring a hit at a range of 300 m, rising to 25% if eight rockets were fired simultaneously. Extending the firing distance to 600 m, however, reduced the hit probabilities to 1.3% and 4% per salvo.

on the cluster bombs:

Also introduced at Kursk was the PTAB (Protivotankovaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba = anti-tank aircraft bomb). Versions weighing 1.5 and 2.5 kg were used, and these relied on a hollow-charge warhead to penetrate up to 60-70 mm of armour. Some 192 PTABs were housed in a KMB canister, of which four could be fitted into the internal bomb bays. These were usually released en masse from 70–100 m altitude, covering an area of 15 x 70 m (i.e. an average of one for every 1.3 m2) and were highly effective, being rated by the Soviets as the best method for dealing with tanks and two to three times more effective than ordinary bombs.

and:

Bombs and rockets were also used for ground attack by the Luftwaffe, including the 4 kg SD 4H1 hollow-charge bomb similar in concept to the Soviet PTAB. Seventy-eight of these were carried by 500 kg containers, usually dropped in steep dives by Ju 87s. Hit probability against tanks was much higher than for a 500 kg bomb, but their use declined as the Ju 87 was replaced by the Fw 190.

All quotes from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45 by Emmanuel Gustin and myself.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Warspawn
I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament.  The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon.  How effective could this really be when applied to AHII?  Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.

Six rounds was the standard clip when used as an AA gun, but 8 and 12-round clips were introduced for the BK 3,7

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[AquaShrimp]

How effective were U.S. planes at destroying German tanks with 500 and 1000lb bombs?

It seems a 500 or 1000 lb bomb could turn any U.S. plane into a 'tank buster'.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
It seems a 500 or 1000 lb bomb could turn any U.S. plane into a 'tank buster'.

Yes, if they could hit them (or get very close). The record in terms of German tanks destroyed by bombs in NW Europe suggests that this didn't happen very often. The Typhoon, when dropping bombs, had an average miss distance of 120 yards. There's no reason to suppose that US fighter-bombers would have done much better.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[macleod01]

Rock on the Stuka! Lethal weapon!

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Tony Williams

Also introduced at Kursk was the PTAB (Protivotankovaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba = anti-tank aircraft bomb). Versions weighing 1.5 and 2.5 kg were used, and these relied on a hollow-charge warhead to penetrate up to 60-70 mm of armour. Some 192 PTABs were housed in a KMB canister, of which four could be fitted into the internal bomb bays. These were usually released en masse from 70–100 m altitude, covering an area of 15 x 70 m (i.e. an average of one for every 1.3 m2) and were highly effective, being rated by the Soviets as the best method for dealing with tanks and two to three times more effective than ordinary bombs.

I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Tilt
I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.

     That would make hitting a tank battle very "interesting" as both sides
use the same vehicles.  Killshooter anyone?

[Tails]

Originally posted by Rino
That would make hitting a tank battle very "interesting" as both sides
use the same vehicles.  Killshooter anyone?

Just do what it does for  ground vehicle drivers: Friendlies have icons, enemies dont.

[Krusty]

Your eyes are FAR FAR better than anything AH can render on a screen of pre-set squares. There's no way that the graphics in this game even come CLOSE to what the eye can see plainly and easily.

Icons help to resolve this (because the technology at work in our computers cannot be changed, or "fixed").

Icons serve a purpose. In-game, they say "Hey, you'd normally see this but this game can't see crap, so we're pointing otu what you could normally see anyways, look here!".

[Kazaa]

Originally posted by Tilt
I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.

Great idea Tilt, all hail the best idea of today !

[red26]

I just thought the P-47 was the best with 8, 50cal guns in the wings I figured you cant go wroung:aok

[Charge]

JU87D

Dunno actually which has most tank kills, B or D...

-C+