Author Topic: B25 Tank Killer! (Read 13987 times)

Krusty · « **Reply #15 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:11:35 PM »

That's just wrong.

Lusche · « **Reply #16 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:24:27 PM »

Hmm I can imagine a small perk value.. but I haven't made up my mind on that issue yet. Let's wait 'till a full tour is completed.

Krusty · « **Reply #17 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:26:34 PM »

Nerf the main gun a bit in regards to armor penetration, and it probably won't need a perk.

scottydawg · « **Reply #18 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:31:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by evenhaim
i recently landed 17 kills in a b25h every single one was a perfect kill on a panzer or Hitthe same sweet spot almost every time, from behind the panzer and just under the turret one shot kills, its not kill stealing almost all the tanks were untouched and newly spawned.

Sweet, I know what I'm doing this weekend.
I bet you were getting cursed out by every GV squeaker for about an hour.

Lusche · « **Reply #19 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:38:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
Nerf the main gun a bit in regards to armor penetration, and it probably won't need a perk.

The question is: Do we need to nerf the main gun because it's wrong modeled, or because it's unbalancing gameplay? The latter one would get a big "NO!" from me. Weapon performance in this should be in every case modeled on hard real world data. If a weapon has a "unbalancing" impact on game just because of a ahistorical useage, it's a perk issue.

Optiker · « **Reply #20 on:** August 31, 2007, 12:52:58 PM »

Posted by Widewing
********
Had the B-25H had been deployed to the 9th AF, they would have been attacking armor with them. The T13E1/M6 75mm HE round had enough kinetic energy to punch thru thin armor, up to 50mm under certain circumstances at 100 yards as established at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1943. At 500 yards it could still penetrate 25mm at 90 degrees. That's just penetration, and does not include the secondary effect of the explosive charge (test rounds at Aberdeen were inert).

WW,
were the tests shots at Aberdeen taken with a stationary cannon? The extra 300-400 fps speed from the B-25's forward motion and increased kinetic energy must certainly have an impact. Won't that give the round additional penetration?

Regards,
Optiker

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #21 on:** August 31, 2007, 01:00:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
I think the B-25H's gun is overmodeled quite a bit.

Please provide any sources to back this up. "I feel" or "I think" just doesn't cut it.

ack-ack

Widewing · « **Reply #22 on:** August 31, 2007, 01:07:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Optiker
Posted by Widewing
********
Had the B-25H had been deployed to the 9th AF, they would have been attacking armor with them. The T13E1/M6 75mm HE round had enough kinetic energy to punch thru thin armor, up to 50mm under certain circumstances at 100 yards as established at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1943. At 500 yards it could still penetrate 25mm at 90 degrees. That's just penetration, and does not include the secondary effect of the explosive charge (test rounds at Aberdeen were inert).

WW,
were the tests shots at Aberdeen taken with a stationary cannon? The extra 300-400 fps speed from the B-25's forward motion and increased kinetic energy must certainly have an impact. Won't that give the round additional penetration?

Regards,
Optiker

Yes, the gun was fixed. It was fired at various thicknesses of cold rolled homogeneous steel plate. The M6 version of the T13E1 was developed for the M-24 Chaffee, which required the T13E1 type compact recoil system to fit within the turret. Ammunition was interchangeable between the two guns (and the M3 75mm gun too)

Penetration would be boosted to some degree if the weapon was moving towards the target, especially at speeds of 200 mph or greater. I know that the 5th AF experimented with CP fuzes for the B-25's 75mm. CP stands for Concrete Penetrator. These fuzes proved too hard for barges and lightly skinned vessels as they simply went through from side to side, detonating in the sea. They also experimented with APC "Super" 75mm rounds.. However, no record exists of these being used on actual combat missions.

My regards,

Widewing

Krusty · « **Reply #23 on:** August 31, 2007, 01:09:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Optiker
WW,
were the tests shots at Aberdeen taken with a stationary cannon? The extra 300-400 fps speed from the B-25's forward motion and increased kinetic energy must certainly have an impact. Won't that give the round additional penetration?

Regards,
Optiker

300fps shouldn't affect it to this extent.

Ack-Ack: I don't have the numbers you request. However, if this vehicle was such hot sh** then it would have been knocking out tanks all over France. Keep in mind it was used all over the ETO and MTO and WTO as well! Quite a few vehicles there, and if they had this super, uber tank killing weapon, they would have used it (especially the Soviets, they'd have requested it by the thousands).

Bronk · « **Reply #24 on:** August 31, 2007, 03:13:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
300fps shouldn't affect it to this extent.

Ack-Ack: I don't have the numbers you request. However, if this vehicle was such hot sh** then it would have been knocking out tanks all over France. Keep in mind it was used all over the ETO and MTO and WTO as well! Quite a few vehicles there, and if they had this super, uber tank killing weapon, they would have used it (especially the Soviets, they'd have requested it by the thousands).

Umm no it wouldn't. The b-25c was hit and run. We are just flying it unhistorical.

Bronk

Edit: not sure why I hit the "C" key, meant H.

Krusty · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2007, 03:43:50 PM »

We're talking the H here, not the C. The C isn't a super tank-killing demon. The H is. If this plane were so damn hot, it wouldn't have been dumped at the first chance of ANY other variant. It wouldn't have had the cannon removed and 50cals stuck in the gaping hole it left.

Sure, it's being used a-historically, but HISTORICALLY they knew the potential of it, and they HISTORICALLY had need of tank killing machines all over Europe and non-PTO theaters. If it were this potent, historically, it would have been the only ground attack platform used against axis armor.

Instead, it was not. They knew what it could do, they decided to stop producing it. There's a link between the two.

EDIT: Rather than say "prove it's wrong" I ask you: Prove it's RIGHT! Prove to me that a plane without armor piercing shells not hitting at 90 degrees (often 45 degrees based on angle of attack run) is going to penetrate hardened steel targets at the worst angle possible to hit them, and kill some of the best tanks in the war with 1 hit. Prove it's RIGHT, the way it is.

Bronk · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2007, 04:04:07 PM »

Krusty how long do you think the h would last without fighter escort?
There is no way in hell a pilot would fly the H the way we do in game.

Bronk

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2007, 04:19:07 PM »

All this talk about B-25Hs killing tanks in one shot directly contradicts my own experiences. I fired at a Firefly, hitting on the left side of the turret and I watched as my 75mm round bounced off into the air and hit a friendly IL2 in the wing that resulted in my death by killshooter.

I re-upped and made a pass at a Panzer and watched my 75mm rounds bounce off. Only when I hit the track did I do any damage to it, immobilizing it. I was then able to make repeated passes on the rear of the Panzer and eventually took it out but only when a friendly came and finished it off with some rockets.

Only when I was going after light armored vehicles like an Ostie or M8 did I ever achieve a 1 hit kill.

ack-ack

Krusty · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2007, 04:28:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I fired at a Firefly, hitting on the left side of the turret and I watched as my 75mm round bounced off into the air and hit a friendly IL2 in the wing that resulted in my death by killshooter.

OMFG!! Did you get this on film?!?! I'd LOVE to see!

Bronk: Ju87Gs are dogmeat if a fighter finds them. So are IL2s. So are many other planes with anti-tank-guns throughout the war. Enemy air cover wasn't always around, didn't always know where you were, and often these anti-tank planes could get in and get out before fighters found them.

E25280 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2007, 05:32:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
EDIT: Rather than say "prove it's wrong" I ask you: Prove it's RIGHT! Prove to me that a plane without armor piercing shells not hitting at 90 degrees (often 45 degrees based on angle of attack run) is going to penetrate hardened steel targets at the worst angle possible to hit them, and kill some of the best tanks in the war with 1 hit. Prove it's RIGHT, the way it is.

Do you even read Widewing's posts, or simply ignore them because they don't fit your particular world view?

I suppose by your logic, the 500lb HE bombs should have no effect against tanks either, eh? After all, they are only high explosive, not armor piercing.

By the way, HE fired from tanks will kill other tanks too, so it isn't like there is some special modeling of the B-25H's 75mm gun.