Author Topic: B25 Tank Killer! (Read 13986 times)

Yarbles · « **Reply #45 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:39:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Can a M4 fire from above ?

According to this chart http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html it can penetrate 76 or 66mm at 457 yard.

Top armour of a tank is not as thick as front or side armour,I won't be surprised if it's below 50mm.

They are all AP shells not HE carried by the B25. We know an M4 75mm firing AP could take out a Tiger form behind. But with AP standing for Armoured Piercing. The title of this is B25 tank killer as in:

"Not sure I understand why but the B25 apparently kills tanks with an HE round?"

We know that Tanks up to the Panzer Mark 4 could be dealt with by the Sherman and the Cromwell but crucially with a specifically designed AP round.

scottydawg · « **Reply #46 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:43:02 AM »

The 25 carries HE shells exculsively, Yarbles.

Yarbles · « **Reply #47 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:45:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by scottydawg
The 25 carries HE shells exculsively, Yarbles.

Indeed and precisely what this is all about.

scottydawg · « **Reply #48 on:** September 06, 2007, 09:48:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yarbles
Indeed and precisely what this is all about.

My bad, I misread your post.

Yarbles · « **Reply #49 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:00:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by scottydawg
My bad, I misread your post.

I dont know either

There is this whole thing about Historical accuracy, I think it unlikely we can model the tactics but I think we should at least try and get the planes and vehicles right. For me its a big part of the enjoyment in noticing the accuracy and also feeling you are learning a bit more about the reality. The firefly was brought in precisely because the basic M4 would be such a weak choice against the exiting tanks. That made sense but the armour was it seemed too strong especially compared to the Tiger and as a rare breed is has been rightly perked. I think maybe the B25 would be about as usefull as the JU88 on late war if it wasn't for the 75mm gun. If this is not accurate then the gun should be changed and if that makes the 25 unpopular it may rightly effect voting habits on new planes in the future.

I think if we lack anything it is a decent perked Bomber aas we have the Tiger and M4 plus plenty of great perked Fighters.

TUXC · « **Reply #50 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:45:30 AM »

I'm in agreement with the above posters that anything that can take out tanks from the air when ords are down is a good thing. Now we just need the Ju87G, Hs129, and Mosquito with the tse tse.

Saxman · « **Reply #51 on:** September 06, 2007, 11:16:45 AM »

As I believe WW pointed out, there were a number of different fuses that were used with the 75mm, and the one primarily used in the B-25 exploded on contact (because with time-delay they had a problem with shells punching through ship hulls before exploding, thus minimizing damage).

To be more fair to the B-25's gun, it would be MORE appropriate to compare the type of fuse used in the 25H vs. the HE rounds used in the M4.

Yarbles · « **Reply #52 on:** September 06, 2007, 11:21:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by TUXC
I'm in agreement with the above posters that anything that can take out tanks from the air when ords are down is a good thing. Now we just need the Ju87G, Hs129, and Mosquito with the tse tse.

Agreed as long as its reasonable accurate and anecdotal evidence suggeste it is not.

Warspawn · « **Reply #53 on:** September 06, 2007, 03:41:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saxman

To be more fair to the B-25's gun, it would be MORE appropriate to compare the type of fuse used in the 25H vs. the HE rounds used in the M4.

True. Even without the addition of high explosive energy to the impact, the pure kinetic energy of a pound plus of steel traveling at the muzzle velocity of the cannon plus whatever speed was imparted by the aircraft would have a significant effect on the upper armor of a WWII fighting vehicle.

Field guns and mortars could destroy a tank with a direct hit from above, and these were all HE rounds. No reason that a similar weapon carried by an aircraft firing from above wouldn't have a devastating effect as well.

E25280 · « **Reply #54 on:** September 06, 2007, 06:06:52 PM »

It really puzzles me why you folks continue to simply disregard WW's post.

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
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).

So, 2 inches at 100 yards and an inch at 500 yards, without the benefit of an explosion following.

250MPH not make a difference? The M6 gun has a muzzle velocity of around 2000 feet per second. 250MPH is about 367 feet per second. 18% added muzzle velocity is not going to have an effect on penetration? What a curious assertion.

Shells do not instantaneously explode on contact. 16lbs of HE set on the ground next to a tank might not do much, but encase it in metal and slam it into the side of the armor plate at 2000 fps, you bet that is going to have an effect. Yes, AP would be better, but to act as if an HE round is completely ineffective is silly.

Quote

Originally posted by Yarbles
How about we keep a firm grip on the facts here, Tankers were extremely unhappy with the 75mm with an AP round let alone an HE. the drive was to up gun allied tanks. So if this is to be a WW2 simulation remeber from the Air rockets and bombs were feared not some imaginary magical weapon that was less than ordinary when used on the ground.

So let's see . . . because you can kill a tank with a shot to the side or rear, the 75mm gun on the B-25H is a "magical weapon?"

News flash for you -- HE from a Panzer or T-34 can kill tanks in the game too if you hit the side or rear at close range. Why should the B-25H's weapon be any different?

The 75mm gun was considered inadequate because of the opposition it faced. The German guns could outrange it and had much more effective armor penetration. The German tanks (i.e. targets) were often Panthers that had more armor than the Shermans. Yes, if I can't kill him with a frontal shot at 1000 yards but he can kill me, then my weapon is "inadequate."

Inadequate is not "ineffective." You act as if the 75mm was incapable of anything. Any unbiased assessment of the facts will show that to be untrue. But as with so many things about events that occurred 65 years ago, you are taking anecdotes and "reputations" as gospel.

Yarbles · « **Reply #55 on:** September 07, 2007, 05:52:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
It really puzzles me why you folks continue to simply disregard WW's post. So, 2 inches at 100 yards and an inch at 500 yards, without the benefit of an explosion following.

250MPH not make a difference? The M6 gun has a muzzle velocity of around 2000 feet per second. 250MPH is about 367 feet per second. 18% added muzzle velocity is not going to have an effect on penetration? What a curious assertion.

Shells do not instantaneously explode on contact. 16lbs of HE set on the ground next to a tank might not do much, but encase it in metal and slam it into the side of the armor plate at 2000 fps, you bet that is going to have an effect. Yes, AP would be better, but to act as if an HE round is completely ineffective is silly.

So let's see . . . because you can kill a tank with a shot to the side or rear, the 75mm gun on the B-25H is a "magical weapon?" News flash for you -- HE from a Panzer or T-34 can kill tanks in the game too if you hit the side or rear at close range. Why should the B-25H's weapon be any different?

The 75mm gun was considered inadequate because of the opposition it faced. The German guns could outrange it and had much more effective armor penetration. The German tanks (i.e. targets) were often Panthers that had more armor than the Shermans. Yes, if I can't kill him with a frontal shot at 1000 yards but he can kill me, then my weapon is "inadequate."

Inadequate is not "ineffective." You act as if the 75mm was incapable of anything. Any unbiased assessment of the facts will show that to be untrue. But as with so many things about events that occurred 65 years ago, you are taking anecdotes and "reputations" as gospel.

HE HE AND LOL (At myself)

Thanks for this you have straightened things out for me. I think your saying an HE round can pierce the armour of a tank from behind above and the side if fired at close range.

I hope then this is correctly modelled in the game

BaDkaRmA158Th · « **Reply #56 on:** September 07, 2007, 03:50:25 PM »

Keep in mind, most of these kills are from 400 and closer. "most"
Most gv wars, are from 1.0 and closer.

Dont be mad because you didnt look up

Hazard69 · « **Reply #57 on:** September 09, 2007, 10:55:06 AM »

So far the best I have done is killed a few M16s, LVTs and a PT with it. I have also seen my rounds bounce off panzers, M4s, a tiger:D (didn't expect to kill him) and heck once even a M8 (maybe got his tires when the round deflected into the ground:D). I'd really like to know how to use this "point and kill" weapon.

But then again I fired from over 1000yards. LVT kills were lucky hits in driver area I think.

Fencer51 · « **Reply #58 on:** September 14, 2007, 07:02:32 PM »

A shot to the engine compartment of a Panzer MkIV does wonders.

He blew up right after the second pic before I even got past.

North American Aviation Rules.

nimraa · « **Reply #59 on:** September 14, 2007, 09:35:19 PM »

I kill tanks with the B-25H's 75mm all of the time, I have landed 18 kills before on just panzers and Shermans. All you have to do is come up behind them under 500 ft and put a round square into the rear of the tank. The only tanks I have found this not to work well on is the T-34 and almost totally infective against Tigers.