Author Topic: We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster  (Read 1280 times)

Offline maik

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
      • http://www.jg301.de
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2000, 10:51:00 AM »
you Must be kiddin, Karnak.

Maik

Jerry B

  • Guest
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2000, 11:21:00 AM »
Of course, tank-busters like the IL-2 and Hs-129 would need protecting. But at least the Sturmovik would have a rear gunner  

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2000, 06:38:00 PM »
Hurricane IID?    Then we could get other versions of the Hurri  

Regards

'Nexx'
NEXX

Offline Rendar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2000, 07:32:00 PM »
How about we get the latest version of the Il-2, the Il-16 (I think).  The Il-2 was easy meat for fighters.  The Il-16 would not be that much harder to kill, but it would be more survivable on average.

------------------
Rendar

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2000, 07:57:00 PM »
From Russian Aviation Museum

"Il-16. Ground-attack monoplane. Few built, and never entered service."

You probably mean the BEAST

Sorrow[S=A]

  • Guest
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2000, 08:17:00 PM »
Kidding?
Why? 20mm could both penetrate, crack or melt apart a panzer IV's turret. It's NOT a damn panther ppl, it's a tank from early-mid war even if it served until the end. If it was a Panther I would cry foul too- but.. it's not! When we get a full damage model for the panzer IV I am sure you will see less kills from frontal plate hits and also see more kills from engine strikes. Allready I noticed by last version IV was only instantly killed from high attacks to the top or rear. Now I have had quite a few survivals with multiple hits when attacks come low or to the front of my turret.

Offline Rendar

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 112
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2000, 08:26:00 PM »
Oops, I meant the Il-10.  

------------------
Rendar

Offline juzz

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
      • http://nope.haha.com
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2000, 08:33:00 PM »
We need to be able to select ammo type then. Have a "ground attack" mix and an "air-to-air" mix.

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2000, 11:44:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Kidding?
Why? 20mm could both penetrate, crack or melt apart a panzer IV's turret. It's NOT a damn panther ppl, it's a tank from early-mid war even if it served until the end. If it was a Panther I would cry foul too- but.. it's not! When we get a full damage model for the panzer IV I am sure you will see less kills from frontal plate hits and also see more kills from engine strikes. Allready I noticed by last version IV was only instantly killed from high attacks to the top or rear. Now I have had quite a few survivals with multiple hits when attacks come low or to the front of my turret.

early my arse. Pz IVH: produced April 1943 through July 1944, 3774 made.

Hull armor: 80/30/20
Turrent armor: 80/30/20

roof was @ 12mm if I recall right

That is without the schuerzen and applique plates (we have schurezen, dunno about the applique armor plates)

Where as the Panther G:

Hull armor: 80/50/40
Turrent armor: 100/45/45

Ugh I forget the roof armor I think it's around 20mm

The Panzer IV actually has an advantage vs the Panzer V when under attack from the air. While the Panzer V has great sloping for protection against horizontal shots, the armor is angled at 45 degrees and steeper, making a perpendicular shot much easier for an attacking plane. (where the best chance of penetration is) With a big enough cannon round it wouldn't really matter because it would most likely go through at any angle but with the lighter A/C MG's and cannons the sheer thickness of the Pather's armor will save it. Where as in some places on the Panther where it's armor is simular in thickness to the Panzer IVH the flatter armor would help defeat penetration. (odd angle contact)

Gotta remember most tanks that were knocked out of action by from air wasn't because some cannons penetrated and blew it up...alot of it was demobilzation and then crew destruction. Even the 20mm Hispano ain't gonna do much once it penetrates roof armor. AP will most likely damage the engine or engine systems but starting the kind of reaction needed for a kerblooie tank kill isn't really there. An HE hasn't got much chance of penetration (none at all really, with the Hispano HE rounds)

BUT when the engine goes dead the turrent goes dead too. They crew would have to go to hand cranks and that takes FOREVER when laying the gun is critical.  

Blah.

- Jig



Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2000, 07:27:00 AM »
The biggest problem I have observed is not in Tanks or Ostwinds themselves.

Its the pilots attacking them.

From my experience, 80% or more of all attacks on my armored vehicles are strafing attacks that come from about 4k out, straight in at a very low angle of attack (10-20 degrees dive) at tree top level.

This is the easiest type of pass to make, but guys this will get you killed every time if your attacking an Ostwind, because it makes you a very easy target yourself.

There are two different techniques that can be used in successful ground attacks.

1.) Make a high angle dive bomb/cannon attack. This should be done with at least a 45 degree dive, or even as much as a 90 degree dive.

2.) Low level strafing pass with a jink. Make your normal low angle attack, but instead of point yourself directly at the target, aim your nose at about a 10 vehicle length point in front or in the rear of the vehicle you are attacking. This makes you a crossing target and much harder too hit. At about 2k-1.5k (or closer if you can do it and still get the shot) roll hard back into the target and fire as normal.

Just a few pointers I have picked up, both from attacking, and playing target  

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Vosper

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2000, 07:48:00 AM »
Has anyone had success, limited or otherwise, on hitting tracks whilst strafing tanks ?  I would expect that 20mm should do a fair job of damaging roadwheels and such.  I know whenever I strafe it never seems to give mobility kills, and as a target it's rare that I lose a track to planes.

Just curious.

dudedog

  • Guest
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2000, 07:00:00 PM »
UH, P-39?

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #27 on: September 15, 2000, 09:02:00 PM »
Nice thinking Dudedog  

But lets go further along that line of thought and.....

P-63 KingCobra (Aircobra on steroids for latewar planeset)
Yak-9T (Even better cannon than the P-39 or P-63)
Il-10 (Ultimate latewar Sturmovich ... well sorta)



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #28 on: September 15, 2000, 11:09:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Nice thinking Dudedog    

But lets go further along that line of thought and.....

P-63 KingCobra (Aircobra on steroids for latewar planeset)
Yak-9T (Even better cannon than the P-39 or P-63)
Il-10 (Ultimate latewar Sturmovich ... well sorta)


blah

   

much better choice if ya ask me.


[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 09-15-2000).]

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
We are in SERIOUS need of a tankbuster
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2000, 12:08:00 AM »
Naw, I'll stick with the Il-2.  It had so many different antitank systems that you'd get dizzy figuring out which one to use  
ingame: Raz