Author Topic: The great TankBuster...the Spit? (Read 1862 times)

CJ · « **Reply #45 on:** March 27, 2001, 11:00:00 PM »

Did anyone address weather or not those were killed with guns or bombs? I've got a few kills of GV's, panzers included, while flying spits, but I used bombs. Bombs are the best way to attack GV's for me. Rockets might be allright too, but I can't hit anything but acks with those, and I think it takes a direct hit on a GV to do any damage with rockets.

CJ · « **Reply #46 on:** March 27, 2001, 11:18:00 PM »

Sorry.. I guess I jumped into the thread a little late..

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #47 on:** March 28, 2001, 12:50:00 AM »

Quote

DejaVu, why do you always have to post your stats? Is it really always about you? LOL You crack me up. That's not a dig, you really do crack me up from a professional standpoint...but thats neither here nor there.

I posted my stats in a cannon equiped plane verses my stats in a cannonless plane. Everything else is pretty much equal. The stats were virtually identical. I'm sorry you have a problem with that.

AKDejaVu

Tony Williams · « **Reply #48 on:** March 28, 2001, 12:52:00 AM »

The whole business of armour penetration by aircraft guns is complex and it is very difficult to get definitive answers. There are many figures for penetration out there but few of them are directly comparable, because the range, striking angle and quality of the armour make such a big difference. Even the definition of "penetration" varies (see the thread on 20mm on this site). Depending on the circumstances it was quite common for any particular shot to perform much better, or much worse, than theory would suggest. The quality of manufacture of ammunition and of armour plate in practice varied considerably even when they were supposed to be identical.

The best source of evidence is simply to look at what happened on the ground. I can't speak for the Russian front, but Allied observers in Western Europe could find very few German tanks which had been destroyed by air attack - with any kind of weapon.

That doesn't mean that cannon and HMGs were always ineffective against tanks. I have read that in some cases incendiary bullets slipped through engine louvres and caused havoc inside. It is also possible that a lucky shot might knock out a track pin and temporarily disable a tank. Any of course any tank caught with a hatch open could be in real trouble.

An entirely separate issue is what damage was caused even when armour was penetrated. There are plenty of accounts of high-velocity AP shot blasting straight through a tank and leaving the crew shaken but unharmed. Ironically, slightly less performance could be more deadly; an AP shot which only just penetrated would bounce around inside instead of passing through....

To get back to aircraft, the only air forces which took anti-tank warfare seriously were the RAF (very briefly, with the 40mm-equipped Hurricane IID), the Luftwaffe (mainly with the Hs 129) and the Red Air Force (mainly with the Il-2). ALL of them found that guns had to be big and powerful to have much effect on tanks. The RAF retired the Hurricane from the European theatre because it couldn't deal with Tiger tanks, despite the fact that the 40mm had twice the penetration of the 20mm. The Russians went from 20mm to 23mm to 37mm. The Germans went to high-velocity 30mm and 37mm with tungsten cored ammo, then 50mm and even 75mm. If smaller guns were generally effective, that's what they would have used.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/index.htm

gatt · « **Reply #49 on:** March 28, 2001, 01:51:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tony Williams:
To get back to aircraft, the only air forces which took anti-tank warfare seriously were the RAF (very briefly, with the 40mm-equipped Hurricane IID), the Luftwaffe (mainly with the Hs 129) and the Red Air Force (mainly with the Il-2). ALL of them found that guns had to be big and powerful to have much effect on tanks. The RAF retired the Hurricane from the European theatre because it couldn't deal with Tiger tanks, despite the fact that the 40mm had twice the penetration of the 20mm. The Russians went from 20mm to 23mm to 37mm. The Germans went to high-velocity 30mm and 37mm with tungsten cored ammo, then 50mm and even 75mm. If smaller guns were generally effective, that's what they would have used

True. Actually LW and Russian AlliesHigh air forces (Yak-9T apart) have the worst aircraft to do anti-tank missions. Sorry, it is AcesHigh

Ok, lets cheerleaders come in again ...

funked · « **Reply #50 on:** March 28, 2001, 03:08:00 AM »

Agree 100% Tony. If you look at the development of anti-tank aircraft, the movement to bigger and bigger guns and rockets indicates that the small guns just were not doing the job.

hazed- · « **Reply #51 on:** March 28, 2001, 06:52:00 AM »

Just a quote from 'the Lufftwaffe fighter force:a veiw from the cockpit' by adolf galland et al, by david isby.
'anti-tank missions'
'it was apparent that ordinary ground attack units were not able to destroy enough tanks with their guns,cannons and bombs,but the special anti-tank units with armour piercing cannon and special anti-tank rockets were very successfull.'

realise it says 'destroy ENOUGH tanks' not 'destroy any tanks'
notice the statement 'VERY SUCCESSFULL'????
jesus people stop argueing that mausers cant kill tanks in RL, so they modeled ok in AH.
ITS BS AND YOU KNOW IT IS.

heres some more for you....
'The attacks with armour piercing cannon were conducted like ordinary strafing missions.To ensure hits,the pilots had to approach as close as possible.The best range was 100-150 yards.The gunnery run had to be very even and calm, and the direction of approach was determined by the ground situation and with the 3cm and 37mm weapons aimed at vital points on the tanks'

mmm we cant seem to hurt anywhere on a tank....
but not only this, if we arent going to get the ammunition, then i demand we get some of these......(same book)...

'it was better to use large formations which carried a great number of containers of 4kg hollow charge armour piercing bombs, which can be dropped from halfway outside the effective anti-aircraft fire.'

when can we have these?

This books information was compiled from interveiws/interrogations conducted by the USAAF just after the war and were intended for the use of the USAAF.They were written by professionals for professionals.there is no room in these accounts for stories, just facts on strategies etc.

this is the second time ive posted this but it does point out that the LW AP rounds did work.Make em work in AH i say.

------------------
Hazed
3./JG2

[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 03-28-2001).]

Tony Williams · « **Reply #52 on:** March 28, 2001, 02:39:00 PM »

The smallest airborne anti-tank gun worth bothering with was the Soviet 23mm VYa. This had more than 50% more muzzle energy than the Hispano, yet was only capable of penetrating the rear armour of most tanks, at best. The 30mm MK 103 and 37mm NS-37 and BK 3.7 stood a reasonable chance of penetrating side as well as rear armour. Only the BK 7.5 stood a realistic chance of blowing a hole in frontal armour.

Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/

Sturm · « **Reply #53 on:** March 28, 2001, 02:42:00 PM »

I get it now, the Hispano is really a smaler version of the Mk 103 yet has the same ballistics

Makes sense now, I can sleep easier tonight now. BTW where is our 103?

------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron

gatt · « **Reply #54 on:** March 28, 2001, 03:49:00 PM »

Hear, hear this deafening silence. The 20mm Hispano ballistic is completely wrong. It was never ever able to penetrate a Pzr MkIII (FP chassis) armour. If its lethality is clearly wrong modeled, how about his air-to-air lethality? Is it different? How could it be different against a/c? Where are the cheerleaders?

Ok, I'm jokin

Would be interesting to hear something from HTC. Really. The thing looks too big to be unknown to them.

<S>!

funked · « **Reply #55 on:** March 28, 2001, 04:24:00 PM »

Hazed the quotes you provide are directly referring to guns that aren't modeled in AH (37 mm and 30 mm ), not to the Mauser MG 151/20. The only 30 mm modeled in AH is the MK 108 which was a small short barreled weapon with low muzzle velocity and it did not fire an AP projectile of any sort. If you want to kill tanks with Luftwaffe guns, you need the Ju 87G or Hs 129.

Read Tony's post!

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-28-2001).]

gatt · « **Reply #56 on:** March 29, 2001, 02:16:00 AM »

Yeah Tony and Funked are right, the only real tank busters (using only cannons) were german or russian. And some Desert Air Force Hurricanes. No Spitfire, no Typhoon, no Tempest, no F4U-1C did this on regular basis only with cannons. I agree that Mausers 151-20 should not knock-out tanks but then fix the thing for all the other allied a/c.

Give us HS-129, Ju-87G and Sturmovik if you want real tank busters. All other a/c should use only bombs and rockets.

pzvg · « **Reply #57 on:** March 29, 2001, 06:41:00 AM »

Leaving the HS debate safely behind,

(No I don't agree)
All data is skewed in relation to AH and ground vehicles, Range,movement,max slope capability,excessive speed on downslope,armor modelling and damage effects, the lack of cover that makes panzers so easy to find (Historically, you get 1 pass at armor in the open, after that they get scarce real quick)
It hopefully will get looked at again, 'tho HT hasn't really indicated if there's any interest in fixing it.

P.S. Raub, the traverse of the AA Mg34 on the IVH is accurate, My Grandfather complained about it a lot.

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Arty · « **Reply #58 on:** March 31, 2001, 01:49:00 AM »

I do not know how to do the whole quote thing, so i cut and pasted. This quote is from Flakbait "I've got a complete .50 cal round hanging on my wall, and right next to it is a .44 magnum hollowpoint. The .44 magnum's bullet design has a better chance of penetrating anything than the .50's design. Simply because it has sharp edges around the rim of the bullet."
and my respose is "PIFFLE" A hollow point has NO chance of being a serious penetrator, its very design is to transmit as much of the energy as possible to as wide an area as possible. The .50 is not a bad round for very light armour.
Sorry but the whole bit about a .44HP being better suited for anti-armour work got my dander up.
Arty

flakbait · « **Reply #59 on:** March 31, 2001, 02:42:00 AM »

A single .44 mag HP round has a better chance of penetrating at oblique angles than a rifle bullet. Why? Bullet design. I never said penetrating armor, I said penetrating at oblique angles. Look at a hollowpoint round. It has an angle change of greater than 90 degrees at the tip. Meaning where a .50 cal round will bounce off due to that pointed nose, the HP round will actually bite. That sharp edge will grip the surface it hits and it'll dig in. Try the same thing with a rifle bullet and it'll skid right off. Why? Pointed nose. Hit a target near head-on and that nose will give you tremendous penetration. Hit at any weird angles and that nose will act like a ramp and force the round to skid off the target. Hit any library and grab a copy of the 1993 Guns & Ammo Annual. Flip to the article by Jim Cirillo about bullet design. That's the proof a pointed bullet can't penetrate crap at oblique angles. Let alone armor plate welded to a tank.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond