Author Topic: The great TankBuster...the Spit? (Read 1805 times)

Arty · « **Reply #60 on:** March 31, 2001, 03:03:00 AM »

Hello Flakbait,
I must respectfully disagree with you. While I have not read the magazine you have suggested, I can tell you I have shot alot. (If I knew how to underline that I would) I have put a fair amount or .223 rounds through angle iron at all sorts of angles (because it was there and provided a fun target. Tommorow I will try the same with several differing calibres of pistol rounds using hollow points. I am pretty sure I know what is going to happen though.

I think I should get extra credit for using the word "piffle" though.

Arty

SKurj · « **Reply #61 on:** March 31, 2001, 09:54:00 AM »

Does AH model glancing shots?

If it did it would reduce HO effectiveness, and increase survivability of panzers to strafe attacks.

SKurj

pzvg · « **Reply #62 on:** March 31, 2001, 12:35:00 PM »

AH I think only models thickness of armor and not slope or angle of impact. Look say it a thousand times and it still comes out the same. The problem ain't the friggin Hispano's but armor,all armor(aircraft,panzers)
The model only seems to use the most basic level for impact ie; any round the physics model has determined to hit, hits at a perfectly oblique angle so that it's effects can be correctly calculated. While making sure that bullets and shells behave correctly in flight, the treatment of them after impact seems simplistic. Therin lies the problem, Take a round that can go thru that set thickness of armor, have it strike at the optimum angle to penetrate and it does of course, do exactly that.
Until the slope effects are taken in hand, It will always be this way.

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

Pongo · « **Reply #63 on:** March 31, 2001, 04:08:00 PM »

The Ostwind is based on a Panzer IV chassis not a Panzer III chassis.
The AAMg on the panzer IV was able to travers around the cupola almost 360 degrees. The open hatch is in the way of taking it right to the left(hatch opens left). It has a handle that loosens it on its ring then it can be swung arround. It does not do so in AH because that would require a 3rd level of traversablility. IE hull turrent cuppola. Its travers would be idenitcal in operation to the M3 scarf ring mount.
It should however be a rare beasty on a Panzer IV. the vast majority were not so equiped.
The armour system in AH is very simplistic. One has to assume that a more realistic one will be implemented soon. Perk tanks(or any diversity of tanks) are a mute point the way the guns and armour effects are currently implemented.
(it is still fun though!)

flakbait · « **Reply #64 on:** March 31, 2001, 04:30:00 PM »

I thought the same thing Pzvg. It looks like AH figures armor very simplistically. Instead of the bullet's angle along with the angle of the surface hit being taken into account, it just figures bullet A impacts object N at 90º. Now if it modeled armor and impact angles you'd see hardly anyone getting through tank armor with any aircraft gun. Save for the big guns, of course. Most tank guns are listed with a max penetration depth against an armor plate set at 90º. In German Tanks of WW2 they give some info about penetration on sloped armor. Some examples:

Quote

(In regards to the Marder II) "The powerful Soviet 76.2mm gun possesed a muzzle velocity of 1,850 ft/sec firing HE rounds and 2,430 ft/sec firing AP arounds. The latter could penetrate 3.2 inches of 30º sloped armor and 4.1 inches of vertical armor at a range of 3,000 feet."

(In regards to the Panzer IV w/ KwK 40 L43 gun) "The longer gun fielded by the F2 possesed a muzzle velocity of 2,428 ft/sec and could penetrate 3.5 inches of 30º sloped armor at 3,028 feet."

(In regards to the Panzer V w/ KwK 42 L70 gun) "The 7.5 cm (75mm) L70 KwK 42 gun was an accurate high-performance gun with excellent penetration, capable of destroying any enemy tank in existance during 1943-1944 at combat ranges of 6,561 feet. Firing AP rounds, the gun had a superb muzzle velocity of 3,675 ft/sec which allowed it to penetrate some 6.7 inches of vertical armor at 3,280 feet. Equal to that of the Tiger I's much larger 8.8cm gun."

And here's some excerpts from the article I mentioned above:

Quote

"In my first gun battle using the Super Vels, I became aware of another factor and how important it is: bullet configuration. The Super Vel bullet had a semi-wadcutter shape with a rather tapered ogive nose configuration. On body hits, its construction usually allowed a fair amount of disruption with resulting large tissue wound destruction. In this firefight, one of the felons ducked down as he ran toward the cashier. He probably wanted to use her as a hostage shield. Only the top of his head was exposed above the display shelves of the dairy store. I fired three shots at his exposed head before he dropped from sight. At the post mortem the next day, it was evident as to how he was able to get off one shot during our gunfire exchange: My first two bullets only pierced the scalp, skidded around the skull and then emerged; only one bullet penetrated the skull and entered the brain.....<snip>....I was satisfied with the body hits Super Vel obtained but somewhat disapointed with the hits on the felon that I head shot."

"I experimented with various bullets - full jacketed, flat nose, hollowpoints - and as a test medium I used auto body metal. They all penetrated well when shot close to right angles. I noticed that the more ogive the bullet had, the more it skidded off the auto body metal when I fired from an oblique angle. So did some Super Vels. All of a sudden, I got the bright idea of pulling a Super Vel, inverting it, and resealing it. I now had a full-diameter, full jacketed, sharp-cornered wadcutter. Wow! What a fantastic auto body penetrator this became. I could hardly get this configuration to skid off the auto body metal no matter how much of an oblique I angled the shot. This worked well within 10 yards. I would not take a chance with this modification for head shots beyond eight yards, as I wanted pinpoint accuracy in the event of a hostage close to a felon's head, and I did not trust the inverted Super Vel bullet for this type of accuracy."

Penetration angles need to be modeled. If they currently are being modeled, which I doubt, then there is a serious problem.

-----------------------
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

Toad · « **Reply #65 on:** March 31, 2001, 10:09:00 PM »

I believe they are deep in thought about the armor/damage situation.

pzvg · « **Reply #66 on:** April 01, 2001, 08:44:00 AM »

Correct in part Pongo, The majority of IV's were never fitted with the ringstand, instead
making do with the pintle mount designed for the SdKfz251 being welded to the turret roof in front of the hatch, Those fitted with a ringstand were still not capable of full traverse as the hatch of the panzer IV is of the leaf type, when open it is in two halves one at 9 o'clock and one at 3, effectively reducing traverse to the forward arc.

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

Pongo · « **Reply #67 on:** April 01, 2001, 01:58:00 PM »

The Panzer IV H and J are not leaf type hatches. They are a single hatch opening to the left. They are the only ones with a ring mount. That is not coincidental. The two modifications go hand in hand. Earlier panzers had "leaf" split hatches that opened in two pieces left and right. With no way to have a ring mount. I have never seen an AAMG on an earlier panzer IV type. There was no doubt some in existance but we would have to consider them very rare.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #68 on:** April 01, 2001, 05:15:00 PM »

Pongo is correct. The PzKpfwIV Ausf H incorporated a special anti-aircraft mount for the MG34, and the commander's hatch was changed.

------------------
Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

pzvg · « **Reply #69 on:** April 01, 2001, 08:07:00 PM »

I think you'll find that less than 1 in 10 H models got the new hatch, the one at Aberdeen sure doesn't have one. But it's all meaningless anyway, let's not nit pick at details while skirting the larger issue. The armor well, ain't.

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

flakbait · « **Reply #70 on:** April 01, 2001, 10:50:00 PM »

A little speculation on my part here, so don't flame me to bits ok? From what I've seen others post the Hispano Mk II could penetrate 19mm of armor plate at 500 yards. Since the 76mm gun on the Marder II has a 0.9 inch penetration difference with a 30º angle change, I'll take this as a basis for Hispano penetration. So for every 4 inches of penetration, a 30º change in angles reduces the penetration by one inch. Let's apply this theory to the Hispano.

19mm = 3/4 of one inch. Based on my simple theory a 30º change in angles reduces this penetration down to 1/2 of an inch (12.7mm). So an aircraft flying at an exact 90º angle to the armor plate, carrying a Hispano cannon, can penetrate the following surfaces on a Panzer IV at 500 yards or closer:

Turret roof: 10mm (0.4 inch) @ 74º

That's it!! A single Hispano round can only punch through the engine decking and turret roof at a range of 500 yards or less. Now this either tells us that a: armor angles are not modeled or b: the Hispano ammunition is WAAAY off. I'm going with A.

I got the 3/4 inch of penetration figure from the Joint Fighter Conference that Verm posted here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/006835.html

Pyro originally posted about this conference, so in effect he gave us the evidence that armor angles, and penetration angles, are NOT modeled. What I thought above was true: Acesa High figures bullet A impacts object N at 90º in EVERY CASE!! This means maximum penetration power is available to anyone, with any weapon, regardless of the angle. Verm said the quote in question was on page 157. Now that there's proof something fishy is going on, will they change/alter/fix the problem? I truly hope so.

-----------------------
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

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #71 on:** April 02, 2001, 01:13:00 AM »

Thats cool flakbait, but the MG151 AP round penetrates over 10mm at 90degrees too but our MG151 cant pop a panzer no matter what angle or range or amount of rounds even firing at roof plate.

So:

Either AH MG151 has no AP modeling.

Or, Hispano has performance that is WAAY off.

Or, both of the above.

Pongo · « **Reply #72 on:** April 02, 2001, 02:08:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by pzvg:
I think you'll find that less than 1 in 10 H models got the new hatch, the one at Aberdeen sure doesn't have one. But it's all meaningless anyway, let's not nit pick at details while skirting the larger issue. The armor well, ain't.

Its meaningful in the context that I repied to your post. The Panzer IVJ which this is supposed to represent(although the model is of an H) if it had an AAMG, could travers it throughout 300 degrees or so independent of the turrent. The only part that it couldnt travers too it could cover by the travers of the pintle mount.
Not earth shatering in relation to the other tank issues. But its worth while to be accurate.

Nashwan · « **Reply #73 on:** April 02, 2001, 02:03:00 PM »

Remember to add the velocity of the plane to the muzzle velocity when working out penetration of a round.

pzvg · « **Reply #74 on:** April 03, 2001, 06:35:00 AM »

Nashwan, Why? would the increase in velocity affect the rounds ballistic performance versus sloped armor in any way? The issue is not the fuggin' gun folks, it's what it's hitting, so stop wandering off the path please.
And do the math yourself, calculate the effective armor thickness in accordance with diminishing angle of impact, ie; 90/80/45/25/10.
Notice that while the round's data remains a constant throughout, the EFFECTIVE armor thickness grows as the angle diminishes, so that even assuming that all rounds that hit actually bite into the armor, you start to get results that are inconsistent with known gun performance. That's incorrect, no matter what weapon you care to praise, I've yet to hear of one exceeding stated performance values by a factor of 10. Hey Tony, I don't have the equations for relative thickness handy, do you? If so please post.

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