Author Topic: Tank destroyers  (Read 1826 times)

Offline Scotty55OEFVet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2011, 09:22:31 AM »
My only problem with GVs in AH s my comp suck at the moment lol. I cannot recall how many times I am killed because of jittery frame rates and screen freezes from LOTS of Gvs in one spot. Other than that, I really do think the Ground Phase would take on a whole new meaning with more Tanks/Armored and Underarmored lol, vehicles. Like I have posted as well, I think that adding more tanks would give AH another 20-30 Gvers. It tends to get a little monotonous when you do up Tigers, Panthers, or FIrefly's and are oneshotted and then its back to the same ole Panzer/T34 every sortie. I think im not alone in sayin that I would love to be able to choose from many Tanks other than just the same 4-5 every sortie. I NEED MORE GV BABY!
"War can only be abolished through war...in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."



RedDevil

Offline fullmetalbullet

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2011, 11:14:24 AM »
Hey didnt they mount 88s on the 251s? or was it another halftrack like the SdKFz .7?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2011, 11:33:22 AM by fullmetalbullet »
"Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War" Julius Caesar


Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2011, 02:43:11 PM »
They didn't mount '88s on any halftrack, as far as I'm aware. I THINK they mounted a few, and a very few at that, on Panzer III and IV chassies, but it wasn't an official vehicle.


Well scotty, turn down your graphics, turn off enemy icons (for aircraft flying nearby), and, if need be, turn off skins. You do what you have to do.

And yes, it would be great to have more variatey. I'm still wishing for a Panzer III and M3 Stuart for EW. Perk the T-34 around 40 and you'll have a decent EW GV setup.

Would also like to see an earlier Panzer IV, such as the D and G. One for EW/MW and the other for a high ENY tank with a good gun (perk farming, gotta build up a good stash of perks for the Tiger II).
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Scotty55OEFVet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2011, 03:34:11 PM »
Well scotty, turn down your graphics, turn off enemy icons (for aircraft flying nearby), and, if need be, turn off skins. You do what you have to do.


Have done all of this...its really just hit or miss because even the type of map will determine how my Ground Vis works. Only bugs me because I figure for every death in a blazing Tank I would normally have 3-4 NME Blazing Tanks in front of me if I had a good comp lol. Ty bud
"War can only be abolished through war...in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."



RedDevil

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2011, 04:03:40 PM »
Dont make me say it... :noid
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2011, 06:32:07 PM »
Dont make me say it... :noid

Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2011, 09:04:46 AM »
Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.

It would be a pretty good argument if we added some of the late war Russian tanks like the Su-100. The ISU-122 would be pretty interesting also.

What makes this most interesting is the fact the ISU-122 and ISU-152 would be monster perk tank killers, however it would have one very nasty reload time which means you better make the one shot count.
JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2011, 01:38:11 PM »
Butcher, hate to break it to you bud, but it would only be a bit better than the '88 we have now. About all it would do better is hold its penetrative power out to a longer range due to the larger shell. And seeing as they had average armor, the tiger will be perfectly capable of retaliation out to or beyond range of both of these guns. And the panther would have no worries except for lucky (or good) hits to the turret out past about 1000yds or so IIRC.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2011, 03:00:36 PM »
Butcher, hate to break it to you bud, but it would only be a bit better than the '88 we have now. About all it would do better is hold its penetrative power out to a longer range due to the larger shell. And seeing as they had average armor, the tiger will be perfectly capable of retaliation out to or beyond range of both of these guns. And the panther would have no worries except for lucky (or good) hits to the turret out past about 1000yds or so IIRC.

Here are the facts - take them how you wish.

1. The D-25 122 mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: the A-19 122 mm, the D-2 122 mm (factory #9) and the S-4 (Central Artillery Design Bureau), giving it a muzzle velocity of 780?790 m/s with a 25 kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at 2500 metres, and that is less than its maximum range.

2. The D-10 100 mm tank gun with ballistics identical to those of the BS-3 100 mm gun, its muzzle velocity being 890?900 m/s with a 15.6 kg projectile. This gun can penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther at up to 1500 metres, which is its maximum range.

3. The German 88 mm gun with muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s with a 10 kg projectile penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at distances of only up to 650 m.

The Panther's frontal armor is 85 mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees to the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armor's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees.

The above test results are preliminary, as the testing was done on guns with varying levels of deterioration: the 100 mm D-10 had fired 400 shots, and the 122 mm D-25 was new. However the difference in our test results is so great that it is unlikely that any necessary adjustments will be more than minor.

The method of evaluating armor penetration at angles of impact ranging from 0 to 30 degrees that is currently in use appears to be inefficient in evaluating the anti-tank guns.

Therefore it is our opinion that it is necessary to reconsider the subject of the most effective caliber of the anti-tank guns.

In regards to fighting the Panther tanks the tests at Kubinka clearly show that the 122 mm D-25 gun (V=780?790 m/s; g=25 kg) is superior to the 100 mm D-10 gun (V=890?900 m/s, g=15.6 kg). Also superior to the later are the 122 mm guns on wheeled carriage (the A-19 of the factory #9 and the S-4 of the TsAKB). The 100 mm BS-3 gun turns out to be less effective.

As you know, currently there are available two types of 122 mm field guns of a reduced weight but equal ballistic characteristics compared to the A-19 gun, i.e.:

1. The S-4 122 mm of the CADB, which is due to be delivered for field testing. The S-4 gun has a lot of parts common with the 100 mm BS-3 gun and its production could be begun using the facilities manufacturing the BS-3. Thus currently we are only waiting for the positive test results from the proving grounds and, probably, field tests of this gun.

2. The D-2 122 mm gun of the factory #9, which has successfully completed proving grounds tests on numerous occasions. A series of four D-2 guns is being readied for field testing. I believe that it is urgently needed to consider the task of manufacturing the D-2, in case S-4 does not pass its tests.

The second important problem that surfaced as a result of the tests at Kubinka is that of the high muzzle velocity, particularly the problem of the 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000?1100 m/s.

The tests have shown the projectile of the German 88 mm gun to have only limited effectiveness when used against the German Panther tank. It is also known that a similar 85 mm gun comes out to be roughly equal in its size and weight to a 100 mm gun with V=900 m/s. Currently 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000?1100 m/s are being developed by the CADB and factory #9, however their effectiveness against actual German tanks becomes doubtful, especially given the fact that such a gun would require tank turret dimensions no less than those used for the 100 mm D-10 or S-34 guns.

In this regard it appears that after the completion of the Kubinka tests, and if their final results confirm the current data, it would be beneficial to hold a special meeting to discuss further plans for the development of guns with high muzzle velocity.

The only point beyond doubt at this time is the need for increasing the muzzle velocities of the anti-aircraft guns, where it will result in drastic increase in range and reduction in projectile's time in travel to target.

Requesting you further instructions.

Deputy Chief of the Technical Department of the
Peoples Commissariat for Armaments:
Major-General of Engineering and Artillery
/TOLOCHKOV/

Chief of the Test Designs unit:
/VOLOSATOV/



JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2011, 07:02:16 PM »
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2011, 09:39:11 PM »
Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.

And you don't think that there might be a direct correlation between the Allies dominating Aces High and the Allies Dominating WW2 History?  As well as dominating at the negotiation... I mean surrender table when the war came to a close.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline Scotty55OEFVet

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 628
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2011, 09:49:40 PM »
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.

Where the Hell did you find that Cat Picture...lmfao!
"War can only be abolished through war...in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."



RedDevil

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2011, 10:04:49 PM »
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.

This is all guns based on angle plate at 30 degrees ->

Performance of the Su-100's 100mm Gun

100mm D-10S L / 54
BR-412 B ( Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity       100 m              500 m               1000 m               1500 m            2000 m
15.88 kg   880 m/s   148 / 143 mm   133 / 130 mm   116 / 115 mm   101 / 102 mm   89 / 91 mm

BR-412 D ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity         100 m              500 m              1000 m               1500 m            2000 m
15.88 kg   880 m/s   186 / 153 mm   167 / 141 mm   146 / 128 mm   127 / 115 mm   111 / 104 mm

Su-122's Main gun which was 122mm

122mm D-25S L / 43
BR-471 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity      100 m             500 m            1000 m             1500 m           2000 m
24.9 kg   792 m/s   137 / 140 mm   123 / 128 mm   108 / 114 mm   94 / 101 mm   82 / 90 mm

BR-471 B ( Armor Piercing Capped )
Weight   Velocity       100 m              500 m             1000 m           1500 m             2000 m
24.9 kg   792 m/s   162 / 145 mm   147 / 135 mm   131 / 123 mm   116 / 112 mm   104 / 103 mm

BP-460 A ( High Explosive Anti-Tank )
Weight   Velocity   100 m      500 m     1000 m      1500 m   2000 m
13.2 kg   335 m/s   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   -- / -- mm

ISU-152

152mm ML20 L / 28
BR-540 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity 100 m            500 m             1000 m             1500 m           2000 m
40 kg   600 m/s   117 / 132 mm   109 / 124 mm   100 / 116 mm   91 / 107 mm   83 / 99 mm

BR-540 B ( Armor Piercing Capped )
Weight   Velocity   100 m       500 m             1000 m             1500 m             2000 m
40 kg   600 m/s   109 / 126 mm   104 / 121 mm   99 / 115 mm   94 / 109 mm   89 / 103 mm

Now T34-85's gun

85mm ZIS-53 L / 52
BR-365 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.2 kg   792 m/s   97 / 94 mm   84 / 83 mm   71 / 71 mm   59 / 60 mm   49 / 51 mm

BR-365 K ( Armor Piercing Cappped )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.2 kg   792 m/s   112 / 101 mm   100 / 92 mm   86 / 81 mm   75 / 72 mm   65 / 64 mm

BR-365 P ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.99 kg   1050 m/s   140 / 140 mm   107 / 107 mm   76 / 76 mm   54 / 54 mm   39 / 39 mm
JG 52

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2011, 10:06:47 PM »
To Compare here some information I have on the Panther, Tiger and Panzer 4 ->

75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70
PzGr.39 / 42 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
6.8 kg   935 m/s   138 / -- mm   124 / -- mm   111 / -- mm   99 / -- mm   89 / -- mm

PzGr.40 / 42 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.75 kg   1120 m/s   194 / -- mm   174 / -- mm   149 / -- mm   127 / -- mm   106 / -- mm


88mm Kw.K.36 L / 56
PzGr. ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.65 kg   810 m/s   97 / -- mm   93 / -- mm   87 / -- mm   80 / -- mm   72 / -- mm

PzGr.39 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
10.2 kg   800 m/s   120 / -- mm   110 / -- mm   100 / -- mm   91 / -- mm   84 / -- mm

PzGr.40 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
7.3 kg   930 m/s   170 / -- mm   155 / -- mm   138 / -- mm   122 / -- mm   110 / -- mm

75mm Kw.K.40 L / 48
PzGr.39 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
6.8 kg   740 m/s   99 / -- mm   91 / -- mm   81 / -- mm   72 / -- mm   63 / -- mm

PzGr.40 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.1 kg   990 m/s   126 / -- mm   108 / -- mm   87 / -- mm   -- / -- mm   -- / -- mm
JG 52

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2011, 10:58:22 PM »
Ok, the gun (depending on which we got) would be better than any currently in the game, but would be out gunned by the KwK 43 (88mm L'71)

Panzergranate 39 (PzGr 31, APCBC)
velocity        slope     100yd    500   1000  1500   2000yds
3,281'/s         30       203mm    185    165    148    132

Panzergranate 40 (PzGr 40, APCR/HVAP)
velocity       slope      100    500   1000   1500   2000
3,707'/s         30        237   217    193     171    153

The Panther's frontal armor is 85 mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees to the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armor's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this part. Are you saying that the projectiles are coming in at a relatively high angle, which results in a reduction of slope in armor relative to the trajectory of the shell at the time of impact?

And according to your charts, I don't see a gun capable of penetrating the panther's ~145mm glacis plate much beyond 1000m. Also, remember that as the war progressed, the German's quality of steel was falling, as materials needed to make high quality steel became scarce, or difficult to obtain. This was notable in all tanks produced late in the war. In AH, we aren't plauged by production defects for the sake of playability. If we were, they might as well have modeled the B-29 with its engine on fire, the tiger with a blown engine, and 4 out of 6 shermans exploding on spawn-in.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"