Make radars impossible...

[Vudu15]

I shoot the bottom of the tower all the time not the shack works fine for me.

[danny76]

I agree, ord bunkers are ridiculously easy to destroy, a steel reinforced concrete defensive structure would take .50's all day long, I have seen .50's bounce off compacted mud walls, a specifically engineered 3 foot thick concrete pillbox would end  up being gently re-textured but thats about it.

Cumulative damage in a lot of cases in game is simply ridiculous, when a 5 second burst of .303's into the open metal crew compartment of a wirble does no crew damage, but it's easy to gun down hardened defensive structures, supposedly designed to protect ordnance, and 8" gun turrets on battleships 

[FLOOB]

Cumulative damage in a lot of cases in game is simply ridiculous, when a 5 second burst of .303's into the open metal crew compartment of a wirble does no crew damage,

It dont?

[Chalenge]

Could they?  Mehbee, but quite doubtful.  I'm not an engineer of any sort, but I'd put my money on the bunker being able to shrug off .50 cal fire. 

Your money would be lost then. The problem is not with the hardness of the ammo bunkers in AH, or even shore batteries. The problem is in how you are picturing the scenario. After you drop 2500 lbs of hardware on a shore battery (for instance) there would not be a lot of concrete left to push through. In the case of ammo bunkers they have much, much less hardness. .50 cal API was designed to punch through much harder stuff.

At some point you guys will possibly start to consider that hitech did put some thought into his game.

[Chalenge]

The bunkers are just representative. But if bunkers weren't proof against machinegun fire, they're useless. Anybody could have just brought up an HMG and taken it out. As it was, WWII saw the rise of assault guns carrying cannon just to support the infantry.

Ammo bunkers were never designed to withstand a direct attack. Instead, they are intended to prevent unintended detonations from airfield accidents, and fires. The igloo itself is usually a concrete arch of limited thickness with an earth mound above it and a concrete fascia of similar thickness (8-12"). Like I said, easily killed by a .50 cal.

Just do a search for "ammunition igloo construction" for thousands of examples.

EIDT: Scroll to the end of the page

http://cargocollective.com/kaitlynstancy/Kingsbury-Ordnance-Plant-KOP

[SmokinLoon]

Your money would be lost then. The problem is not with the hardness of the ammo bunkers in AH, or even shore batteries. The problem is in how you are picturing the scenario. After you drop 2500 lbs of hardware on a shore battery (for instance) there would not be a lot of concrete left to push through. In the case of ammo bunkers they have much, much less hardness. .50 cal API was designed to punch through much harder stuff.

At some point you guys will possibly start to consider that hitech did put some thought into his game.

 

Forget AH.  I'm not talking about AH, I'm referring to the real deal.  In AH, ammo bunkers are far too easy to destroy via any weapon. In the real world though, even a direct hit on 4 ft (or thicker) reinforced concrete with X weight of bomb isn't a for sure thing.  A near miss would scratch the surface, maybe.

If you think it is worth while for a .50 cal (or 6) to sit and hammer away at a reinforced concrete bunker, and that it is truly an effective way to breach/destroy the bunker in question... then reality escapes you.

btw... HTC put the typical OBJ at the same hardness for a reason: game play.  Nothing more. It allows for the most platforms to be able to get the job done, it certainly isn't representative of "real world" fuel tanks, barracks, radar towers, town buildings, ammo bunkers, or the multitude of strategic buildings within the factories. 

oh, and on your "API" kick, go check and see just how much more effective AP is vs FMJ really is, especially vs the different mediums.     

[danny76]

Why oh why did they not just get a few Jugs to hammer away for a few passes at the Atlantic Wall?

[Chilli]

Remember this game is not a simulation, so HTC has place predictable hardness to each structure.  What is unpredictable for most is the ability to land precise strikes on structures. 

The biggest difference that I have noted from the original Aces High and AH II, was the noticeable reduction in the reliability of 50 cal. machine guns when attacking field anti aircraft.  If you weren't around to have such a comparison, please take it from me the 50 cal. was nearly as effective as the cannons are now. 

I could be wrong, but as I recalled, the discussion about the seemingly "nerfed" 50 cal. ground attack had to do with damage radius.  Also, I believe that there is a formula used to "average" the types of rounds loaded / fired, that included tracer rounds, incendiary rounds and armor piercing rounds. "There are several different types of ammunition used in the M2HB and AN aircraft guns. From World War II through the Vietnam War, the big Browning was used with standard ball, armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) rounds. All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m). The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks. " 
Above information taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun

The result, as most have concluded here, is that in our "game" certain number of direct or proximal hits damages structures in measures of lbs.  In actual combat, the random nature of exploding targets is much more dependent on what actually caused the ignition, like fuel from a nearby vehicle or ammo through a pierced door.  Take a look at the WW2 P38, P51 and P47 strafing film (~6 mins.) below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0

[lunatic1]

I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down.  There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc.  I see his point.  Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.

I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire. 

no the only thing you have to do is shoot the base of the antenna and it goes down

[Tinkles]

I think his point is that MG fire would be too scattered/not concentrated enough to damage the tower structure to bring it down.  There is a lot of space between those cross beams, etc.  I see his point.  Coding the difference between gun projectile damage and bomb damage is another.

I almost think the tower itself should be untouchable, only the base should be able to be damaged by MG fire. 

Wouldn't the 50 cal be able to go through the steel rods that criss-cross up and down the radar tower? I don't know what rounds are modeled in game, or the full extent of their capabilities. But I know the 50 cal can at least punch through a 1/2 inch of steel. To me it would seem if you could 'cut' the tower in half that it wouldn't be functional.   I think the only round that shouldn't do much damage is the 303, due to it mainly being an anti-personal (infantry) round. Unless I'm mistaken on something here, not a historian on the matter but this topic did get my attention.

 

[Rich46yo]

Strangely enough I was unable to destroy a radar with two passes of a single TU2S and its two 20mm's.

I know they have a slow ROF but one pass I aimed at the bottom and the second I aimed at the tower itself. Nothing.

Next time I'll shoot film. Honestly Ive found the twin 20mms of the TU next to useless.

[SmokinLoon]

Strangely enough I was unable to destroy a radar with two passes of a single TU2S and its two 20mm's.

I know they have a slow ROF but one pass I aimed at the bottom and the second I aimed at the tower itself. Nothing.

Next time I'll shoot film. Honestly Ive found the twin 20mms of the TU next to useless.

Between the lighter damage compared to the Hispano (3.47 lbs vs 4.0), and the 30% slower rate of fire, it simply takes longer time on target to get the job done compared to a Spitfire. 

I strafed down a radar tower today in LW before the map switched over in one pass using the 6/50's of the F6F.

[danny76]

Wouldn't the 50 cal be able to go through the steel rods that criss-cross up and down the radar tower? I don't know what rounds are modeled in game, or the full extent of their capabilities. But I know the 50 cal can at least punch through a 1/2 inch of steel. To me it would seem if you could 'cut' the tower in half that it wouldn't be functional.   I think the only round that shouldn't do much damage is the 303, due to it mainly being an anti-personal (infantry) round. Unless I'm mistaken on something here, not a historian on the matter but this topic did get my attention.

 

.50 AP rounds would probably penetrate the steel of the towers, but it would be highly unlikely that they would penetrate in sufficient concentration to cause a structural failure, beating in mind they were rivetted and bolted together, the steel already has plenty of holes in it's structure, a few 1/2 inch holes would be no more damaging than a handful of rivets missing.

[Chalenge]

Well, that depends on your view I suppose. The towers we have in AH resemble the Chain Home (CH) system which would have been steel transmitter towers and wood receiver towers. Whether one or the other their operation is nothing like WWII, but making assumptions about their construction is a little much.

[Lucifer]

lol you should visit Normandy in France : GIs tried Bazooka on some of the German bunkers here, and believe me if a zook didnt hurt a bunker, a .50 wont get more luck ! 

Remember this game is not a simulation, so HTC has place predictable hardness to each structure.  What is unpredictable for most is the ability to land precise strikes on structures. 

The biggest difference that I have noted from the original Aces High and AH II, was the noticeable reduction in the reliability of 50 cal. machine guns when attacking field anti aircraft.  If you weren't around to have such a comparison, please take it from me the 50 cal. was nearly as effective as the cannons are now. 

I could be wrong, but as I recalled, the discussion about the seemingly "nerfed" 50 cal. ground attack had to do with damage radius.  Also, I believe that there is a formula used to "average" the types of rounds loaded / fired, that included tracer rounds, incendiary rounds and armor piercing rounds. "There are several different types of ammunition used in the M2HB and AN aircraft guns. From World War II through the Vietnam War, the big Browning was used with standard ball, armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing incendiary (API), and armor-piercing incendiary tracer (APIT) rounds. All .50 ammunition designated "armor-piercing" was required to completely perforate 0.875 inches (22.2 mm) of hardened steel armor plate at a distance of 100 yards (91 m) and 0.75 inches (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m). The API and APIT rounds left a flash, report, and smoke on contact, useful in detecting strikes on enemy targets; they were primarily intended to incapacitate thin-skinned and lightly armored vehicles and aircraft, while igniting their fuel tanks. " 
Above information taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun

The result, as most have concluded here, is that in our "game" certain number of direct or proximal hits damages structures in measures of lbs.  In actual combat, the random nature of exploding targets is much more dependent on what actually caused the ignition, like fuel from a nearby vehicle or ammo through a pierced door.  Take a look at the WW2 P38, P51 and P47 strafing film (~6 mins.) below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4P9Lbl0E0