Its time to stop the BS 50cals destroying armour.....

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

Well even if we don't get any practical changes out of it, at least the discussion has been informative.

HT - thanks for being willing to discuss the damage model, and for being concerned about the realism of the ground war aspects of the game in the first place (unlike another late game that I wont mention). It seems to me that 3 concerns at least need to be addressed:

1) Certain calibre bullets simply cannot destroy or even damage anything on a Panzer either than the pintle MG. 7.9 and .303 calibre bullets should be useless in this role. There was nowhere on the Pnzr IV H with armor thin enough to be penetrated with a rifle calibre round - even the tracks and rollers.

2) History teaches us that the actual combatant forces created aircraft like the Hurri 2D, the 37mm armed Stuka, and more recently the A10 precisely because the standard armament on fighters - while sufficient for A to A combat - was insufficient for killing AFVs. I've read many reports of German Panzers destroyed or knocked over by bomb hits (or the crews killed or disabled by the shock wave) and in a few cases rockets. But never have I read of a German late war Panzer (IV+) or even STUG being killed by machine guns. Again, if we are going to have them "killable" by .50 cals or even 20mms, lets ensure that these are only rear or top armor hits. Even then, I know of no point on the turret of a PZR IV that could be penetrated by a .50 cal. Somehow we need to make sure that there is a historically accurate niche for the Hurri Ds and Yak Ts.

3) Accordingly - the damage model has to be based on actual armor thickness at the strike point + as new AFVs are added like the T34/85 (please ) glacis or armor slope will also have to accounted for. Lets not make the new perk tanks expensive iron coffins - so a 202 shouldn't produce more than pinging sounds. But lets make sure they all quiver at the thought of a Hurri D attack from behind or a 500 pounder from an accurate P47 pilot.

Keep up the good work!

- Seagoon

[CptTrips]

Well Illo, what are your thoughts on HT's chart?

Just because other planes were developed that did it "better" doesn't prove that it was "impossible" for .50 cal aircraft to kill the type of panzers we have.

I strafed a tank the other night in a jug 4 times without killing it.  That doesn't mean it was "impossible" for me to kill it.  It just means I didn't come in from the proper angle and hit it in the right place.

You show reports that only a small percentage of tanks were taken out by aircraft.  That doesn't mean that it was "impossible" to do so.  It prolly means they didn't come in from the right angle and hit it in the right place.

I'll trust Pyro's data and HT's math.  If they find an error, fine.  I'm sure they'll fix it.  All I ask, is if the data show that a certain part of the armor can be penetrated by a .50 cal within a certain angle of incidence and a certain range, that that be represented in the damage model of the game and that tanks not be "artificially" hardened to satisfy a vocal minority.  If the data proved it was "impossible" for a .50 cal to penetrate ANYWHERE on the tank then I'd be the first to join your cause.  

Regards,
Wab

[hitech]

Seagoon, the model already does have different armor thickness thought the vehicles.

Some of the armor is only 10mm some is 12mm other is much thicker, we already have all the slops in the damage model. Now how is it that a 50cal can not penitrate and kill the tank?


History does not teach us that 50cals could not kill a tank, what it does show is 50cals were not the most effect weapon against them.

[Mathman]

Originally posted by Seeker
Just remember to use an Imperial protractor, the metric ones are porked.......

LMAO

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Mathman


LMAO

Once, last year I was having a party at my apartment. There were a whole bunch of my fellow poli-sci nerds there, and we were having a lively discussion about the role of the UN in the post cold war era (and there was a side discussion about supply side economics, but I was trying to stay out of that). Anyhow, somebody had called the cops on us for being noisy. The cops show up, expecting to see a rowdy party, and instead see a dozen nerds standing around a BBQ grill talking about politics. They just shook their heads and told us to keep it down. They were laughing about it. I mean, what a bunch of nerds.

Anyhow, after reading that protractor comment, I know EXACTLY how they felt lol.
  Math Geeks. Your's is a different world.

-Sikboy

[Seagoon]

Hi HT,

Thanks much for the reply.

Originally posted by hitech
Seagoon, the model already does have different armor thickness thought the vehicles.

Some of the armor is only 10mm some is 12mm other is much thicker, we already have all the slops in the damage model. Now how is it that a 50cal can not penitrate and kill the tank?


History does not teach us that 50cals could not kill a tank, what it does show is 50cals were not the most effect weapon against them.

Ok, I should never enter into a thread where math is involed as I'm apalling at it and I tend to think only in metric where military discussions are involved. Just a few questions and observations, I think you'll find that only the TOP armor of the IV was between 10-12mm in thickness. Take a look at http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm for instance.

If we assume the max penetrating power of the .50 cal was less than .8 of an inch, then the armor everywhere else on the Tank should have stopped it. So can we assume that only Top hits on the IV penetrate? Also can we assume that if we introduce a Tank like the Tiger (not the King just the plain old Tiger) which has top armor of 25mm, i.e. 1 inch, and a min. 80mm elsewhere, that NO .50 Cal hits will ever penetrate it?

BTW - are there plans to introduce another tank?

Just wondering.

Thanks again,

Seagoon

[hitech]

Some of the back armor had 12mm but was blocked by the eng,

When you hit this portion of the tank you can take out its eng but you are not able to kill it.

[CavemanJ]

What's the highest elevation angle for the panzer's main gun?

I'm begining to think I may have to adjust my thinking on this one to the gameplay side.  I was in a panzer a few days ago and had a pony come at me nearly head on.  Maybe 15degrees right of dead head to head, and at an angle where I could (and did) blast him with the 75mm.

Being generous, and saying 50degree angle, at 600yds the .50s from that pony could only penetrate just under .4 in, looking at HT's chart.  600yds is roughly the range where his wing came off from the 75mm AP round that hit his wing root.  That attacked took out my turret/main gun and the pintle gun, and killed my engine.

In another incident an n1k approached from the near the same angle and in a single pass took out both tracks, the turret/pintle, and the engine.  Second time facing this guy (same guy, bout 5min later) he approached from the beam (about 80degrees off the nose) and took 1 track, the engine, and the turret/pintle gun.  Oddly enough, the track that he knocked out was opposite the side he approached from.  This one was one of the most frustrating times I've had in the panzer, as this guy was just circling the spawn point and ripping up GVs as they spawned, and getting them on one pass.
Conversely, in the ostwind I have survived up to 5 passes from everything except hizooka armed aircraft and suffered only tracks damaged.
There have been many times I've wondered if the damage models for the ostwind and the panzer were accidently switched because of the seeming ease of killing a panzer's turret and near impossibility of killing the ostie's turret.

Also, what effect would the 20mm and 30mm of the 110g2 have on the armor?  I thought the LW cannon didna carry any AP shells and were basically worth less than .303s when straffing armor.  Every time my panzer is strafed by a 110G2 I lose everything: turret, pintle, both tracks, engine, hull gun.  Everything except driver wounded.  From a single pass.


In related news I've made multiple high angle strafing passes on ostwinds only to have them keep shooting.  See all my hits centered on the turret area but it knocks out thier engine w/o touching thier main gun.

[Virage]

History does not teach us that 50cals could not kill a tank...

- The posted 50 cal. M2 AP chart shows that it is 'POSSIBLE' to penetrate thin armor with the 50 cal.  IMO HTC models this chart.

- Another source
19mm = .75 inches

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/fas/

- Design history

When the United States Army arrived in France in 1917 it found a need for a machine gun firing a larger round than that used in contemporary rifles, which was required not only for use against troops but also for new tasks such as attacking tanks, balloons, and aircraft: It proved impossible to convert any US weapon to take the 0.43in (I 1mm) round then being tested b'y the French, but at that point the US Army happened to capture some new Mauser anti-tank rifles with their ammunition.The excellence of the round was quickly recognized and a new United States O.5O" cartridge was rapidly developed along the same lines.

http://www.gunplot.net/armoury/fiftycal.html

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

...what it does show is 50cals were not the most effect[ive] weapon against them.

- Previously posted first hand accounts and statistical surveys show how inefficient/impractical the 50 cal. would be in a REAL WORLD SETTING.  

And this difference is the root of this argument.  BOTH SIDES ARE CORRECT.

You are not going to find many stories about  multiple low angle passes on a tank using a weapon that shows no visible effect other then alot of sparks.

Military designers would not be satisfied with the probability of 'knocking out' a tank with 50 cal., hence the development of larger weapons.

The MA is another world.  GV drivers will head to the tower with minor damage.  GV's r easily spotted.  No withering ground fire.  No trees, hills to navigate.  Endless supply of pilots and planes with no regard for their safety, etc.  The relatively sterile environment of the MA allows for the modest effectivity of the 50 cal. to show.

[AmRaaM]

a single 50call round not penetrating top armor, even 25mm ...ok, but 50 or a few hundered strikes. I wouldnt want to be hiding under just 25mm or worse yet just 10-12mm of metal.

[GRUNHERZ]

So you say the US 50cal is a copy of German cartrige.  

[Masherbrum]

Someone had posted earlier in this thread that a bomb would have to be dropped right next to it to do any damage.  Umm, while the armor would maybe hold up.  The concussion would probably kill the crew (1,000lb).   Everyone always says that the M-1A2 Abrams' armor can withstand 120mm shells, the crew would be almost killed by the concussion of that.

You need to give more credit to the .50cal.  The .45ACP has been replaced, most of the .308 (M-60) has been replaced by the SAW (7.62mm), but they still have the .50cal.  It would mess up armor.

Jay

[gofaster]

Originally posted by Sikboy
Not to deliberately take the opposing viewpoint of Mandoble, but I'd put myself on the gameplay side. Since AH is primarly a flight sim (at this point anyhow) I'd say make GV realism secondary to GV integration into gameplay.

I say, improve the GV realism and you'll improve the overall playability of the sim.  I'm glad to see 3 new aircraft are going to be introduced, so how about introducing some new GV, too?  Why not a Sherman tank? Or one of the British tanks?  Give the troops a reason to use the faster but less-lethal Sherman and it'll bring more of a variety of missions the pilots can take - "do I take the faster Sherman to get to the enemy base faster, or do I take the Panzer to do more damage?).  Make the ground war a more integral part of the simulation so that I'll have more tagets for my Corsair.

Originally posted by Sikboy
In an ideal world, max realism would yeild the same results that I'm looking for. Namely, a better reason to fly the Hurr2d, Yak-9T and Il-2. I know that there are others who have posted the same objective in this post and posts in the past. It seems that there must be a way to change the damage model that would increase the usage of both the Tanks themselves (assuming that this is desired) and the usage of the traditional "tank busting" aircraft.  

Exactly.  Bring the ground war into the picture and give pilots a reason to fly the aircraft that, quite frankly, are death traps in a dogfight but better suited for ground support.  If .50 cals can destroy a panzer, then remove the capability of .50 cals to take out a panzer (but still destroy an Ostwind, etc.) but let the 20mm guns have some effect (there was a reason why they were installed on the Hurricanes, after all).  

Originally posted by Sikboy
If nothing else, It is possible that increasing the number of tank users could have the effect of creating a different battle dynamic. Instead of hi-alt fluffs being protected by fighter escorts and being attacked by interceptors, we might wind up with something more resembling the Eastern front where the fights are lower and ,more concerned with the land war. I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing though. I guess it depends on what you want to fly.

Imagine a flight sim where, instead of everyong grabbing for max alt as soon as the gear goes up, some of the pilots have to stay low to check for advancing enemy armor while others go high for top cover.  Right now, just looking for 2 or 3 tanks crawling down the valley isn't worth the liability of staying low and risking getting bounced by the 6 or 7 enemy fighters screaming in from 20k up.  If there was more of a reason to stay low, there would be more air battles down low (which is a much more challenging dogfight!).

[Wulfmen]

very good Thread, very good
i have only five Questions.

Why did they use Rockets and Bombs on the Planes?
why they called this Planes Jabos?
Why build them Special Planes for Ground Attacks like il2, etc etc
Why the tested and build Weapons w 37mm and more for ground Attacks?

Why they build no plane w 20 x 0.50 Mgs, that must be the Upper-tank-Killer-Plane.

Hmmmmmm think all my Books over the East front, Tank Battles and Tanks-Casulities from Planes are stupid lies.

[SKurj]

y use a panzer at all to an enemy base when an osty can do several times the amount of damage quicker... +)


SKurj