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

[Sabre]

btw just because the P40 was the principle ground attack plane in north africa and it was armed with 50 cals does not prove it can kill tanks or that because it was sent to kill tanks it was capable of doing so with its mgs.

Easy, there Hazed.  If you look again at what I wrote I believe you'll discover that I never said it "proved" anything.  What I said is "they were probably more effective than you're giving them credit for." I'm just offering testimonial evendence to suggest the tanks might indeed be vulnerable to 50-cal fire.  what I was trying to convey was that this pilot I refer to claimed he and his fellow 50-cal armed pilots killed tanks on a regular basis, along with many other types of vehicles.  We also have Zoso stating a professional opinion that even modern armor would likely not be invulnerable to 50-cal AP rounds.  Is the damage model in AH's armor too susseptable to it? Perhaps.  I just don't have hard evidence to back that up.

As far as the bomb load goes, what I meant was the number of bombs they carried, not the size of the bomb.  In combat descriptions in this book, the impression is that most of the damage they did was by strafing.  Yes they used bombs, but only for the first pass.  After their one bomb was dropped, they would swoop in and go to work with those 50's.

Tac, I hope you're not suggesting that we arbitrarily and artifically say that anything 50-cal or below can't destroy a tank, even if data can be found that proves they could.  I agree this should be looked at, and adjusted if hard data proves it should.  I also think we shouldn't arbitrarily demand it be changed just because it doesn't seem right to us.

[Karnak]

Vehicles, particularly the PnZ IV H, should be much, much tougher.

20mm cannons should only have a small, very small, chance of destroying the PnZ's engine or tracks.

PnZ's should be nigh immune to 20mm fire, let alone 12.7mm or 30 cal fire.

The RAF ordered the Mosquito FB.XVIII with the Mollins 57mm cannon as an anti-tank weapon, but by the time the FB.XVIII was ready they had concluded that the 57mm Mollins gun lacked sufficient penetration to destroy German tanks effectively and so gave the FB.XVIIIs to Coastal Command. That was a 57mm cannon that wasn't good enough, 989,000 joules at the muzzle. Hispano MkII 20mm cannon, by comparison, have a mere 50,300 joules at the muzzle.

There is no way that aircraft guns, not even the Yak-9T's 37mm or the Hurricane Mk IId's 40mm, should be anywhere near this effective agaist tanks. Bombs and rockets should be the only realistic hope a pilot has of doing anything to a tank, and the rocket needs to actually hit the tanks, the bomb needs to be damn close.

[CptTrips]

I watched the P-47 show on the history channel.  Watched several gun cams of p-47's blowing the living crap out of tanks with their  8 .50 cals.  So, don't tell me its not possible.  Unless you're claiming they faked the footage?   When they learned to bounce their round from underneath, they were REALLY meat on a hook.  

If anything, their too tough still.  I've poured long streams of 50 cal ontop of osties just to see them keep shooting.  All it would take is ONE 50 cal round to hit inside that open gondola and rattle around and those guys would be nothing more than a quivering bowl of red goo.


Wab

[ergRTC]

For numbers look here
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48031&highlight=penetration+armor+tank

and

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45974&highlight=penetration+armor+tank

From what I have read over the months, this is a joke.  No excuses, no whines, no bouncing bullets.  Just beef the bastards up.  Why?  GAMEPLAY!  I want to have a reason to up a sturmi or a hurri, besides a love of pilot wounds and old slow aircraft.

If spits 303s did to planes what the 50s do to tanks people would complain.

[Tac]

"Tac, I hope you're not suggesting that we arbitrarily and artifically say that anything 50-cal or below can't destroy a tank, even if data can be found that proves they could. I agree this should be looked at, and adjusted if hard data proves it should. I also think we shouldn't arbitrarily demand it be changed just because it doesn't seem right to us"

Of course I am. Remember that "Tank" means Pzr, Flaktank and M8. The other vehicles would not withstand a 50 cal burst from 4+ MG's. Now, that their open hatch guns die with said MG fire, yes! . That their tracks can be disabled by a low level , concentrated strafe on the sides, yes!. That they can be strafed and make it blow up? NO.

[ZOSO]

Thanks AKWabbit, I meant to mention that in my post but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.

Tac, I'm honestly not sure as I don't know the pentration values of a .50 in real life or otherwise.  Without trying to hard, I can think of a dozen places on the top of the turret and back deck of an M1-A1 where the armor is no thicker than 3/4 inch.  Can 6 fiftes go through that?  I sure wouldn't want to be standing under it.  What's too thick for a .50?

[CptTrips]

Nevermind Zoso, al that footage we saw must have been faked.   It's all part of that pro-US Air Force conspiracy.   The footage was faked by the same guys who faked the moon landing tv coverage.

Wab

[CptTrips]

If you want a legitamate gripe, its not the penetration model.  Its showing the icons for enemy GV's.  It should be no icons from the air on enemies juyst like on the ground.

Wab

[illo]

maybe the .50cals killing tanks are in place of something. like ricochet for example. i've read numerous accounts of p47 pilots saying they used to shoot right in front of tanks to ricochet the bullet off the ground and hit under the tank where they werent armored.

That is simply not possible.

Most panzers had bottom armor well over 30mm to protect crew from AT-mines. From 90 degree angle at point blank range .50cal cant penetrate 30mm of armor. I posted link to discussion about this on other thread about this very same subject. It was well researched by examining abandoned/KOd german tanks after allied advances in france that this didn't happen.

[illo]

Originally posted by Karnak
Vehicles, particularly the PnZ IV H, should be much, much tougher.

20mm cannons should only have a small, very small, chance of destroying the PnZ's engine or tracks.

PnZ's should be nigh immune to 20mm fire, let alone 12.7mm or 30 cal fire.

The RAF ordered the Mosquito FB.XVIII with the Mollins 57mm cannon as an anti-tank weapon, but by the time the FB.XVIII was ready they had concluded that the 57mm Mollins gun lacked sufficient penetration to destroy German tanks effectively and so gave the FB.XVIIIs to Coastal Command. That was a 57mm cannon that wasn't good enough, 989,000 joules at the muzzle. Hispano MkII 20mm cannon, by comparison, have a mere 50,300 joules at the muzzle.

There is no way that aircraft guns, not even the Yak-9T's 37mm or the Hurricane Mk IId's 40mm, should be anywhere near this effective agaist tanks. Bombs and rockets should be the only realistic hope a pilot has of doing anything to a tank, and the rocket needs to actually hit the tanks, the bomb needs to be damn close.

I entirely agree Karnak.

 Just like you said It was possible to damage panzer engine by shooting through air ventilation holes on rear deck.

Germans were enough desperate to fit even 75mm Paks to planes like ju88 and hs129 to ensure tank kills. Even 37mm Flak with wolfram cored ammunition could just barely penetrate T-34s side turret. Everything under 30mm HV cannons wasnt just enough to kill mid/late war tanks. .50 cals and 20mm were very effective against lightly armored vehicles like halftracks, open topped TDs, trucks and armored cars. Against tanks they were almost useless.

[illo]

Originally posted by AKWabbit
I watched the P-47 show on the history channel.  Watched several gun cams of p-47's blowing the living crap out of tanks with their  8 .50 cals.  So, don't tell me its not possible.  Unless you're claiming they faked the footage?   When they learned to bounce their round from underneath, they were REALLY meat on a hook.  

If anything, their too tough still.  I've poured long streams of 50 cal ontop of osties just to see them keep shooting.  All it would take is ONE 50 cal round to hit inside that open gondola and rattle around and those guys would be nothing more than a quivering bowl of red goo.


Wab

How did you witness KO? Did the crew bail out?

What tanks? Im sure not Pz-IV,Pz-V or PZ-VI. Maybe some Panzerjägers, Armored cars or halftracks?

About bouncing the rounds...thats simply not possible as i mentioned before.

1. rounds will lose much of their KE when hitting the ground.

2. rounds will deform(right term?) which greatly reduces their penetration capability.

3.bottom is well protected in any german main battle tank. Over 30mm generally to protect crew from AT-mines.

[Raubvogel]

There is simply no way a .50 cal round fired from a distance could bounce off a surface and penetrate the hull armor of a late war German tank. For one thing, the round would begin to tumble, it would be deformed, both of which would degrade its penetrating power. Also, it's kinetic energy would be much lower after striking the ground. This might have been possible with a halftrack or something, but certainly not a main battle tank. Surveys done revealed that aerial claims on tanks were greatly inflated. The overwhelming majority of tank kills were by other tanks or anti-tank weapons.

[Yeager]

I havent had much success destroying PNZRs with .50s alone.

I have had some success getting PNZRs to smoke after several spot on passes but I usualy get shot down by those 20mm err...30 cal pop guns.  Dont even get me going about OSTIs

Those things are vicious.  If you in a PNZR and can reasonably expect to be targeted by planes, have a few OSTIs on hand.

Fact is there is a disparity to be found here and the gameplay solution is problematic at best.  I cant even fathom the details as Im not the programer here but suffice it to say that the ballistics in AH are in "some aspects" slightly goofy.

Anyhoo......heres hoping for a more challenging guns solution somewhere down the road

[eddiek]

Here is what gripes me:

Several times in the last week I have hopped in an M8 and went out PNZR hunting.
After hitting their side armor with the 37mm with no effect (which is to be expected), I jump to the pintle .50 cal and open up, hear a BOOM, and see smoke starting coming out of the tank.
So, after killing the guy, I find another one, decide to test just how effective the MG is.....one to two second burst and he is smoking and soon I have another kill.
Somewhere in the GV damage model coding, something is amiss.
If you can hit an armored vehicle with a 75mm or 37mm shell and have no effect, yet kill the guy with a mere .50 cal machine gun quite rapidly and easily, there is NO way the damage models are correct or even close to being correct.
Heck, an M3 can kill a tank with it's one MG, while the tank is getting the range with his 75mm cannon!  Direct hits from the cannon do nothing!  I might understand more if I fired an AP round through the bed, but I have hit the engine compartment and other "solid" spots and not a damn thing happened.........except the M3 driver jumped to his machine gun and killed my PNZR from the front, which is total absurd BS.

[illo]

Even soviet NS-37 with 900m/s MV could penetrate only 40mm of armor in ideal circumstances.  So rear attacks against German tanks(Pz-IVh) with it would be most effetive. From front it would have no change of penetrating. And from sides changes would be very slim too unsless fired from point blank range in almost level flight. Top penetrations would be easy. VYa 23mm could penetrate armor up to 25mm. So only rear and top penetrations possible.

http://www.aviation.ru/gun/