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

[SirLoin]

Make the tanks impervious to 50 cals,tracks included...

20mm can kill tracks...

Anything larger of course would damage the armour.

[hitech]

btw illo: what your stats do not show, is how may tank crews were killed.

[john9001]

let us summerize

    A: air attacks cannot destroy tanks

    B: air attacks make tank crews abandon and destroy their tank

    C: end result , same...one tank destroyed


so now we know how the "weak" .50 cal can take out a tank, you shoot at tank, crew destroys tank,(realistic modeling by HTC)


it doesn't matter what the after battle assessment said about who killed what, the facts are a air attack stoped a armored attack.

[illo]

Originally posted by john9001
let us summerize

    A: air attacks cannot destroy tanks

    B: air attacks make tank crews abandon and destroy their tank

    C: end result , same...one tank destroyed


so now we know how the "weak" .50 cal can take out a tank, you shoot at tank, crew destroys tank,(realistic modeling by HTC)


it doesn't matter what the after battle assessment said about who killed what, the facts are a air attack stoped a armored attack.

Read again.
-Experieced crews knew it was much safer to stay inside tank.
-Abandonement and destruction was usually done after bomb/rocket near misses.

so now we know how the "weak" .50 cal can take out a tank, you shoot at tank, crew destroys tank,(realistic modeling by HTC)

With your logic we should have all fighters exploding by themselves when enemy tanks come in 5miles distance of airfield. Also we should have forced auto-bail whenever our aircraft gets pings.

Come on.

[SKurj]

I'll take gameplay if thats the option which stops MG's destroying armor.  I have no probs with MG's damaging certain components like pintle, Osty turret etc

I also don't have a prob with MG's wiping out the halftracks.

I just don't feel MG's completely destroying a PZ is realistic.

Perhaps have the DM recognize if the player is in the commander position when hit, disabling that position altogether.  The gunner would never be exposed like that so the main gun would still be available.  


Maybe 50's did stand a SLIM chance of causing fire, if so let the PZ burn until it eventually blows up or the crew abandons(player ditches)

I think most players would consider it realistic (not gameplay) this way, as armor kills with MG's were very rare if they occured at all.



SKurj

[AmRaaM]

Only thing that bugs me about armor is that a select few players take 20 times the punishment to kill in the MA.  most armor dies with 1-2 rockets or a single 100# even(i dont use larger stuff since it doesnt do any better here), but many many times encountered the same 3 guys and seen them take bombs from 6-10 planes and 30-50 rockets and they dont even smoke. they just sit there in the craters and blast away at everyone  then nobody will be attacking them and they just explode or ditch and someone gets a kill.


The lastest wierd thing i'm seeing is a guy in a flak that when you bomb him his flak spins around like an alien gonna jump outta its belly and then it leaps to a position about 200yds from where it was bombed did this like 3-4 times till i questioned him on open channel then he exploded without being attacked.

Beginning to wonder whether its possible to manipulate the damage packets or whether some guys connnections so bad that they get dropped, but if you cant kill them how can they kill others. (btw last ping test was 45-58ms and off 99 packets/0 loss for me)

[AKWarp]

HiTech,

 I understand your point about where you hit the tank with an AP round, but it isn't all that simple...really.  I find it very hard to believe that I am hitting the thick armor, or making glancing shots 100% of the time!  I can count on one hand the number of times I have had a 1-2 shot kill with AP rounds.  99.999% of the time I have to hit somehting over 10 times with AP....and this isn't always head-on shots...I am literaly talking POINT BLANK in the side, the turret, etc.  It's pretty damn disgusting and frustrating to be within 100 yards of an enemy tank and bust him in the turret and sides over 10 times only to have him turn his turret and kill you with one shot.
 
One other interesting note...and this may hold a key to all this.  About 2 weeks ago I was in a large tank battle.  I got a 1 shot kill (and I was quite elated!)....I noticed that EVERY time I shot the same opponent, I got a 1 shot kill...regardless of range and angle.  All other enemy required my usual 10+ hits.  I killed this guy 4-5 times with 1 shot before he gave up spawning, yet all others required LOTS of hits.  Perhaps net status or ping times come into play here?  The weird part is, I rarely, if ever have trouble killing othe rplanes while flying.  It's as if hits with GV's aren't registering most of the time or somehting.

[MANDOBLE]

IMO, looking for information about antitank weapons in the western/mediterranean/pacific fronts is like looking for information about naval warfare in the black sea.

The two countries really involved in massive tank battles with close air support specialized in antitank operations were just Germany and Russia. What they need to acomplish this kind of missions? 12.7mm AP ammo?? Even the 30mm mk103 was not considered enough to effectively kill tanks.

[Staga]

Mandoble if you're interested about guns vs ammo penetration tables collected from several sources send me a email: EMail Staga

[illo]

sry...nothing

[hazed-]

the WINNER!!! i got the 100th spot  

[GRUNHERZ]

HITECH:

In real life 50cals were not used to kill tanks, 30mm, 37mm, 40mm, 57mm, 75mm aircraft cannon were used.

The only concrete evidence I have ever read of 50cals putting out tanks was damaging the engine/radiotors.

Its that simple.

[pbirmingham]

http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/464.html

The crucial excerpt:

 I've often wondered about reports of "bouncing bullets off the road into the bellies of tanks to set them afire"-- as the bellies of these tanks are still too much for such light projectiles to handle, particularly after losing much energy by striking the road surface first, and then likely tumbling or yawing severely before strking the belly armor. However, having been a tank officer for several years, and having armor-antiarmor study as part of my civil job for many years, I think that the answer may be that these stories ARE TRUE-- but not due to the penetration of the belly of the tanks, but due to strikes against the "drain plugs" and access plates (or places where they should have been installed) beneath the tanks. All tanks have to have these (to let spilled oil, fuel, oily engine "slobber", and of course, rainwater and melted snow drain away, or to gain access to the underside of the powerplant and other machinery inside the tank. Tanks of all types are notorious for having lots of oily, fuel-soaked, greasy gunk all over the bottom of the engine compartment, and they're also widely known for having "missing" drain plugs and access plates-- at any given moment, a surprising percentage of the world's armored vehicles are driving around with one, several or many of their drain plugs and access plates missing, even today. In combat, with hasty, midnight servicing and repairs always being made, often in deplorable muddy, slushy ground, or in the churned up grass and turf of hasty assembly areasa, it's only natural that small drain plugs, and access plates (typically 1.5" to 4" in diameter) are lost, or come loose, or are purposely "lost" or left "open" by the crew. I think that the basis for these type reports may be just that-- the P-47 pilots were bouncing rounds right into these areas of the tank, and vs. the Germans' gasoline-fueled vehicles, a single burning tracer or burning fragments from an API strike would easily ignite the spilled or dripped grease, fuel, oil, dried fragments of vegetation, greasy residue, and all the other gunk that coats the bottom of the engine compartments of tanks in combat. They weren't penetrating the belly of the tank, but it probably worked well enough to keep on doing it.

[Wotan]

well if you go back in this thread and read illo and hortlunds replies about the examination of german armor on the battle field after mourtain and in hortlunds case an broader examination over the front you will find that not to be the case.

Folks wanna believe because their "favorite" ace said so. Well it didnt happen. killing tanks from the air was hard even with bombs landing close.

Now the morale of the tanks crews is something seperate the concusion of the bombs the noise of 50 cals smacking the tank and rockets would have caused panic. If you read those previous threads you will find alot of tanks abandon and in good working order.

Now to claim 50 cals exploding tanks is to reflect "crew abandoning" their tanks or the the loss of the crew in side I would have to call bs.

We have buffs in ah that we can fill the fuselage with rounds the crews never died till the buff is ded. You never bail out of a plane whos oil or radiator or fuel is hit or if your lit a flame you fight on.

Whether its "real" or not the fact is gvs died rether easily. After a long drive to be strafed by a zeke and sent to the twr imho hinders gv gameplay. I do believe that m16 m3s and osties ought to be vulnerable to the smallest caliber round. Its easier to kill the eng or the track on an ost wind the disable the gun (in my experience).

I think even now I am happy with most gvs except the panzer. It should take another panzr to kill it. Also I would like to see gvs a bit less easy to spot from the air.

[Sikboy]

If crew abandonment is the culprit here, perhaps we just need to change the "man" model here. That way, when someone bounces rounds at your tank, you're forced to bail. Then HTC could also model a yellow stream of tinkle running down your leg.

Just a thought

-Sikboy