Tactical interdiction

[Wotan]

I paste steves reply  from  hazed's post

originally posted by Steve74

Being a ground pounder who kinda drifted into this flight sim, I know alot more about tanks and armor than about aircraft. Someone wanted historical data, so this is what I can offer.

Armor penetration is dependent on a thousand variables, just about everything from the air temperature to the carbon percentage of the iron ore when the steel was made. It is not realistic to have a 100%, or even an 80% accurate damage model for armor penetration in a simulation like this, because soon you would reach impossible calculations. Just to determine if a projectile should richochet or not would take a very impressive formula indeed, and in the end you would realize that a simple random number would have given a just as accurate result.

Someone asked how effective airpower is/was against tanks. Many use the battles in Normandy as examples of how devastating airpower is against ground units. In fact, most Whermacht-wieners (LW whiner sounds wrong when talking about ground units, but you find these guys everywhere there is a discussion about wwii) will claim that the only reason the allies won in Normandy was because of their airpower. While this may be true or not, airpower had an almost neglectable effect on combat damage in Normandy. Let me give an example:
Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons. That is 9 out of 178 tanks actually used in the area. It is also interesting to see the claims. British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged, the real number was 9...

It seems that very few German tank were lost due to hits from weapons carried by aircraft. Probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. Rather it seems that air attacks on tank formation protected by AA units were more dangerous to the aircraft than to the tanks. Allied losses of aircraft were considerable, the 2nd TAF (including elements of Air Defence of Britain that took part in the Normandy campaign) lost 829 aircraft, while US 9th Air Force lost 897

The main reason for the poor results of air attack on tanks was lack of suitable armament. Machine guns and cannons had sufficient accuracy, but lacked the power necessary to produce more than superficial damage. Heavy bombs could destroy a tank, but it took a direct hit, which was very difficult to achieve. The vaunted rockets had sufficient penetration capabilities. Trials against captured German Panther tanks showed that the rockets could penetrate the armour except on the front of the tank. The accuracy of the rockets was however alarmingly low, even when fired in salvos of eight. At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4 %. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower.

Mortain is not an example of unusually low efficiency for the allied air forces either. It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results:

6 June - 7 August 1944
AP shot: 36
Hollow charge projectile: 7
HE shell: 7
Aircraft rockets: 7
Aircraft cannon: 2
Destroyed by crew: 6
Abandoned: 3
Unknown: 13

8 Aug - 31 Aug 1944
AP Shot: 11
Hollow charge projectile: 1
HE Shell: 1
Aircraft rocket: 2
Aircraft cannon: 1
Destroyed by crew: 44
Abandoned: 30
Unknown: 6

17 Dec - 16 Jan 1945
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5

Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz IV's (yup..our panzers) nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks.

Hm..drifted off the subject a bit perhaps, but I hope you found it interesting.

Oh..and the number of German tanks knocked out by MG:s or .50 cals is 0.

Source: I. Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers Versus German Armour in North&endash;West Europe 1944&1945: Myths and Realities (Journal of Strategic Studies, vol 14, No 2 June 1991) p. 221. The basic sources for the data on destruction of German tanks and other equipment used by Gooderson are the reports of the operations research teams that investigated the battlefields after the end of the battles and examined the wrecks found. These are probably the most reliable sources for such information avialable today.

[/b]

Read the link I provided and temper that with what steve wrote here.........

[Seeker]

Mandoble,
                technicaly you're right, but you're missing the point.

The game is supposed to mirror WWI machinery, *and* WWII tactics.

It's an historical fact that air anti-armour interdiction worked. It worked at Kursk. It worked In Normany. It worked in the Po valley. It's been confirmed by the pilots (both operations and after operations reconnosance), it's been confirmed by the supported ground commanders, it's been confirmed by the targeted ground commanders. The whole 0.50 cal controversy obscures the fact that tactical interdiction was probably one of the most effective uses of air power in the whole war.

Now, I'd agree with you 100% when you say that post operations analysis shows that 0.5 cal weapons did not, in them selves, do much physical damage.

However, within the confines of the game mechanics, how do you propose to recreate the paralysing effect that tactical interdiction had upon armour movement?

*That's* the point - recreating the atmosphere, tactics and "feel" of WWII - That's where the 'Dar whines come from, the buff tuff whines come from, the "B.S. D900 ping" whines from.

You're one of those that loves to count angels on the head of a pin - try and be creative.

As an engineer, with the relevant data to hand, how, in your view, could AH mirror the tanker's terror of an air assault? The proven *effectiveness* of an air assault?

Because for every fact you post proving that (for instance) a P47 can't hurt a tank (and tecnicaly, you may be right), I can post an historical fact proving how armour was removed from the theatre of battle by P47's.

There's a very interesting riddle here. It's going to get more interesting if and when more armour is introduced.

Because then the likes of you and Horten will post whines saying how tough T-34's are to kill, and backing it up with historical evidence of how effective the 190 was in the ground suppression role.

And Baroda will posting analysis of how little damage the T-34's actualy suffered.

And you're both be right!

As I said, there's play balance here too.

[Wotan]

tanks have no cover in ah.. you can see their black dot from 15k.

You see there icons at 3 k.

They are killed to easily by planes, far more easily then in rl.

You can make the claim that 50 cals blowing up tnks is meant as a game play concession or to compensate for the limited dm but at the same time gvs in ah are at a far greater disadvantage then they were in rl.

Gvs also benefit from the lack of terrain cvr. They kill at greater ranges then were possible (especially in the west). The mgs on them are beefed up a bit but can be avoided. Also we can resupply/repair gvs (which is good fer gameplay)

The number 1 frustrating thing about tanking in ah is the long drive times then to be sent to the twer by a zeke guns. I dont want closer spawn points. I just dont want a hard wind to kill me...

whether its "real or not" I would hope anything 20mm or under would not kill tnks because I feel we would get better gameplay that way. I do think that any open gv should be killable with the smallest round.

But I wont ever believe bullets bounce off the road and killed pnzrs.........just didnt happen

[Wilbus]

It's not very hard to calculate how much armor a bounced 50 cal would penetrate.

I won't do any calculations here but...

A 50 cal, fired in 2500 feet per second (+/- some) that hits the road will #1: Be De/re formed. Its jacket wil get flat or atlest more flat then before. #2 in the de/re forming process the kinetic energy is transformed to make this reforming happen.
So all in all the speed with which the bullet hits the armor is down well bellow 2000 feet per second, and the bullet does no longer have a sharp head.

The armor, specially German 1944 armor had pretty heavy armor everywhere, Shermans even had trouble killing tigers from the rear when they were bellow 200 meters.

SO I don't quite see how a deformed 50 cal round striking in a, let's say 40 dgeree angle could possibly penetrate a few centimeters of strenghtened armor...

[MANDOBLE]

Seeker, air interdition may be very effective, for this purpose we have bombs and rockets. In AH you can pick up a P47 with 2000 lb of bombs and a bunch of rockets and, if well used, come back to the base with 3 panzers destroyed without needing to straffe em with the 50".

With the current P47 loadout, a SINGLE P47 attacking an armoured assault can kill 3 - 4 panzers with bombs and rockets and several M3s with the 50". How many real pilots were able to do that in RL in a single sortie?

About our gameplay, add a more than evident dissadvantage to the GVs drivers. They can be spotted from long distance with no place to hide they tanks. And a spotted tank is a dead tank.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Seeker

Because then the likes of you and Horten will post whines saying how tough T-34's are to kill, and backing it up with historical evidence of how effective the 190 was in the ground suppression role.

Now where the &%¤ did that come from? I find this extremely rude. Either adress me directly, or leave me out of the discussion thankyouverymuch.

And who's whining? Has it gone so far now, that anyone trying to show that USAF aircraft were not able to defy the laws of physics is a whiner? If I say that it is theoretically impossible for a .50 cal bullet to penetrate teh average PzIV bottom. Does that make me a whiner? Why? Because I bother you with pesky details as "the truth"?

As I said in the post Wotan quoted, I am a ground pounder more than a flight simmer, and I know alot more about ground combat than I do about aircombat. If the T-34 is included in the game I sure as *%#@ wont be posting some silly cheese about how Fw190s should be able to take them out with 20 or 30mm guns. Nor will I post dumbprettythang theorys on how to disable T-34s by shooting at the pavement infront of them.

[Seeker]

"I find this extremely rude"

" would very much like to see the SS quotation for that one btw...
"For conspicuous gallantry in the line of duty, 1st Lt Pete Thomas, serving as a P-47 pilot in the Carentan area in France, June 10th 1944. While on a patrol over enemy territory, Lt Thomas spotted several German tanks advancing along a road. With complete disregard for his own safety, and under heavy fire from enemy AAA, Lt Thomas dove in and shot up a piece of French road in front of the German tanks with his .50 cal MGs, causing several German tankers to drive off the road and crash into trees from laughing. His superb airmanship, his outstanding skill and personal valor reflect great credit upon Lt Thomas' gallant fighting spirit and upon the U.S. Air Force."

"The entire idea is pure nonsense. Perhaps fit for an episode of Hogans heroes or something like that, but thats about it."


So who's the liar? Me, or a decorated war veteran?


"Either adress me directly"

Ok.

Amateur. Revisionist. Whiner.

Happy now?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Seeker

So who's the liar? Me, or a decorated war veteran?

[/b]
You, him, both or neither. Take your pick, I dont give a cheese.

I do know however that no P-47 pilot ever took out a German tank by shooting .50 cals on the road infront of the tank. Why does this bother you so much? Why does it seem so hard for you to understand that simple physics makes that impossible? Just acknowledge it and move on for crying out loud. But nooo  Instead you have to sit here and rave on like a baboon on a bad acid trip.

I said that I would like to see the SS citation you mentioned, because I strongly suspect that he did not get a SS for shooting at a road.

this is one of those P-47 pilots who was instructed to fire at the road surface in front of armour. And who earned a Silver Star doing it.

Your own words. Do you have any idea exactly how stupid that quote looks? From what you wrote, apparently he earned his Silver Star "shooting at the road surface infront of armor". Yeah...well if that doesnt earn him a Silver Star..then what would.

Ok.

Amateur. Revisionist. Whiner.

Happy now?

Well, who can argue with that stunning display of pure eloquence? It is rather apparent that you my friend have run out of arguments. Whats next? Some lame remark about my wife?

[fdiron]

I'm sure that there must be a case where a German tank has been knocked out by a machine gun bullet- Oh wait, there is.  Ever hear of an anti-tank rifle?  Germans and Russians had them.  Fired a 7.62mm armor piercing round.  Was used early in the war.

The armor on the bottom of tanks is very thin.  U.S. light tanks barely had any armor on the bottom.  I'm sure if P47s strafed a road infront of German light tanks it would have a good chance of penetrating the bottom armor.  

Also, what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming?  This could allow bullets to enter into the crew compartment of the tank.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by fdiron
I'm sure that there must be a case where a German tank has been knocked out by a machine gun bullet- Oh wait, there is.  Ever hear of an anti-tank rifle?  Germans and Russians had them.  Fired a 7.62mm armor piercing round.  Was used early in the war.

The armor on the bottom of tanks is very thin.  U.S. light tanks barely had any armor on the bottom.  I'm sure if P47s strafed a road infront of German light tanks it would have a good chance of penetrating the bottom armor.  

Also, what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming?  This could allow bullets to enter into the crew compartment of the tank.

*sigh* Its spreading...

1) On German tanks being knocked out by Machine Gun bullets

What kind of German tanks would that be?  A standard machine gun bullet has a penetration of approx 5-7mm armor. Check that against the armor stats of the German tanks.
 
2) On Anti-Tank rifles

Sure, both Germans and Soviets had them. They did not fire a 7.62 armor piercing round however? Why? Because they didnt have ATR's in that caliber. Germany used 7.92mm (a whopping 25mm penetration at 100m, The soviets used 14.5mm (they too could penetrate 25mm..but they reached out to a sizzling 150m with this awesome penetration). And they were used throughout the war..the Soviet ATR's that is, the Germans switched to panzerfausts starting in 43.

3) The armor in the bottom of tanks are thinner than the armor on the sides.

As I wrote earlier, on German tanks, the bottom armor (on average) was about as thick as the roof armor. If you have much less armor than that, the tank becomes vunerable to anti personnell mines, and no one really wants that.

Lets take the PzIVH as an example. (thickness and angle)
Hull bottom armor: 10mm at 0.
Hull top armor: 10-12 mm at 0-5.
Turret top armor: 15mm at 0-7.  

Do you agree if I say that it would be easier to penetrate the hull top armor than the hull bottom armor (after bouncing shots of the pavement)?

4) "what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming"

Yeah..what if indeed.

5) Light tanks

Sure, if you want to leave the realm of "normal" tanks we can do that. Problem is that if you want to start comparing penetration and armor numbers for the lighter tanks, or apc's, or armored cars, you will end up with the same conclusion in every case: Some of them can be killed by .50cals. But shooting at the road infront of those vehicles only makes it harder to penetrate, and if you can penetrate the bottom armor, you can penetrate the top armor too, so why go for the bottom shot?

[Badboy]

Hmm,

Does this mean that my favorite scene from "Saving Private Ryan" isn't true? When those P-51s pop the German tanks, I practically jumped out of my chair in delight. You guys can say what you like, I'm gonna go watch the film the again

Badboy

[Hortlund]

Hmm, I forgot about SPR...
You're right! The P-51's must have bounced their .50 cal shots from the bridge and hit the bottom of the Tiger. That explains the massive explosion.

[Glasses]

And of  course everyone knows Tiger tanks were made out of tin foil and SPR is based on the real life of this so called Pvt of course.

[Furious]

I am no expert here, but it seems to me that if the angle of incedence is such that a bullet can't penetrate the surface of the road, its not going to penetrate the armour either.

F.

[Thrawn]

Can the UAAF bullet bouncing guys bring some actual numbers to this agrument?  Or are you going to stick to anectdotal evidence?  As far as I'm concerned, actual laws of physics have a bit of an edge over, "Some guys said.".  Even if that some guy is a vet.