Author Topic: 50 Cal verse Tank (Read 1498 times)

Wotan · « **Reply #30 on:** August 06, 2002, 06:50:25 PM »

good stories but as steve posted there were examinations of destroyed and abandoned tanks and from the ones I have read never has 1 been shown to have been put out of action by 50 cal.

several jug pilots report bouncing bullets off the ground and killing tanks.

Do you believe this?

the diagram illo shows penetration at angle and distance.

even it it was a sherman and and german 20 and 30mm killing them in ah it would still be bs.

Voss · « **Reply #31 on:** August 06, 2002, 06:58:12 PM »

Probably, the biggest difference in WWII and AH is the way pilots use planes anyway. Surely, a Spitfire or P51 pilot would not think of attacking a convoy of GV's during the war. Online though, they don't have to be concerned with a long internment in a POW camp, or worse yet an actual death.

I understand Tiffies, FW's, and Mozzy's atacking GV's. That's what they are supposed to do. But a Spit, Pony, Niki, or Zeke? That just seems wrong!

Online, I've backed the tail end of my Panzer up to a hill, only to have a Hellcat kill my engine from frontal fire! That was irritating.

Game concessions, right?

Karnak · « **Reply #32 on:** August 06, 2002, 08:38:17 PM »

Voss,

Actually Spits and P-51s were employed in ground attack roles quite extensively, and were quite lethal to light vehicles, even armored vehicles like the Puma. But MBTs were basically immune to them (and Tiffies, Mossies, P-38s and P-47s) unless a direct hit with a rocket or very, very close hit with a bomb were obtained.

According to what I have read something like 1 in 100 or 200 rockets hit and 1 in 400lbs dropped by fighter/bombers on vehicles hit.

Building are much easier to hit and fighter/bomber raids on them were vastly more effective.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #33 on:** August 06, 2002, 09:24:12 PM »

Not this again

Matt Damon said P51s were tank busters, so it must be true!

My great uncle's fourth half cousin flew P47s and he said they used to bounce rounds off of trees so they would go right down the tank barrel and explode the shell inside.

-ammo- · « **Reply #34 on:** August 06, 2002, 10:44:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan

several jug pilots report bouncing bullets off the ground and killing tanks.

Do you believe this?

No I do not, and I doubt Brulle believes that either. A ricochet has lost considerable amounts of energy. and it will ot impact on its axis. This projectile is no longer efficient. Hard enough for a non-ricochet to damage an armored vehicle. Basically it took a lucky hit(s) to disable or destroy tanks with 50 API. In AH, we have the luxury to concentrate alot of fire on a Mk 4 panzer over and over. And in some cases, if the pilot is persistent enough, or there is several other pilots straffing the panzer, it will go down. Very rare that I actually get a panzer to die from my P-47 straffing.

Karnak · « **Reply #35 on:** August 06, 2002, 11:04:18 PM »

Raubvogel,

That is based on their historical operations, not Hollywood BS.

Maybe you'd care to ask FunkedUp about the mission logs he has of a Polish Spitfire Mk IX squad. Guess what. Its all ground attack. Mission after mission after mission of Spitfires loaded up with bombs to go attack things on the ground.

Rolley eyes my ass.

Shiva,

You forgot something in your description that makes it even worse for the aircraft. When a heavy aircraft like any WWII fighter pulls up, it doesn't simply go the way the wings are pointing, it contiunes to go down even as the wings and prop try to pull it out. I'd love to see an AH film of somebody in a 70 degree dive at 300mph make a successful pullout starting at 200m in a P-51, P-47, P-38, Typhoon or Mossie.

I've pancaked so many Mossies doing that its not funny.

DarkHawk · « **Reply #36 on:** August 07, 2002, 01:57:24 AM »

When I asked this question I did not expect some much information. From what I have read. It would seem the HT needs to adjust the hit envolope for the tank. This would require some to use tank buster and rockets and not 50 cal. mg. From some of the discussion information is base on more likely todays values and not the ammo used during the war.
thanks for all of the information and the response

DarkHawk

Wotan · « **Reply #37 on:** August 07, 2002, 02:16:21 AM »

ammo wufie and illo provided penetration of the 50 cal.

illo chart shows penetration from 65 to 90 degrees from 250- 375 yards.

Translate the jugs airsopeed into feet per sec and you will see it doesnt that much.

Now a jug at 70 dive into the "top armor" of a panzer iv how acurate do you think they will be at speeds from 300-400 mph. How many seconds do they have to pull out?

Train locomotives being destroyed is onething. Theres no way to know how old the the locomotive is or the quality of the steal. Plus its under steam pressure and lotsa of heat.

Whats telling though is the reports from the examined destroyed or abandoned tanks.

Even with bombs tanks were hard targets to hit. Rudel killed most of his tanks after he moved to the ju87g. Even then most could not get the results he did. He was nut, and should have been dead countless times.

Brady spends lotsa time in gvs and he has been killed by 50 cals numerous times. Far more then "rare" occassions.

gatt · « **Reply #38 on:** August 07, 2002, 03:20:38 AM »

You all seem to forget that the only succesful tank hunters were Ju87Gs, HS129s and IL-2s. They were the only able to kill tanks with cannons. Other fighter-bombers had to use *bombs*.
Statistics about rockets use in Normandy showed that the Typhoons performed badly. Same thing even for 40mm armed Hurricane IID in North Africa during 1943: they knocked out mainly PzIII, trucks and cars.

Again, everything else looks to me as a game concession. Its not a big problem in the Main. However, it could ruin a scenario (remember the one in North Africa?)

robsan · « **Reply #39 on:** August 07, 2002, 04:56:30 AM »

Do we need such a game concession?

We have the IL-2, we have fighterbombers.
Would it hurt gameplay if they were the
only ones capable of killing tanks?

I'd say it would make the game more
interesting, apart from giving those
plane types an unique role in AH.

Hortlund · « **Reply #40 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:10:14 AM »

Of cource we dont need such a game concession.
The damage model needs an overhaul. This is very apparent when you look at the effects of the current damage model on ground vehicles and objects.

Something is very wrong with the damage model if you can use MG's to destroy a stone building, or if panzers can kill eachother on distances above 3000 yards etc etc (list can be made very long)

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:17:36 AM »

While at the HTC offices during the Con Pyro showed us his book on the ballistics and penetration characteristics of just about every single weapon in the game. It's a collection of the actual charts made by the various combatants. It accounts for muzzle velocity, type of projectile, angle of incidence, depth of penetration, face hardened steel, "normal" steel, etc.

I remember him saying that the .50 graph shows that it would penetrate the thickness of the top turret and rear deck armor of the Panzer we have. Seems like he said something like people don't like it and it seems wrong but there's the actual data that says it will penetrate. So if you use the steep angles of attack on the top it will go through. You can argue damage because it is and always will be somewhat subjective but you can't argue penetration when you have the graphs.

Anyway, that's pretty close to what he said but not a quote.

Will it penetrate the top armor near a 90 degree angle of incidence? Yep. Is the damage model subjective? Yep.

Wotan · « **Reply #42 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:42:27 AM »

i totally trust ht ballistic modelling of the 50s he and others have shown it be correct.

Some people argue for "realistic" effects over realistic modeling. ie the seemingly extended ranges of firing and hitting at nme planes 700-900 range for instance. They would argue dumb down the ranges of the guns.

Thats not quite the samething here. Ground vehicles (admittedly I dont really use them as much as some) are easily disabled and or killed by 50 cals. Not just in planes but brady sites an lvt 50 cal at d1000 his fe damaging a track, his eng and turret. Examples like this arent rare.

If there is ever to be a perk ground vehicle then with the gv dm as is there would be no use for it.

I argue over the roll of bombers but I think there needs to be a discussion over the roll of attack aircraft. Like the il2 for instances. While certainly capable of destroying ground vehicles any of the 50 cal aircraft with no ord are equally effective at killing gvs but have the added capability of a2a.

From my experience (as shiva states) most straffing of ground vehicles arent at angles any where near 65-90 degress and the damage comes at ranges further then 275-500 yrds.

Certainly firing at a low angle out side of gun convergence and at ranges d500+ arent going to explode the panzer.

Hortlund · « **Reply #43 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:43:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
So if you use the steep angles of attack on the top it will go through. You can argue damage because it is and always will be somewhat subjective but you can't argue penetration when you have the graphs.

Oh yes you can. Let me take one example. In US tests "penetration" meant that it was possible to see light through a crack of armour. In German tests "penetration" required complete penetration by the projectile. This leads to the conclusion that all penetration values given by a US test are ..eh.. somewhat more generous than they should be.

These penetration graphs are more complicated than you'd expect.

gatt · « **Reply #44 on:** August 07, 2002, 05:43:48 AM »

Nice one Toad

BTW, the question about sims is: does it have to be like the real thing or not?. In other words: if something is theoretically possible but practically quite rare (or impossible) should it be allowed in a realistic sim? It comes in mind the dogfighting Ju87 in WW2OL ...