Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on June 18, 2004, 05:50:25 PM
-
A couple things I would put forward for consideration.
1. The 190F-8 really really needs a larger selection of weapons. I believe it could carry both rockets (which would be nice against tanks and Osties) and clusterbombs (which would be nice against Osties and the M-series).
2. As far as strafing goes, the 190F8 is next to useless against the Panzer IV. The way the MG-151 is modelled hurts the strafing capability of the 190F-8 a lot. I would suggest that perhaps instead of a hybrid loadout of HE, Mine, and AP rounds, the 190F-8 has its ammo load changed to all or mostly AP. That way it would be able to disable the Panzer IVs turret and engine at least, if not kill it outright.
I feel this would go a long way towards making the 190F-8 a competitive anti-GV airplane. Thanks in advance for any input, or your opinion of this idea.
-
Sounds fair, the F8 is a really nice plane.
How about Fighter option selects HE rounds and Attack option selects AP rounds? (if this could be modelled of course!)
-
I have to agree.... the F8 is pretty poor in it's intended role for AH.
-
just make the AP/HE choice a gunset option like every other weapon choice in the hangar.
I agree the F8 needs more loadouts as it had to be anything more than a '44-45 stuka.
Other planes like the Il2 need them too.
-
190F8s had the so called "wet wings", with pipes and fuel pumps so that one external 300l tank can be loaded in each wing. These planes replaced the 190G8s long range fighter-bombers.
Some 190F8s were also adapted to carry one torpedo (called "torpedobomb") and with a special sight so the torpedo can be "aimed" and lauched higher than normal ones and form higher angle. That may be an excelent adition to the AH2 arsenal.
Note that some of them were equipped with 801TS (2000 hp) instead of the 801D-2 engines.
Certainly, while other planes had a full variety of options (even for ammo loads) like P47s, P38s, P51s, etc, our 190F8 is still "naked".
-
As I stated in another thread, I vote for the F-8 to get the option to carry the historical German rockets with Panzerfaust/schreck type warheads, somewhat comparable to the nice RS type rockets available to the IL-2. That would also make a better and more interesting option to respond to combined GV/vulching fighter assault on your field than would the dowdy (and armor-undermodeled) IL-2.
-
I asked pyro this a long time aog and showed all kinds of data. He said it is still on his list of things to add the rockets and what not. then again that was 2 years Ago ;) All is forgotten if the 410 comes to Ah2 :aok
-
Yea, I know the rockets are on the "to do" list, but I don't know if anyone ever mentioned the cluster bombs. Actually I think they are cluster bombs, I'm not real sure. I usually see them as "50 2-kg bombs" in the books I've read. I think the 190F8 could mount them on the wings in place of the 50-kg bombs we have now. I'd assume you'd have to release all 50 of the little bombs at once, so they'd be like cluster-bombs and blanket an area.
Plus I think the only way the Mg-151 would have any chance of penetrating the armor on any of the tanks we have (or will have in the future ) is if there is an option to load AP ammo in place of the current 2 HE, 2 AP, 1 mine loadout.
-
Went and dug up an old post by me with Tony Williams stats on armor penetration.
[EDIT: added this]Realistically, an attack on the roof or decking of a tank is not going to be made at better than 60 degrees, with 30 degrees being more likely. Furthermore, it's not going to be at very short range. So let's take 300m range and strikes at 60-30 degrees as typical.[/edit]
As I posted before, the .50" M2 AP could penetrate between 13mm and 5mm in these circumstances (with the smaller figure being more likely).
The MG 131 AP could similarly manage between 7mm and 3mm
The MG 151 15mm AP (non-Hartkern) from 19mm to 12mm
The MG 151 15mm Hartkern 24mm to 12mm
The MG 151 20mm AP between 12mm and 8mm
The 20mm MG-FF AP between 9mm and 6mm
If anyone would like to analyze an AH2 film that I made of .50s and Hispanos strafing a Panzer IV and killing it, and has somewhere I can post it to or email it to, let me know.
Specifically, I'd like to find out what kind of angle seems necesary to kill the panzer. Coming in flat doesn't seem to work very well, but coming in at an angle shallow enough that the pintle gun can shoot back is a steep enough angle to kill a Panzer IV, at least with Hispanos and .50s. MG151s seem ineffective no matter what strafing angle is used.
Since the AP performance of the Mg151 is similar to the AP performance of the .50 and Hispano round, I would really like the option to just load AP ammo on the 190F-8 (because since I'm a Luftwhiner, I like to use it to kill GVs in instead of an easier plane).
-
Problem is that cannon strafing had little effect on Armour in WWII. Even a Panzer IV, which was a medium tank, had 10 mm of armour on the top of the deck and turret.
Since your MG151 is not going to be hitting this armour at a 90 degree angle then you will be attempting to penetrate alot more depending on the angle you attack.
LW lineup is weak for anti-armour ground attack. My vote is for the Ju 87G with 37mm guns. he he he
The 190F8 does need the PB2 rockets and the AB-250 cluster bomb with SD-2 bomblets. PB2 for the armour. SD-2 for the softskin and troops. Imagine the hurtin you could put on an Airfield or town dropping 108 SD-2's in one pass. It would take 3-4 190F8's to deack a field in one run. I bet folks would be planning missions in them just to watch the fireworks.
Crumpp
-
I had posted this a few times in the past:
Hauptman Erhard Jähnert Staffelkäpitan of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3, recounts his 599th mission flying a FW 190F-8 over of the Kurland Bridgehead:
On 16 February 1945, I attacked enemy armor in my Focke Wolf 190. It had already gotten quite close to our main line of resistance in foggy weather about 10 kilometers southeast of Tukkum.
Three of my comrades closed up with me when I designated the target. We dove on the group of armor and fired our rockets. I was fortunate enough to knock out three enemy tanks in three passes. Three more were crippled by my comrades. Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons. In the process my aircraft took one or two hits in the lubrication system and also in the compass connections.
Orientation was no longer possible. Vision forward was prevented by the oil film that built up on the front windshield. The cockpit canopy was also stuck, so I sat in my aircraft as if I were in a coffin.
When the engine oil ran out and the engine temperature rose, I had to make an emergency landing. I could only see to the rear, so, with a “look back” I landed on an open field near an abandoned artillery position about 30 meters from a farmstead and 80 meters from a high-tension electric line.
I am certain that my landing rates as a most extraordinary piece of good luck in aviation.
I had neither pistol nor identification with me. When I saw several soldiers in camouflage parkas draw near I grabbed the flare pistol from the cockpit and waited.
Again my luck held. They were Latvians from one of the two Latvian Waffen-SS divisions. They took me to their battalion command post.
I was well received in the grenadiers’ bunker and fed. Soon I was driven back to my airfield.
Incidentally, Erhard Jähnert received the knights cross on 18 May 1943 as a Leutnant flying stukas while attached to Stukageschwader 4.
Later as Staffelkäpitan of 9./Stukageschwader 2, he took part in that squadrons greatest success when it sank 3 soviet destroyers in the Black Sea south of the Crimea.
He was later removed from combat duty and assigned as an instructor. In the fall of 1944 at his own personal request he was transferred to the Kurland Bridgehead and made Staffelkäpitan of 2./Schlachtgeschwader 3.
He destroyed 25 Soviet tanks while flying the FW 190F-8 over Kurland.. On the day of surrender he took what passengers he could and flew out of Kurland and landed at Flensburg. He was put up for the oak leaves but in the hectic days just prior to German capitulation the award never went through.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/334_1083281749_190loads.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rasker
That would also make a better and more interesting option to respond to combined GV/vulching fighter assault on your field than would the dowdy (and armor-undermodeled) IL-2.
Uhhhm.. The IL2 is by far the best plane to take while your field is getting vulched.. Its awesome as an emergency fighter and it is by far the best Panzer IV killer with its magnificent 23mm cannon which are the best guns in AH for both anti armor and air to air work.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Problem is that cannon strafing had little effect on Armour in WWII. Even a Panzer IV, which was a medium tank, had 10 mm of armour on the top of the deck and turret.
Since your MG151 is not going to be hitting this armour at a 90 degree angle then you will be attempting to penetrate alot more depending on the angle you attack.
LW lineup is weak for anti-armour ground attack. My vote is for the Ju 87G with 37mm guns. he he he
The 190F8 does need the PB2 rockets and the AB-250 cluster bomb with SD-2 bomblets. PB2 for the armour. SD-2 for the softskin and troops. Imagine the hurtin you could put on an Airfield or town dropping 108 SD-2's in one pass. It would take 3-4 190F8's to deack a field in one run. I bet folks would be planning missions in them just to watch the fireworks.
Crumpp
Check out the beginning of the quote again, I had meant to include that line from the start but screwed up.
-
Strafing with 20mm or less can do alot of damage. It cannot however take out a tank.
Their is no doubt the 190F8 was an effective Ground Attack plane. Just look at the variety of ordinance it could deliver.
Crumpp
-
Yanno, Jug pilots used to bounce the 50 cal rounds off the pavement and into the underside of enemy tanks!
-Sik
-
That's a huge myth Sikboy. Especially when you know the "skipping" characteristics of bullets. Bullets do not bounce off objects and "richochet" at an angle. The strike an object and then travel parallel to it.
This is why in urban combat (the real thing, not on your computer or TV) you do not get into the prone in the street nor get against the walls. You stay standing in the street using verticle cover and at least 2 feet off the walls.
Crumpp
-
A 50mm gun was needed to knock the rear of a PzIV tower. I dont expect anything below that to do anything but kill, with a lot of luck, some optics equipment or even the tracks (all 12mm stories knocking tanks are raw fantasy). Not a single german gun (including Mk103 monster gun) was found really effective against heavy armoured tanks. On the other hand, normal 20mm HE would be very effective against armoured transports or armoured artillery. In real life, may be 1 of every 30 enemy vehicles was a tank, so 190F guns may be still considered more than adecuate against ground targets.
-
I dunno about the cluster bomb. It's a real resource hog to the computer.
Maybe they could implement it in a compromised method... like dropping one bomb, and giving it a very large blast radius but much weaker power... but that'll definately ruin the feel.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Strafing with 20mm or less can do alot of damage. It cannot however take out a tank.
Their is no doubt the 190F8 was an effective Ground Attack plane. Just look at the variety of ordinance it could deliver.
Crumpp
There are a couple schools of thought on that. In real life, it is extraordinarely unlikely that a tank would have been strafed to "death" by an airplane in WW2.
However, it was also undoubtedly *possible* for a .50 caliber, 20mm Hispano, or Mg151 (the AP rounds for the MG-151 & .50, SAPI rounds for the Hispano) to penetrate the top armor of a Panzer IV.
In Aces High, the Hispano and .50 can penetrate the armor roughly as above (~300 yards, ~30 degree dive), but the Mg151 is practically incapable of penetration at any range/angle. Since HTC has gone with the "since it was technically possible IRL, it is possible here" approach for the .50 and Hispano, I would like the same modelling for the Mg-151.
I don't know much about how HTC has the ammunition modelled. I was under the impression that the most "common" belting was used, which on the Western Front IIRC was 2xHE, 2XAP, and 1Xmine. I think on the Eastern Front they used a different belting, but I'm not positive. The most common belting for the RAF IIRC was 2xSAPI, 2XHE. Not a clue what the most common belting was for the .50.
What I don't entirely understand is why the Mg-151 is incapable of penetrating the top armor on the Panzer IV. I can only assume that the 2XHE and 1Xmine "average" pulls down the armor penetration enough that it can't penetrate any armor from any range or angle. If that is the case, I would really like to see an all-AP loadout for the 190F-8, because as was shown above, the MG-151 AP round has roughly the same penetration as the .50 and Hispano. Thus, since it was technically possible for the 190F-8 to penetrate the armor on tanks, I would like it to be possible in the game.
I've no idea how hard it would be to implement, but it would be a vast improvement over the current F-8s capabilities.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That's a huge myth Sikboy. Especially when you know the "skipping" characteristics of bullets. Bullets do not bounce off objects and "richochet" at an angle. The strike an object and then travel parallel to it.
This is why in urban combat (the real thing, not on your computer or TV) you do not get into the prone in the street nor get against the walls. You stay standing in the street using verticle cover and at least 2 feet off the walls.
Crumpp
I know, that's why I was ... I just don't think any Gun vs. GV thread is compleat without the .50 Cal Ping Pong Post.
-Sik
-
I believe HTC also dabbles on the concept of "historical representation, rather than technical recreation" - meaning, some factors or issues are altered, left out, or controlled by game play concessions to give out historical situations, rather than try to recreate every historical fact which might bring out the opposite results of making the game ahistoric.
Such examples are flap deployment speeds, combat trims, auto trim sets, etc.
Some things are technically possible but practically impossible - such as, like you pointed out, it was technically possible that some times 20mm shells could penetrate tank armour, but in real life, no one would be crazy enough to drive their plane in such angle and speeds at such low altitudes, to strafe a single tank.
However, in game playing, people do crazy stuff all the time, and go as far as to exploit things which should be pretty much impossible in real life.
So what it comes down to is historical feel over technical facts in some cases. Like the combat trim.
..
I'd rather that all tanks should be rendered impervious to machine gun fire, and 20mm and 30mm cannons.
Only the NS-37 37mm(if our Yak-9T carries an AP version of it...), IL-2 23mms, and VickerS should be allowed to hurt tanks.
Is that realistic? No. But the consequences it brings is historic.
People should readily acknowledge the fact that they should up a suitable anti-tank platform, if they wish to strafe tanks dead.
.....
In turn, change the tank pintle guns, so that when an onboard gunner, or a driver is in the pintle gun position, the tank can be easily disabled/killed by strafing.
-
Some things are technically possible but practically impossible - such as, like you pointed out, it was technically possible that some times 20mm shells could penetrate tank armour, but in real life, no one would be crazy enough to drive their plane in such angle and speeds at such low altitudes, to strafe a single tank.
That's not necessarily the case. Read the pilot account I posted above:
Since I expended my rockets, I tried to destroy the remaining tanks, which had already turned back, with my on-board weapons.
In Kurland F-8s from SG 3 and 4 routinely strafed armor with their "onboard" weapons (cannons).
The effect of the strafing was enough to send the Soviet armor running for cover. That’s not to say they destroyed mbts with mg151s but they did strafe them.
Same with the western allies, they still strafed German mbts. So let’s stick to the facts.
They may not have killed or destroyed mbts but the certainly strafed them.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
I dunno about the cluster bomb. It's a real resource hog to the computer.
Maybe they could implement it in a compromised method... like dropping one bomb, and giving it a very large blast radius but much weaker power... but that'll definately ruin the feel.
The ju88s can already make large salvos, double that and I doubt a PC would stutter even then.. What else would you need to model? Just the dispersion, any intermediary trajectory effects (wind etc, anything else?), and the impact+detonation.
Pretty much the same as we already have with regular one-piece bombs.
Maybe the detonation+damage calculation? I doubt it.
-
and re: the historical VS technical modeling, what you said works, but only within a certain range of effect.
I mean, if there was something the WWII planes could have done, but didn't, that doesn't mean it should be substracted from our game because our range of possibilities includes more than just WWII's.
Pilots back then could have done what we do, because we are (hypotheticaly) in the same model space.
109s are fighting along side F6Fs and planes are being loaded with 25% fuel, planes are all using imperial units in their cockpits, WEP parameters are standardized thruout the planeset, etc..
-
I agree Kweassa on the MG-Cannon not being able to hurt Armour unless that Armour is unbuttoned. It is entirely possible (but not likely for an unbuttoned AFV to have a shell enter the crew compartment and kill/wound them. Chances are much higher that the poor unfortunate maning the pintle gun will have a lead lunch. IF shell did enter the AFV, it would most likely richochet around and even possible cause spauling. One lucky shell could cause alot of damage.
IMO AH should adjust for the Historical role A/C played. Only certain A/C were noted Panzer Knacker. It certainly was not the .50 cal armed A/C. They used ordinance just like the 190F8.
I wonder if anyone has any data on the Armour penetration of the SD-2 or if a HEAT submunition was produced for the AB series weapons delivery system?
At the very least PB2 rockets were used by the Schlachtfliegers.
Crumpp
-
In speaking about strafing angles, I seem to recall a German plane with angled cannon, like "Schrage Musik", but pointing down and forward for gv's instead of up and forward for bombers. Perhaps the Hs-129? Does anyone else have more on this?
Since the roof is usually the most vulnerable point of any AFV reachable by aircraft, a gun pointed downward to minimize the angle of penetration and avoid having to dive makes a lot of sense.
Bring this plane weapon combo to AH2!
But if they give us the Ju-87G "Kannonenvogel", paint it as Hans Rudels plane, pls. :)
-
Rasker, the Luftwaffe had used a rocket system similar to what you describe, but afaik it never went past the testing stage because it didn't work so well.
In theory, a plane equipped with this system would fly over a tank and some kind of photocell system would recognize the tank and fire off a rocket downward at like a 60 degree angle. In practice, the system didn't work because it couldn't recognize targets.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I agree Kweassa on the MG-Cannon not being able to hurt Armour unless that Armour is unbuttoned. It is entirely possible (but not likely for an unbuttoned AFV to have a shell enter the crew compartment and kill/wound them. Chances are much higher that the poor unfortunate maning the pintle gun will have a lead lunch. IF shell did enter the AFV, it would most likely richochet around and even possible cause spauling. One lucky shell could cause alot of damage.
IMO AH should adjust for the Historical role A/C played. Only certain A/C were noted Panzer Knacker. It certainly was not the .50 cal armed A/C. They used ordinance just like the 190F8.
I wonder if anyone has any data on the Armour penetration of the SD-2 or if a HEAT submunition was produced for the AB series weapons delivery system?
At the very least PB2 rockets were used by the Schlachtfliegers.
Crumpp
I understand what you and Kweassa are saying. The problem is HTC doesn't agree with it. Their position on the issue is that if it were possible for a weapon system to damage something, it will damage something, no matter how likely it was to happen in real life.
I've actually got no problem with this with the new ground terrain, as GVs can now usually find some sort of cover against planes flying overhead (playing hide and seek with planes in a forest is fun :)), I would just like the same consideration applied to at least the 190F-8.
My reasoning is that the 190F-8 WAS a dedicated ground attack plane, it should be at least as good against GVs as a Spitfire or a P-51. In the game, it isn't.
A Spit 9 can drop a bomb on 1 panzer for a kill, kill another with its rockets, then strafe and disable (or kill outright) a few more before it has to rearm.
A P-51 can kill 2 panzers with bombs, probably 3 with rockets, then strafe and disable (or kill outright) a few more before it has to rearm.
A 190F-8 can kill 1 panzer with the 500 kg bomb, maybe 2 (if they are exceedingly lucky) with the 4 50-kg bombs, then they have to rearm.
So the 190F-8 is about half as effective against tanks as two common "general purpose" aircraft. If it could at least strafe tanks effectively, it would be at least as effective at fighting GVs as the non-specialized general purpose aircraft.
I'm not even asking for a wholesale change to be made to the Mg-151. I'd just like to see an AP loadout made available for this one plane, because its job was to attack tanks. I don't think they would have used an ammo loadout that was completely ineffective against tanks if they could use one that actually had a chance of doing some damage.
-
Urchin,
The fact that general purpose fighters can kill tanks with their MG's/Cannon is NOT correct. In fact its silly.
Making the 190F8 able to destroy tanks with it's guns is not the answer IMO. Removing the ability of a .50 cal armed A/C to kill AFV's is the answer.
Reread the chapter in "FW-190 Aces of the Eastern Front" by Osprey Books last night. One line struck me. During the battle of Kursk Schlachtfliegergeschwaders equipped with the 190 where sent after troops and artillery positions. Hs-129's/Ju 87G's were assigned the role of armour interdiction.
When Tour of Duty comes out the LW will need it's "PanzerKnacker's". That means either modeling the Hs-129 or Ju-87G.
In the meantime to maintain balance either ALL or NONE when it comes to cannon's killing armour. To balance the rocket wielding allied A/C then the Panzerblitz rockets will need to be modeled.
Better yet we need the SD-4HI anti-armour bomblets for the AB-250. That would make hiding in the woods a little more salamanderly for the tanks.
Check out this article on the development of Luftwaffe Close Air Support.
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/features/luftwaffecas/index.shtml
Crumpp
-
There used to be a book in print called Stuka Pilot. It details the experiences of Hans-Ulrich Rudel. He had quite a career as a tank killer, first in a Stuka and then later in a FW.
He strafed many a tank to death from a n aircraft, albeit with special purpose canon.
He was also shot down something over thiry times by enemy ground fire.
It's an excellent read if you can find it.
-
P-47s can kill Tigers with their 50s. It was shown on the History Channel.:p :rolleyes:
-
I suppose the Jug's incendiary .50 rounds could set the Tigers fuel-leaky rear end on fire.
I wonder if the .30 cal pintle guns on any gv had incendiary rounds?
-
Rasker,
Just venturing a guess here, but I think he is being sarcastic.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Rasker,
Just venturing a guess here, but I think he is being sarcastic.
Crumpp
Having some fun, since someone always comes up with the 50s richocheting into the belly of the Tiger. How they managed to penetrate the 1" steel in the belly is the question.:) At the angle the bullet would hit, they would have to penetrate 3"-4" of steel.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Having some fun, since someone always comes up with the 50s richocheting into the belly of the Tiger.
Hey now! I'm already fishing that stream! lol
-Sik
-
Someone should model a gun that would light matches and shoot them at that fuel-leaky rear end with a rubber band ;)
OTOH, I wonder if the Tigers ever encountered napalm, mwaahaahaa!