Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Waffle on October 15, 2004, 05:14:15 PM
-
and folks whining about the ju87g killing tanks...Uh - hello? 75 MMs :)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/1.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/2.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/3.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/4.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/5.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/6.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/7.jpg)
-
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/8.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/9.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/hs129/10.jpg)
-
You can get HT into trouble posting full pages of copy righted material. A few other BBS were shut down for posting such things.
For that matter unsourced images can do the same and as well as documents.
Just because you have a copy doesn't mean your own the rights.
Besides that the Hs 129 adds nothing to the game. Its slow, under powered and will be a death trap.
If we prioritize our suggestions based on what is need for ToD and not things that just seem 'cool' HTC maybe more encouraged to fill gaps in the planeset leading to a better level of gameplay (at least for ToD). Just look what they are running for a late '43 ETO in the CT this week.
For instance HT has said the 1st tod theater will be a western ETO 8th AF set up.
The B24 fits in well.
What else do we need to make a good ETO?
Early variants of the P38, Early Variants of the P47 (C model?) A later war Spit 9.
190A-6 or 7
A G-14 ...
For the Eastern Front the whole of the VVS AF is just about missing.
Not to mention the Paciific.
I think to be helpful each of us can look at our favorites and decide how they help the game not just ourselves.
-
Wotan - "help the game than help ourselves"..lmao.
The game "needs" alot of stuff...
Over 800 hs 129 were produced, just because it you think "it doesn't add anything to the game" doesn't make it a viable plane, or one that others think would be a viable plane. They were doing what they were designed for - killing tanks up untill the end of the war. Produced in fair numbers and different versions.
-
I know all about Hs 129, it will still be a pointless addition and not improve gameplay at all.
It adds nothing for ToD.
It wont add anything toward toward the CT and events.
It wont even be used that much in the main because they are any number aircraft better suited to tank busting. Event the Il2 and Hurri 2d dont get used that.
It will be a hangar queen.
We are better off with early 38s, early jugs etc...
If you cant see that its because you are blinded by your own 'wants'. I never flew allied planes in AH. Never flew a 38. But I can see that its needed. Far more so then the Hs-129. It took 4+ plus years to get the planeset AH has now. There's no need to clutter up the planeset with useless aircraft.
-
not bothering commenting....
sounds as if you have your own agenda.
-
You make a post suggesting a plane and I counter with my opinion.
Some agenda...
-
Look
- this is going off on the wrong foot. The reason I posted these articles is , number 1 - they're are good reading for the aviation historian. 2 - also out of print - 3 - as other options instead of more 38s, p47s, ju87s... ect..
Honestly, I would like to see more pre/early war planes in here. Heck even a ms406, Polikarpov i-153, Arsenal VG-33, Fairey Firefly and Barracuda, maybe a Halifax , RE2001.. even a p36 Hawk.
Yes, I would love to see more early birds in here...and some of the lesser know birds that were fighting before the US joined the War and before we were sending over p51's.
If there is an official ok from the publisher, i will post more of these out of print articles for discussion / information purposes only.
-
"Not popular with its pilots, the Hs 129 was underpowered, unhandy and unreliable, the last fault of the engines"
from Mike Spick: Luftwaffe Bomber Aces, Greenhill Books 2001, ISBN 1-85367-444-3, p. 231.
That's the most recent book I've read on them, lots of other books give that info too. But they were used mostly on the Russian front (with the BK 3.7, some units with the 75mm Pak 40L?), I'd much rather see some other planes added first.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Look
- this is going off on the wrong foot. The reason I posted these articles is , number 1 - they're are good reading for the aviation historian. 2 - also out of print - 3 - as other options instead of more 38s, p47s, ju87s... ect..
Honestly, I would like to see more pre/early war planes in here. Heck even a ms406, Polikarpov i-153, Arsenal VG-33, Fairey Firefly and Barracuda, maybe a Halifax , RE2001.. even a p36 Hawk.
Yes, I would love to see more early birds in here...and some of the lesser know birds that were fighting before the US joined the War and before we were sending over p51's.
If there is an official ok from the publisher, i will post more of these out of print articles for discussion / information purposes only.
It was a great read. My point in cautioning you is that there have been other BBS's threatened with legal action and boards closed as a result of posting copyrighted material with out permission.
Second suppose another fellow comes along and sees this (which you may or may not have permission to post in full) and decides to scan some of his books, then some one else does. It opens the door for all sorts of issues. That's why I made my post in both your Hs-129 thread and the Mig 3 thread so others would see it.
I would like all ww2 era planes to be modeled but we need to be serious. Understanding that it has taken 4 years to get where AH is today I think there are more 'important' or more 'needed' aircraft then say a p36 Hawk.
With ToD on the way the current holes in the plane set will get more attention as HT tries to put together theaters .If HT’s goal is to attract a new type of customer toward ToD then we need to understand that folks who are more inclined to this type of game structure aren’t going to hang around very long if every theater is some make believe set up using incorrect planes from various eras.
An early 38, even though I will never fly it, makes more sense in terms of what it adds to ToD and to events and the CT. As I said just look what the CT has to do to run a '43 setup. It needs to use all '44 US planes.
So I am not saying never model the Hs-129, hell I would fly it, but I just think there are large holes in the plane set that have a direct impact on the type of game play we all want from ToD and events and in the CT.
I was not crapping on you suggestion just to start a flame war. I just wanted to show that even though some planes maybe boring (another 38 for 1) we still need it far more then a plane like the Hs-129.
YMMV :p
-
shut up wotan
-
I'd much rather have a Me410 with a few weapon configurations.
7 210 mm Rockets
2 37 mm (Same guns as the Ju87G I think)
1 50 mm (Same gun as Me 262 I think)
Much better performance and look then Ju87 or Hs129 too.
-
I always thought the Hs129 looks like a duck. That head on pic looks like it's going to scream AFLAC!!!!!!!! any second. :D
-
shut up wotan
Yep. Be a fun plane to fly and do some tank bustin in.
Crumpp
-
woohoo!! a plane you cant see out of!!
why not close your eyes, spawn a panzer and fire the 75mm in that (or whatever the hell it is). you can pretend you are in a Hs129!!
Or jump off a cliff in one, it would probably fly better too..
-
I guess you can count on one hand the number of people here who -want- tank-busters. Me being one of them. And this post is an excelent example of such.
-
Originally posted by Tails
I guess you can count on one hand the number of people here who -want- tank-busters. Me being one of them. And this post is an excelent example of such.
i like tankbusters.. i love Hurricane IID's.. i just dont want that tankbuster.
-
What's so bad about it? It has a spare engine, a -huge- gun, and crap visibility to compensate. Sounds like a balanced winner to me.
-
i just dont want that tankbuster.
So why rain on others fun??
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So why rain on others fun??
Crumpp
i was only joking. sorry. was only mocking the pilots view from it
The stuka would be much more funn'er!
-
Look like a german version of a Beaufighter.
but OK OK. If i can´t have my my Beau.
-
is seems that the current trend is favoring GVs (IE look at all the GV kills)
i think adding more potent tank busters will swing the balance back to planes. and make AH aces HIGH once again
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yep. Be a fun plane to fly and do some tank bustin in.
Crumpp
Tanks busting? Any .50 cal or Hizooka armed aircraft can 'tank bust'. Any plane with a bomb can be a ‘tank buster’. There is no 'Hs 129' gap in the plane set.
As I said just because a few folks think it's a 'cool' plane (and it is) doesn't mean it’s needed. There are many holes in the plane set. Filling any number of which would actually help improve game play in events, CT, and the upcoming ToD.
Adding the Hs 129 doesn't fill any of them.
I believe that it is important when people request a favorite plane to keep in mind that it took 4 years to get the planes AH has now. How much longer do we want to wait for an earlier p38? An earlier '38 is needed. It can be plugged into the CT and events right now.
The Hs 129 can't. There is no 'plane set' to do an eastern front set up. Even late war events like Niemen and Kurland had huge holes in the plane set. The only place where the Hs 129 will get any use at all is in the main. But there are better aircraft for 'tank busting'. The Hs 129 is slow large target that will make surviving in one almost impossible in the main setting. Besides the occasional 'let me give the Hs 129 a try' it will be a hangar queen. Even the IL2 in AH doesn't get used that much.
You see what they got to do in the CT to put a '43 ETO up. Use all '44 era planes. Imagine ToD '43 ETO with all p38ls, D11’s and P51bs, vs. the G-6...
With a match up like that no new player will do that for long. I think it’s important to point that out. Even in the ‘we need a p39’ thread I said the same thing I said here. I am not picking on the guys suggestion.
I don’t think I will be shutting any time soon in relation to such suggestions. I just don’t think planes like this add anything to the game right now. You can disagree all you want and argue as such. but I will argue my point as well.
-
Tanks busting? Any .50 cal or Hizooka armed aircraft can 'tank bust'. Any plane with a bomb can be a ‘tank buster’. There is no 'Hs 129' gap in the plane set.
Hitech will make his own decisions about the planeset. Your not informing anyone of anything they do not already know. It's a matter of where to start. You think the "P38F" is the start point. I am sure their are others who would beg to differ. Facts are it is in HTC's hand and the planesets need alot of work to fill the gaps for a historical lineup.
I am sure Hitech is not going to rush into this thread, loose focus, drop everything, and start working on the Hs 129. And I don't think anyone is claiming it needs to be done NOW. It would be nice to see it on the long range agenda.
The Luftwaffe will need a dedicated Tankbuster for TOD eventually. The Ju 87 does not offer any real advantages over the Hs 129 and FW-190 does not have the PB rockets. It is as good a candidate as any when it comes time. In fact, it might be better. It certainly was better armoured than the Ju 87 and just as effective on tanks.
I just don’t think planes like this add anything to the game right now.
There is the problem, Wotan. Read back over the thread, no one is saying add it in right now.
Thanks Waffle for posting the article. Great read!
Crumpp
-
Read up on "fair use" of copyrighted material. I don't like FUD being spead about. Essentially if you are not depriving the copyright owner of income, you are in the clear. They may ask you to remove it, and you should do so. But they can't sue you for damages if there are none.
g00b
http://fairuse.stanford.edu (http://fairuse.stanford.edu)
-
Fair use or not, boards have been shut down because of it before.
-
Wotan,
The AH armor model was changed a few patches ago. The .50 cal no longer has any chance of killing a Pamzer or Tiger. The Hispano can kill the engine or turret on the Panzer IV H if it is fired from 300 yards in a 45° dive. It cannot hurt the Tiger I and will not be able to hurt the T-34/76.
The only effective aircraft in AH fro killing tanks with guns is now the IL-2. The Hurri IID is simply too hard to use and rarely gets any kills.
Your claim about .50s and Hispanos is FUD at this point.
-
If it is truly "fair use" someone can not take action against a forums owner/operator. If it is not truly "fair use" than they should remove the offending material if notified. In neither case is a forums owner/operator liable for damages unless they are depriving the copyright owner of income.
I don't think that's what's happening here. I see someone sharing some info with his friends for personal use. This is why they still allow photo-copiers in libraries. It's unfortunate that you are willing to give up your rights, and encourage others too as well, out of fear.
g00b
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
--- Benjamin Franklin
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hitech will make his own decisions about the planeset. Your not informing anyone of anything they do not already know. It's a matter of where to start. You think the "P38F" is the start point. I am sure their are others who would beg to differ. Facts are it is in HTC's hand and the planesets need alot of work to fill the gaps for a historical lineup.
I am sure Hitech is not going to rush into this thread, loose focus, drop everything, and start working on the Hs 129. And I don't think anyone is claiming it needs to be done NOW. It would be nice to see it on the long range agenda.
The Luftwaffe will need a dedicated Tankbuster for TOD eventually. The Ju 87 does not offer any real advantages over the Hs 129 and FW-190 does not have the PB rockets. It is as good a candidate as any when it comes time. In fact, it might be better. It certainly was better armoured than the Ju 87 and just as effective on tanks.
There is the problem, Wotan. Read back over the thread, no one is saying add it in right now.
Thanks Waffle for posting the article. Great read!
Crumpp
First there have been 1000 suggestions for planes over the years. Some of them good; some bad. Posting an opposite position shows that not everyone agrees.
In the latest news Pyro said:
we need to think about what planes/vehicles we’ll be doing next.
Several other threads have popped up following this news with suggestions. Whether or not HTC will be swayed by any of these suggestions is open. You can't claim to know any more then the rest of us.
However, if they decide to look at what the guys in the community are asking for (like the Ki-84 and B24 requests seemed to have influenced them) then there's nothing wrong with offering a counter position.
My opinioned reply to waffle's suggestion was:
"It’s not a good choice for a plane (now or in the near future). There’s too much other stuff that needs to be modeled. After 4 years look the planes we have and look at the planes we need."
I don't care whether you agree with my opinion or not. You quoted a guy telling me to 'shut up'. Waffle stated his opinion, I stated my mine. It doesn't matter who you agree with it's not going to stop me from replying. That was the point of my reply to you.
FYI:
I used the '38 as an example not as a request. The '38 is just an obvious choice if HT is going to do an ETO set up for the 1st ToD theater. I can think of about 10 other aircraft depending on the theater.
Just like your claim that A-8s were serialized with GM-1 and MW-50, and C3 was never used in the D9, I am sure you will learn at some point that PB rockets were extremely rare and not widely used on the 190. But that’s another thread.
Goob,
Fair use generally doesn't mean you can scan whole books, articles etc and put on them in full on the internet.
Waffle says he has permission, if so great. Either way my caution is valid. As I said other forums have been closed for copy right issues. Of the 4 years I have been in AH this is the 1st time I have seen anyone post full scanned articles on this forum and thought it wise to pass on a word of caution. Take it with a grain of salt.
The problem posting on an open forum is it goes beyond sharing with friends for personal use. Everyone and anyone can come here and save those scans. A few pages here and there maybe ok.
Karnak,
The last thing I did before I left AH was strafe a p4 with a D11 and knocked its turret out. This was on Furball Island on the NDisles. There has not been an update since then. They do not 'explode' mbt's any more; that changed back in AH1.
-
Just like your claim that A-8s were serialized with GM-1 and MW-50, and C3 was never used in the D9, I am sure you will learn at some point that PB rockets were extremely rare and not widely used on the 190. But that’s another thread.
Sure glad your here to keep us all straight, Wotan!
:aok
Crumpp
-
I don't care anything about keeping you 'straight'. It's more entertaining watching you twisting yourself into a knot.
Just like that thread where you and Gruen spent 3 pages insulting each other only for you to finally admit you were wrong. As Gruen said he's not the first guy to notice that about you. I bet he won't be the last.
We can just save this for your 'where's our PB1's and 2's...' thread.
-
Just like that thread where you and Gruen spent 3 pages insulting each other only for you to finally admit you were wrong.
I think you need reread that thread. You have a great way with twisting events to suit your world.
Just like the:
I was not crapping on you suggestion just to start a flame war.
BS your trying to throw around. If you were not trying to start a flame war then you should have used a little tact.
So:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1097980599_shuttfup.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Ahhhhhh wotox, what a human being. :D For a guy who doesn't play you sure do bother people enough don't cha?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The only effective aircraft in AH fro killing tanks with guns is now the IL-2. The Hurri IID is simply too hard to use and rarely gets any kills.
I'm surprised at that. In RL, the Il-2's main weapons against tanks were rockets and bombs - the VYa-23 most were armed with could only penetrate 25-30mm so was really only effective against lightly-armoured tanks. OTOH, the Hurri's 40mm guns could penetrate 50+mm and achieved a good scoresheet - until the Tiger came along.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Tony,
So far as I know there are no aircraft guns in this game that do more than scratch the paint on the Tiger. I hear some players are able to use the Hurri IID against it by doing nearly suicidal dives to hit it in the decking. Nobody in reality would have tried those manuvers, but nobody dies here so....
With the Il-2 it can get through the 12mm deck armor and 20mm rear armor of the Panzer IV H. That is about the limit of where it can get through. The Hurricane IID can as well, but it is much more vulnerable to ground fire and has a very limited supply of ammo. Most people prefer the Il-2 for that reason. Bombs and rockets first, then cannon.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
- 3 - as other options instead of more 38s, p47s, ju87s... ect..
I wouldn't mind seeing some of the more 'exotic' aircraft that flew in the war like the ME410 and planes like that before we get any new P-38s. As long as it doesn't delay the revamping of the current P-38 graphical model to AH2 standards.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I think you need reread that thread. You have a great way with twisting events to suit your world.
GH:
And I am still offended that you did not disclose the fact that K4 data was from an early test that leacked MW50. In other words I am offended because the other day it seemed to me that you tried to decieve me with faulty data.
It went like that back and forth for atleast a whole page if not more.
Finally you end up acknowledging what GH had claimed:
Lastly, for making the mistake of not catching the "climb and combat power"?
Any one can read the thread the themselves.
Quoting GH again:
Other people are noting that they have problems with the way you post infrmation, problems that lead them to doubt yoiur integrity.
Unlike you I no interest in 'shutting any one up' especially you. It's too much fun watching.
BS your trying to throw around. If you were not trying to start a flame war then you should have used a little tact.
I said exactly what I meant and in clear language and with out any insult.
I'll quote it for you...
Besides that the Hs 129 adds nothing to the game. Its slow, under powered and will be a death trap.
If we prioritize our suggestions based on what is need for ToD and not things that just seem 'cool' HTC maybe more encouraged to fill gaps in the planeset leading to a better level of gameplay (at least for ToD). Just look what they are running for a late '43 ETO in the CT this week.
How you or anyone choses to interpret that is not my concern. I am not responsible for your 'feelings'. "Tact' is for politicians.
Anyway don't you have some fiction book to write?
Storch,
You better not stray to far from the CT they might miss your complaining.
-
Hi Tony,
>I'm surprised at that. In RL, the Il-2's main weapons against tanks were rockets and bombs - the VYa-23 most were armed with could only penetrate 25-30mm so was really only effective against lightly-armoured tanks. OTOH, the Hurri's 40mm guns could penetrate 50+mm and achieved a good scoresheet - until the Tiger came along.
It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.
From Rudel's "Stuka":
"The sight of these masses of tanks reminds me of my cannon-carrying aircraft of the experimental unit, which I have brought with me from the Crimea. With this enormous target of enemy tanks it should be possible to try it out. It is true the flak defences covering the Soviet tank units are very heavy, but I say to myself that both groups are facing each other at a distance of 1200 to 1800 yards, and unless I am brought down like a stone by a direct hit by flak it must always be possible to crash-land the damaged aircraft in our own tank lines. The first flight therefore flies with bombs behind me in the only cannon-carrying aeroplane. So the attempt is made.
In the first attack four tanks explode under the hammer blows of my cannons; by the evening the total rises to twelve. We are all seized with a kind of passion for the chase from the glorious feeling of having saved much German bloodshed with every tank destroyed.
After the first day the fitters have their hands full, for the aircraft have been heavily damaged by flak. The life of such an aeroplane will always be limited. But the main thing is: the evil spell is broken, and in this aircraft we possess a weapon which can speedily be employed everywhere and is capable of dealing successfully with the formidable numbers of Soviet tanks. There is great rejoicing in the flight, the squadron, the wing and the group over this newly-gained discovery and its practical confirmation."
However, Rudel confirms that it's only possible to attack tanks outside the statical front, which is too well protected by AAA, and mentions that the cannon Stukas usually have to be escorted by bomb-carrying Stukas to take out the AAA in the vicinity of the attacked tanks as well as to foil attacks by fighters.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.
That is interesting, Hohun. I had heard the opposite.
Tanks in WWII were very hard to kill from the air period. IIRC there was a report the USAAF did as part of their after action review. It said a rather ridiculously low number of tanks were actually destroyed from the air.
Anyway here is the report on the effectiveness of 20mm vs. 40 mm:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1098017616_20mmapvspz1.jpg)
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is interesting, Hohun. I had heard the opposite.
Tanks in WWII were very hard to kill from the air period. IIRC there was a report the USAAF did as part of their after action review. It said a rather ridiculously low number of tanks were actually destroyed from the air.
Crumpp
Argh????
Did not Henning not say that tanks were very hard to kill with bombs?
quote: It seems that tanks were very hard to kill with boms in real life.
So what is this opposite you heard of?
-
nice document crumpp.
Am i right in thinking that although aircraft may not be that good at killing the armour, they were very good at killing the support units?
So although the armour may be intact, if you destroy all their logisitics the armoured unit becomes useless?
-
Furball,
you might find this thread interesting, and entertaining.
http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3601
Another link to look at http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
-
Am i right in thinking that although aircraft may not be that good at killing the armour, they were very good at killing the support units?
I think your right Furball. There were very effective on troops in the open and light skinned vehicles. If you ever watch guncamera footage, it was not hard to walk your fire and be extremely accurate.
If you can't get gas and ammo a tank is worthless.
Crumpp
-
I've seen gun camera films of Tempests starfing Vehicles, - quite impressive, - vehicles blew up!
I have one account of a Spitfire disabling a Tiger (rather than a panzer) with cannon fire. Bullets bounced under the tank somehow and disabled it. The tank was found abandoned in an undrivable state.
(I think some of the crew had written "Bravo Tommy" on it actually)
I also remember a tale where a P51 pilot spotted a tank train. He dived in and put the tractor out. Rocket firin Tiffies took care of the rest. IMHO they might really have destroyed it, sincer the train was sropped, tanks were on top of the wagons, nice, still and elevated, and hardly any flak.....so..
But still, to kill a tank properly you either need a direct hit on a soft spot with an ap rocket, or almost a direct hit with a bomb, preferably no less than 500 lbs.
-
Ok... How about the Ju 88P-1 with 75-mm (2.95 in) PaK 40 cannon, a 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 81 forward-firing machine-gun being used by the pilot for aiming the cannon. The usual ventral and dorsal rear-firing machine guns were carried for defence. Other sub-variants with different forward-firing cannon were the Ju 88P-2 and Ju 88P-3 (two 37 mm BK cannon) and the Ju 88P-4 (one 50 mm BK5 cannon). Think what a formation of these could do.:aok(http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/ju88p-f.jpg)
-
I read in a past issue of Air and Space about a Laotian-Hmong pilot name Li Lyu who flew T-28Ds in that conflict and was credited with approximately 100 T76 kills utilizing the T-28 and 500lb GP iron bombs. It was reported that in one instance he put the 500lb through the open cupola hatch, literally on the tank commander's head. The odds eventually caught up with him and he was killed after his plane was hit by ground fire. I'll see if I still have that issue lying around somewhere. However one need look no further than Hans Rudel for an example. In 2530 sorties he destroyed 519 Soviet tanks, mostly in a Ju-87.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Anyway here is the report on the effectiveness of 20mm vs. 40 mm:
The 20mm AP Mk III referred to was an experimental tungsten-cored ammo, never issued for service.
TW
-
The 20mm AP Mk III referred to was an experimental tungsten-cored ammo, never issued for service.
Interesting. I was not impressed with 20mm performance from that report in the first place.
Crumpp
-
I have one account of a Spitfire disabling a Tiger (rather than a panzer) with cannon fire. Bullets bounced under the tank somehow and disabled it.
'Urban myth'. Even the under side of the tiger was well amored. Some US jug pilots claimed the same thing with .50 cals.
The way tanks were stopped from the air was by destroying their support vehicles.
Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront' (http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/rocket.txt)
Tony,
Do know the RAF hispano 'belting' for ground attack missions? Did they still carry HE?
-
I have the story on Print from first hand.
Will type it up for you;)
Not a myth....
(Might have been a Panzer though)
-
Originally posted by Angus
I have the story on Print from first hand.
Will type it up for you;)
Not a myth....
(Might have been a Panzer though)
From which source - the German or the Allied side? And was it corroborated or just the word of one man?
Consider the following facts:
1. The fighter would have to bounce bullets or shells off the road at the same angle at which they would strike the underside of the tank. For them to bounce off the road but penetrate the tank, the road would have to be harder than the tank's armour.
2. The penetration of projectiles falls off sharply as the angle of attack on the armour reduces. For instance, the .5 AP could penetrate around 20-25mm maximum if hitting at 90 degrees, but only 5mm if hitting at 30 degrees - a typical diving attack angle.
3. Striking the road would destabilise the bullets so they would no longer strike point-first, greatly reducing their penetration.
4. The armour underneath tanks was much the same thickness as the armour on top, i.e. at least 10mm. So the chance of penetration would actually be better with a straightforward attack on the top surface - and that was very low.
5. All sorts of impossible things were solemnly reported by first-hand witnesses in WW2. Observations made from a cramped, vibrating aircraft with poor visibility which was flashing past at high speed while the pilot was supercharged with adrenaline are not, shall we say, the most reliable you will find.
TW
-
Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."
So there you go. Not really the urban myth, - doesn't get much clearer than this.
I'd however take the "Tiger" definition with a grain of salt,- could have been a Panzer of some sort, fighter pilots were maybe not the experts in recognizing tanks.
But a burnt out tank with "Bravo RAF" on the hull, hehehe.
BTW, Duncan-Smith was one of if not THE last Spitfire pilots to fire it's guns in anger,,,,,in Korea I belive.
Think it was a rocket equipped Seafire, flying off carrier.
Now again, just from memory, but the above was also pretty close to how I remembered it. :D
-
Oh, Tony, just saw your post.
Forgot something, - D.S. was by that time a ground attack expert, working closely with ground troops in the close support business.
There was also something that just hit me.
There are figures with muzzle velocity and penetration and so on.
A high speed strafing dive will increase the speed of the bullet by some 300 feet per second, easily.
(that is a gentle dive with mere 220 mph)
-
It doesn’t matter if the pilot telling the story believed it, that's not evidence. Just re-read the points Tony mentioned. It doesn’t matter how fast the aircraft was moving. Once the round struck the ground it loses energy, becomes deformed and destabilizes the bullet.
There were battlefield surveys (see the link I provide above) of abandoned and destroyed tanks. None were ever found knocked out by a round entering underneath.
Some Jug pilots have said the same about .50 cals. I read one account where a jug pilot claimed to have entombed a tank crew by spraying it with 50 cals and the resulting strikes 'welded' them in by hitting the hatch rim. It's nonsense as well.
Also, please give the original source for your recollection.
-
he more than likely got lucky and had a few bullets going through a peice of armour that had been damaged by enemy tank fire or some such. more likely than bullets bouncing off the tarmac.
anmd before the discussion on it goes any further, read through the MANY previous things on the same thing.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."
So there you go. Not really the urban myth, - doesn't get much clearer than this.
I'd however take the "Tiger" definition with a grain of salt,- could have been a Panzer of some sort, fighter pilots were maybe not the experts in recognizing tanks.
But a burnt out tank with "Bravo RAF" on the hull, hehehe.
BTW, Duncan-Smith was one of if not THE last Spitfire pilots to fire it's guns in anger,,,,,in Korea I belive.
Think it was a rocket equipped Seafire, flying off carrier.
Now again, just from memory, but the above was also pretty close to how I remembered it. :D
Bud Anderson mentioned at the WB Con in '98 that there were a couple in his squadron that scored kills on tanks the same way because of the minimul armor protection on the belly of the tank.
ack-ack
-
The bottom of a Tiger was too thick for any 20mm cannon to resonably penetrate in a direct hit let alone a high angle shot from a slowed, destabilized and deformed round after it bounces from the ground. Those are the facts. This is one of the strangest theories/myths around, even moreso because the facts to discount it are so easy to come by. And if any of you go and ask:
"But are you saying our childhood pilot heros are lying?"
My answer is no, but I am saying they are wrong.
If, if, this incident happened at all the only possibility is that the fuel was set on fire by shells coming in through the rear deck cooling grills and hitting the fuel tanks and radiators under them. This was a real vulnerability, but even the odds of this were pretty minimal.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If, if, this incident happened at all the only possibility is that the fuel was set on fire by shells coming in through the rear deck cooling grills and hitting the fuel tanks and radiators under them. This was a real vulnerability, but even the odds of this were pretty minimal.
I would agree with this. In this case, given they drove out to the wreck to confirm it, it would seem that the minimal odds were beaten. Even though the pilot is wrong in how he thought he'd done it, he was right in calling it "pure luck, but very satisfying."
I have never understood any way to get the physics to work for bouncing belly penetrations. It just can't happen.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I would agree with this. In this case, given they drove out to the wreck to confirm it, it would seem that the minimal odds were beaten. Even though the pilot is wrong in how he thought he'd done it, he was right in calling it "pure luck, but very satisfying."
I have never understood any way to get the physics to work for bouncing belly penetrations. It just can't happen.
Agree also - this is by far the most likely explanation. It was not impossible for 20mm cannon and .5 inch MGs to take out tanks in this way, just very improbable - otherwise they would have been doing it all the time and wouldn't have needed to bother with rockets and bombs.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion
forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
There was an access hatch in the bottom of the engine compartment. If this had been left off, then it is possible a 20mm could have beat the odds and entered the compartment.
This hatch can be seen in the drawing on pg 205 of the book I mentioned earlier.
Have a look at this site > 1/6 and 1/8 operating models. http://www.interdacom.ru/~tanks
-
If the tank was a burned-out wreck, it would be very hard for any casual observer to determine what set it on fire.
TW
-
with "Bravo RAF" in the soot of the hull?
found by the pilot where he reported it?
I have little doubt he set fire to a tank.
However, how, and what tank it was definately, and so on I'd take with a grain of salt.
How?
maybe incendiaries made their way through the top hatch...nasty...
maybe the tank was mounted with external fuel on the back (seen pics of that). Easily set on fire.
maybe the tanks condition was not up to standard?
I'd go for that it was not a Tiger anyway, but I have little doubt of the event.
-
I wasn't doubting that the RAF attack set it on fire - merely that the observers could have known exactly how this happened. Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO.
TW
-
Id like the HS129, but as seen below i would prefer the ME-410.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
It doesn’t matter if the pilot telling the story believed it, that's not evidence. Just re-read the points Tony mentioned. It doesn’t matter how fast the aircraft was moving. Once the round struck the ground it loses energy, becomes deformed and destabilizes the bullet.
There were battlefield surveys (see the link I provide above) of abandoned and destroyed tanks. None were ever found knocked out by a round entering underneath.
Some Jug pilots have said the same about .50 cals. I read one account where a jug pilot claimed to have entombed a tank crew by spraying it with 50 cals and the resulting strikes 'welded' them in by hitting the hatch rim. It's nonsense as well.
Also, please give the original source for your recollection.
Actually the account makes perfect sense if you know anything about the tiger tank. The tank was known for ongoing leaks in fuel and hydrolics...perfectly possible for a round to spark a fire in that manner. Obviously since they were diesel engines its a bit tougher than US tanks which used gasoline but still not improbable at all. Obviously the exception that proves the rule but I'm amazed how easily you discount anything you disagree with....
-
You all seem to be assuming that penatration is a requirement here. no one will argue that molitov cocktails can kill tanks...an attack on the rear of any armoured vehicle provides a real (but obviously small) chance of generating a fire thru a variety of means. It can be as simple as hitting a jerry can strapped to the back of the tank, or igniting a grease fire in the rear sprocket or igniting petrol from an existing leak. The chances of a richochet penetrating armour (in that manner) is 0.00. However, the chances of an impact on the rear hemisphere of the tank causing a catostrophic event are near zero...as an example...even if the majority of rounds are seen to go "under" a tank a single tracer round could impact the engine grill and start a fire in the engine compartment (we'll use the dirty rag theory here:))...pilot sees smoke and thinks he lit up the underside...well some handsomehunk left a rag in the engine compartment and his 1 in a million golden bb lit it off....
-
Did all the Tigers have Diesels? All german tanks perhaps?
Anyway, this here:
"Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO. "
That's why I thought it would probably not be a Tiger.
Nice Point Humble, BTW.
Hot engine oil and hydraulic oil burn quite well once their at it....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Did all the Tigers have Diesels? All german tanks perhaps?
Anyway, this here:
"Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO. "
That's why I thought it would probably not be a Tiger.
Nice Point Humble, BTW.
Hot engine oil and hydraulic oil burn quite well once their at it....
The 21 l. Maybach HL 210 P 45 of the Tiger used gasoline.
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually the account makes perfect sense if you know anything about the tiger tank. The tank was known for ongoing leaks in fuel and hydrolics...perfectly possible for a round to spark a fire in that manner. Obviously since they were diesel engines its a bit tougher than US tanks which used gasoline but still not improbable at all. Obviously the exception that proves the rule but I'm amazed how easily you discount anything you disagree with....
We are talking about bouncing rounds off the ground. That makes no sense at all.
Let's deal with that and not make unfounded rationalizations on what 'could have happened'.
I am specific in my criticism in that its a 'war time Myth' as told by some pilots that they bounced rounds off the ground and knocked out tanks by penetrating the 'soft under belly'.
Tony covered all the reasons why that is totally improbrable. Just 'boucing a round off the ground' alone is questionable.
Angus hasn't provided the opriginal source and only typed the account from recollection. Trying to put together a scenario based on 'what might have really happened' is pointless.
You can make all the guesses you want, none of them are 'proof'.
Suppose the crew abandoned the tank and then burnt it out themselves. There are plenty examples of crews abandoning perfectly functional tanks and destroying them.
See the link I provided above.
-
Much quoted Earl (who gives a day by day diary of his war years on bigweek) was asked if he ever knew of any one killing tanks by bouncing bullets into the under belly.
Earl flew p39's and P47's as well as having test/patrol time in p51's and P 38's
He said he never heard or knew of any one who had done it but had heard the rumour...........
He said it was common practice to steer rounds into a ground vehicle by firing early and leading the dust trail into it.
There was plentiful ignorant theory during WWII just as there is about modern warfare.........
-
Hey there Wotan:
"Angus hasn't provided the opriginal source and only typed the account from recollection. Trying to put together a scenario based on 'what might have really happened' is pointless. "
I typed the account straight out of the book. My first round was from recollection which proved to be rather accurate anyway.
ISBN:0 09 950490 1
Happy now?
-
You haven't listed the name of any book that I see. I can find it with the ISBN number now but I just re-read your posts and don't see any source listed or any book mentioned.
Unless I am missing something...
-
Duncan Smith's Autobigography
"Spitfire into battle"
-
(1) If the copyright is registered, as it almost certainly is, you can be subject to criminal as well as civil penatlies (lost profits).
(2) A lawyer can certainly make the argument that posting an entire article on a website where it can be downloaded a gazillion times does deprive the copyright owner of income. It may or may not hold up in court, but it will force you to hire your own attorney...
(3) It is far from clear that the fair use exception would apply to posting entire articles to a website. I doubt it would.
-Blogs
Originally posted by g00b
Read up on "fair use" of copyrighted material. I don't like FUD being spead about. Essentially if you are not depriving the copyright owner of income, you are in the clear. They may ask you to remove it, and you should do so. But they can't sue you for damages if there are none.
g00b
http://fairuse.stanford.edu (http://fairuse.stanford.edu)
-
The following can be found on the Stanford website:
Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the copyright owner. Transferring information to and from a website can be done in a few ways. A user can take information from a website by copying or downloading. Or, material can be placed (sometimes called "uploaded" or "posted") from a user's computer onto the website. Any time copyrighted information is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the owner, the owner may have a copyright infringement claim against the copier, the website or both. We'll discuss how to limit liability and what to do if confronted by an angry rights holder...
Originally posted by g00b
Read up on "fair use" of copyrighted material. I don't like FUD being spead about. Essentially if you are not depriving the copyright owner of income, you are in the clear. They may ask you to remove it, and you should do so. But they can't sue you for damages if there are none.
g00b
http://fairuse.stanford.edu (http://fairuse.stanford.edu)
-
Ahhh, silly amreeeganz, always on the lawsuit hunt.....
-
well, I got "official" word -
What they said was basically that they cant "open the floodgates" due to the copyright advice they have been given and grant full use permission, as that would set a precedent. But they said the use and purpose of these postings were fine. So it leaves me a little confused as to the fact that they don't "officially want to open up a can of copyright worms", but nor are they saying "no - please remove all images, page layouts"
Seems like a touchy subject..
as for now I will let it be.
-
Originally posted by g00b
If it is truly "fair use" someone can not take action against a forums owner/operator. If it is not truly "fair use" than they should remove the offending material if notified. In neither case is a forums owner/operator liable for damages unless they are depriving the copyright owner of income.
Copyright laws give the copyright owner all rights to their work.
Unauthorized use of text and photos is illegal, no matter if there is depriving income or not. Especially photographs are protected by this. The copyright owner can drag the violator into court if they choose to.
And if they want to charge not only the poster but also the forum, they can do it.
As mentioned here several times, that has been done. Some high quality boards, whole bloody discussion boards, have been closed down by authors or owners of photograph copyrights, when those have been posted in public discussion boards.
For example a photograph may have been sold for one time use in a magazine. This means that the photograph owner still owns the copyrights, the magazine just has permission to print it once in the article. Anybody else who wants to use the photo must again buy a printing permission for it. It could be so with these photos as well.
While you can use parts of texts/articles with "fair use", legally, photographs are by default always copyrighted and protected and cannot be repeated in any form.
The copyright laws are much harder than most usually believe. You can get yourself into trouble very easily, if the copyright holder wants to. I've seen it happen the hard way and have some experience on it myself too.
You just can't print/scan/publish on net whole articles or especially photos as you wish. There's always somebody who owns the rights.
That's just a rude legal notice. Personally I love reading these articles and if the publisher says it is ok to publish them, off you go. But the final say is still with the original writer and the owner of photo copyrights and they might have different opinion. They might want to still sell their work.
-
Yes, the copyright issue is a real pain when it comes to trying to find photos to illustrate books.
Three cheers for the US Government - it claims no copyright on material it owns, so official US photos can be used by anyone.
Some old photos may be so well known, and prints of them so widely distributed, that they are effectively in the public domain since no-one can claim exclusive ownership.
It's important to remember that there is a difference between copyright and publication rights. In 'Flying Guns', I used some illustrations from the Public Record Office. They do not claim copyright, but nonetheless charge a reproduction fee for the use in publications of illustrations which they own.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and Discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Actually, there is a fair use clause in all use of photocopying for all publications citing uses for educational demostration, informational purposes, and public viewing as long as:
a) Credit to the publisher and author is given
b) Pages used is identified
c) Date of the publication is highlighted with ISBN
Copyright laws are to protect the author and publisher from fraud, unauthorized use for the sake of robbing intellectual property.
For example, I couldn't copy HTC's user guide and put it into my book. If I was prepariing a report on help guides, I could take a portion of it, and cite it properly in my references.
Posting those images of those books is a grey area. They were for information purposes and the publisher would have to be able to prove that they cited loss of income. Most won't touch that issue cause it's free advertising and they also don't like to bit the hand that feeds them either.
-
There is an important distinction between how someone uses copyrighted material and how someone facilitates its distribution, i.e. through a web site. The fact that a person might use the material in a way that is consistent with fair use does not necessarily protect a person or company that makes another's property available for downloading by many others.
Case in point, more than a decade ago, it became very risky to make bulk packs of journal articles available for use by college students without prior consent of the copyright owners. That case went to the Supreme Court.
BTW the criminal penalties that apply to registered copyrights do not depend on the existence of lost profits.
-blogs
Originally posted by Mister Fork
Actually, there is a fair use clause in all use of photocopying for all publications citing uses for educational demostration, informational purposes, and public viewing as long as:
a) Credit to the publisher and author is given
b) Pages used is identified
c) Date of the publication is highlighted with ISBN
Copyright laws are to protect the author and publisher from fraud, unauthorized use for the sake of robbing intellectual property.
For example, I couldn't copy HTC's user guide and put it into my book. If I was prepariing a report on help guides, I could take a portion of it, and cite it properly in my references.
Posting those images of those books is a grey area. They were for information purposes and the publisher would have to be able to prove that they cited loss of income. Most won't touch that issue cause it's free advertising and they also don't like to bit the hand that feeds them either.
-
Here is my Hs129 for ya, and these images are copyrighted and you cannot use them without sending me $$$! :-)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tincan14/Wurger/LUFT/HS129B2-1.htm
Bazi