Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: red26 on June 05, 2006, 02:28:09 PM
-
Wich plane do you think was the best tank buster in WWII??:noid :O
-
From what I know IL2 hands down.....
-
P-47 :aok
-
HS-129B-3 with the 7.5 cm cannon underneath...lol
-
Ju87G
-
skyraider
-
Skyraider isn't a WW2 aircraft, silly.
-
(http://everquest2.247xtreme.com/albums/userpics/10028/ju87-plate5.jpg)
One of the gentlemen that flew this plane had over 500 tank kills in it. Tungsten rounds seemed to do well vs. the rear and top armor of the Soviet tanks.
I'd love to see the Henschel with the 75mm, if it had decent optics for busting up tanks from a bit further. Wasn't that plane (with the 7.5cm) also tested with a downward firing battery that shot at tanks as the aircraft flew over them?
The Kingcobra would also be up their as one of the more 'survivable' ground attack aircraft. 410mph top speed, great climb rate and not just a 37mm with a nice ammo load, but a set of 4 .50 cals to complement the cannon if someone came along that objected to you busting up tanks with your big gun.
-
B-52 :noid :noid :noid :t
-
According to Spielberg it's...
"Look sir! Our tankbusters!, P-51 Mustangs Sir"
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
The Kingcobra would also be up their as one of the more 'survivable' ground attack aircraft. 410mph top speed, great climb rate and not just a 37mm with a nice ammo load, but a set of 4 .50 cals to complement the cannon if someone came along that objected to you busting up tanks with your big gun.
The P39 was not a tank buster. The P63 was not a tank buster. The cannon was only good for air to air or "soft" ground targets. It was a simple HE round, not an armor-piercing round.
-
I'd go with the typhoon.:D
-
This might help to decide things: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
For the gunships, I'd vote for the Hs 129 + MK 103 without fighter opposition, or the Yak-9T with (yes, I know it wasn't generally used for tankbusting, but the gun was powerful enough)
With other weapons, I'd call it a draw between the Il-2 and the Ju 87, both dropping their cluster bombs (PTAB and SD 4H1 respectively).
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The P39 was not a tank buster. The P63 was not a tank buster. The cannon was only good for air to air or "soft" ground targets. It was a simple HE round, not an armor-piercing round.
"The M9 was a very different weapon. The large cartridge case gave the same HE round as the M4 a considerably higher muzzle velocity. One of the types of ammunition available was a 752g armour-piercing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 930m/s, and at a distance of 460m this penetrated 6cm of armour plate. At the same distance the M4 could penetrate only 2cm of armour."
The M9 in the P-63 would penetrate 2cm more armor than the typical tank buster in the IL-2, which was typically said to be able to bust through 4cm of plate. Unfortunately for the P-63, the Kingcobra was not deemed needed for the front since its performance was very close to the P-51D.
And yeah, I should have stuck to saying ground attack, not tank busting. So de-acking, bangin' up soft targets, towns...other aircraft (sorta like a pony with a cannon!). Unless of course we got the P-63D with the M9 version.
On a side note, what was the main difference between the RS-82 and 132 rockets on the IL-2? ...and tell me more about the cluster bombs that should be available for the IL-2 and the Stuka!!
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
The M9 in the P-63 would penetrate 2cm more armor than the typical tank buster in the IL-2, which was typically said to be able to bust through 4cm of plate.
Which Il-2 are we talking about here? Or more importantly, which gun?
-Sik
-
Would have to go with the Typhoon also. :aok
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Which Il-2 are we talking about here? Or more importantly, which gun?
-Sik
Sorry, the VYa, early model with the 152mm cartridge case (the weapon we have on our IL-2). In the same sentence though they talk about the 1942 NS-37, where they mention armor penetration-->it was this gun that they were referring to.
I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament. The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon. How effective could this really be when applied to AHII? Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament. The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon. How effective could this really be when applied to AHII? Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.
Well, depends on if someone wants multiple kills or just one. For just one brewed tank, 6 rnd/gun is enough (assuming they can keep the bird steady during repeated shots). With multiple kills per sortie in mind, that load would require some good aim and tactics.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
The M9 in the P-63 would penetrate 2cm more armor than the typical tank buster in the IL-2, which was typically said to be able to bust through 4cm of plate.
Unfortunately only one single P-63D prototype was fitted with the M9; the production jobs started with the M4, then later got the M10 (various improvements, but same poor ballistics).
On a side note, what was the main difference between the RS-82 and 132 rockets on the IL-2? ...and tell me more about the cluster bombs that should be available for the IL-2 and the Stuka!!
On the rockets:
Il-2s attacked with rockets and bombs as well as guns. They had eight Type RO rails underwing, which could take RS-82 unguided air-to-ground rockets. These were 82 mm in diameter, 560 mm long and carried a 585 g warhead. They were initially developed for air-to-air fighting in the late 1930s but proved insufficiently accurate for that role, so were switched to ground attack. During early 1942 the RS-132 rocket was introduced, 132 mm in diameter, 864 mm long and with a 2.25 kg warhead. Later in the same year improved RBS-82 and RBS-132 rockets, with anti-tank (presumably hollow-charge) warheads, became available.
Although a direct hit from the RBS-82 could knock out a light tank, and from the RBS-132 any tank, their limited accuracy meant that they were usually fired simultaneously against dense concentrations of vehicles or similar area targets. A small-scale study of the results of attack on a column of tanks showed that of 178 RS-82s fired, just seven hit their targets; a success rate of four percent. By comparison, the hit-rate for shells from the ShVAK and VYa guns also used in the attack was 9.4% and 16% respectively. Following extensive tests, an Il-2 firing a salvo of four RS-82s at a tank was assessed as having an 8% chance of scoring a hit at a range of 300 m, rising to 25% if eight rockets were fired simultaneously. Extending the firing distance to 600 m, however, reduced the hit probabilities to 1.3% and 4% per salvo.
on the cluster bombs:
Also introduced at Kursk was the PTAB (Protivotankovaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba = anti-tank aircraft bomb). Versions weighing 1.5 and 2.5 kg were used, and these relied on a hollow-charge warhead to penetrate up to 60-70 mm of armour. Some 192 PTABs were housed in a KMB canister, of which four could be fitted into the internal bomb bays. These were usually released en masse from 70–100 m altitude, covering an area of 15 x 70 m (i.e. an average of one for every 1.3 m2) and were highly effective, being rated by the Soviets as the best method for dealing with tanks and two to three times more effective than ordinary bombs.
and:
Bombs and rockets were also used for ground attack by the Luftwaffe, including the 4 kg SD 4H1 hollow-charge bomb similar in concept to the Soviet PTAB. Seventy-eight of these were carried by 500 kg containers, usually dropped in steep dives by Ju 87s. Hit probability against tanks was much higher than for a 500 kg bomb, but their use declined as the Ju 87 was replaced by the Fw 190.
All quotes from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45 by Emmanuel Gustin and myself.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
I'm curious about the JU-87G's main armament. The source I was reading referred to Tungsten rounds and a 6-shot clip for each cannon. How effective could this really be when applied to AHII? Ammunition is already a problem for me with the Hurri IID's 15 rds per gun.
Six rounds was the standard clip when used as an AA gun, but 8 and 12-round clips were introduced for the BK 3,7
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
How effective were U.S. planes at destroying German tanks with 500 and 1000lb bombs?
It seems a 500 or 1000 lb bomb could turn any U.S. plane into a 'tank buster'.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
It seems a 500 or 1000 lb bomb could turn any U.S. plane into a 'tank buster'.
Yes, if they could hit them (or get very close). The record in terms of German tanks destroyed by bombs in NW Europe suggests that this didn't happen very often. The Typhoon, when dropping bombs, had an average miss distance of 120 yards. There's no reason to suppose that US fighter-bombers would have done much better.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
Rock on the Stuka! Lethal weapon!
-
Originally posted by Tony Williams
Also introduced at Kursk was the PTAB (Protivotankovaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba = anti-tank aircraft bomb). Versions weighing 1.5 and 2.5 kg were used, and these relied on a hollow-charge warhead to penetrate up to 60-70 mm of armour. Some 192 PTABs were housed in a KMB canister, of which four could be fitted into the internal bomb bays. These were usually released en masse from 70–100 m altitude, covering an area of 15 x 70 m (i.e. an average of one for every 1.3 m2) and were highly effective, being rated by the Soviets as the best method for dealing with tanks and two to three times more effective than ordinary bombs.
I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.
That would make hitting a tank battle very "interesting" as both sides
use the same vehicles. Killshooter anyone?
-
Originally posted by Rino
That would make hitting a tank battle very "interesting" as both sides
use the same vehicles. Killshooter anyone?
Just do what it does for ground vehicle drivers: Friendlies have icons, enemies dont.
-
Your eyes are FAR FAR better than anything AH can render on a screen of pre-set squares. There's no way that the graphics in this game even come CLOSE to what the eye can see plainly and easily.
Icons help to resolve this (because the technology at work in our computers cannot be changed, or "fixed").
Icons serve a purpose. In-game, they say "Hey, you'd normally see this but this game can't see crap, so we're pointing otu what you could normally see anyways, look here!".
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I want these.................... plus no icons for anything on the ground.
Great idea Tilt, all hail the best idea of today !
-
I just thought the P-47 was the best with 8, 50cal guns in the wings I figured you cant go wroung:aok :O
-
JU87D
Dunno actually which has most tank kills, B or D...
-C+
-
Originally posted by Tails
Just do what it does for ground vehicle drivers: Friendlies have icons, enemies dont.
Yeah OK I want those PTAB's for my IL2 .................and no enemy icons for anything on the ground.
enemy ground icons (gvs, parked(rolling) ac, pt boats, amphibs, troops) way to gamey IMO...............
-
Yeah, icons only for friendly GVs.
-C+
-
Why ground icons are "gamey" but air icons are not?
And about PTAB's... 200 bombs in IL-2 which kill tiger with single hit. Overkill.
-
Originally posted by red26
I just thought the P-47 was the best with 8, 50cal guns in the wings I figured you cant go wroung:aok :O
You can certainly score hits with them, but penetrating the armour of a tank is a different matter...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)
-
We are missing the possible tse-tse (moss with 57 mm cannon, used for anti shipping) and the B25 with 75mm (shipping department too).
Would be interesting though.....
-
Originally posted by Oleg
Why ground icons are "gamey" but air icons are not?
And about PTAB's... 200 bombs in IL-2 which kill tiger with single hit. Overkill.
Gamier..............ie more gamey..............or too gamey..............
GV's should be able to hide............presently they cannot..........air war is not about hiding .....................ground war often is.
Nice way to model the PTAB is to force the low level carpet technique ie open doors and release all of them (all 4 packets) or none of them. They may be very effective but (just like the JU87 - 1800kg) they are one hit wonders.
Besides given the spread they do not mean the certain death of a tiger.....but would almost certainly incapacitate one.
IMO
-
I have to go with Tilt, In the army when we would put our MLRS in the field we always put some kind of camo net over it to hide or protect it. no when we went to fire we had to move into the open. So in the game they could make it where if you are in a GV you can deploy a camo net to hide but once you take it away it will give off your title. And you should have to remove it to fire . We could not fire with a net over us it would catch on fire and burn our buts but I know from the pic's in out unit history room it showed out AA guns and out artillery both under nets. So it should be if you are under a camo net you will be under cover and the planes cant see ya but once you remove it your in the open. Plus you should not be able to fire out from under it.:noid :aok :O
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Nice way to model the PTAB is to force the low level carpet technique ie open doors and release all of them (all 4 packets) or none of them. They may be very effective but (just like the JU87 - 1800kg) they are one hit wonders.
Besides given the spread they do not mean the certain death of a tiger.....but would almost certainly incapacitate one.
IMO
All sources i read said single hit was enough to take any tank out of service. In most cases irreparable.
And if you drop 200 bombs at once from low alt, most probable you will score multiple hits. No need to aim, no chance to evade for tank.
Comparing with 1800kg, Ju87 much more vulnerable for both planes and gvs (than IL-2), you need at least 2-3k alt to drop bomb and you can miss anyway.
-
Originally posted by Angus
We are missing the possible tse-tse (moss with 57 mm cannon, used for anti shipping) and the B25 with 75mm (shipping department too).
Would be interesting though.....
Tse-tse Fly will never happen. HTC doesn't want people to have something that could be used as an anti-buff sniper, and the 57mm on Tse-tse would qualify.
-
That's a pity. So, never the Scrage muzik either, or a solid nose B25 :cry
-
Originally posted by Angus
That's a pity. So, never the Scrage muzik either, or a solid nose B25 :cry
If I recall, Scrage Muzik was a normal set of MG-151/20's firing 45 degrees upwards. Cant see any reason those could not be added.
Solid nose B-25 could also happen, but likely only in the form of a B-25J. 75mm-armed B-25G/H might not happen.