Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: USRanger on December 27, 2008, 08:57:39 PM
-
Here's a really cool vid I found on the Stuka-G. I'm wondering, would the cannons really do this much damage to tanks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW_zHZ5MPIA&feature=related
Vid of what the cannons really sounded like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg&feature=related
-
From what I've read the cannons on the Ju87G had better penetration than what we have on the Il2.
-
From what I've read the cannons on the Ju87G had better penetration than what we have on the Il2.
Certainly the barrel appears longer. If memory serves the cannon used a special armor piercing ammunition and was very effective against enemy armor. At least when air superiority was maintained. I forget the velocity of the cannon but it waqs in the neighborhood of the American 0.50 cal, which is around 2,800 fps. Nothing to sneeze at when achieved with a 37mm tungsten AP shell. Man I'd love to see this JU varient in the game.
I'd bet it would cut down the turning of Lancs into stukas. :lol
-
What made them so deadly was the thinner top armor of most tanks.
The 37mm Tungsten AP shell would most likely open the upper deck of the average T-34 just like a can opener.
:salute
-
The Guns
A wide variety of airborne anti-tank guns was fielded by three nations: the USSR, Germany and the UK. The USA developed one, but did not use it. This section describes their characteristics, but the armour penetration figures need to be regarded with caution because of the varying standards of measurement used in different countries. The variations not only include the usual parameters of striking distance and angle, but also the quality of the armour and the definition of 'penetration'. Also, some figures resulted from ground tests, others allowed for the extra velocity imparted by the speed of the aircraft.
The USSR fielded two guns in the anti-armour role, and tested a third. The 23mm VYa and 37mm NS-37 were developed specifically for aircraft and used in both the air combat and anti-tank roles. The NS-45 was a version of the NS-37, with the cartridge case necked out to 45mm. It was tested in air combat and proposed for various anti-tank aircraft, but not adopted.
The VYa was a gas-operated, belt-fed gun (a scaled-up 12.7mm Berezin) chambered for a powerful 23x152B cartridge. It is credited with penetrating 30mm at 100m and 25mm at 400m (striking angle unspecified). This was adequate against light tanks but not enough to reliably penetrate medium tanks.
The NS-37, unusually for the USSR, used a short-recoil mechanism and was belt-fed. It was a particularly slim weapon, with a compact mechanism, suitable for fitting between the banks of a liquid-cooled vee-engine to fire through the hollow propeller hub. The powerful 37x195 ammunition is quoted as penetrating 48mm / 500m / 90 degrees, enough to pose a threat to the side or rear armour of virtually any tank. The 45x185 cartridge of the NS-45 increased this to around 58mm.
All of the Soviet guns used conventional full-calibre steel shot, fitted with a windshield to improve the ballistic coefficient. This is rather surprising, as they used the much more effective tungsten-cored projectiles in ground anti-tank guns.
Germany fielded several different guns in the anti-tank role. The first was the 30mm MK 101, which used powerful 30x184B ammunition. This was later supplanted by the MK103, which used an electric-primed version of the same cartridge, with the same performance. The MK 101 used a short-recoil design, and in its anti-armour role was fed by a 30-round drum. The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were adaptations of ground anti-tank guns with long-recoil mechanisms, and saw little use. These were the BK 5 (also briefly used for air combat in the anti-bomber role) which was a PaK 38 fitted with an autoloader and a 22-round magazine for its 50x419R ammunition. It is unclear whether this saw action in the anti-tank role. More famously, the PaK 40, which fired massive 75x714R cartridges, was used in two versions; a semi-automatic one with a 10-round vertical magazine, and the fully-automatic BK 7,5 with a 12-round rotary magazine. This could penetrate 132 mm / 500 m / 90 degrees (104 mm / 500 m / 60 degrees) when used on the ground, so was clearly capable of dealing with the toughest tank. Both BK 5 and BK 7,5 fired the normal APCHE projectiles, which were more destructive and reliable in their penetration than the Hartkernmunition rounds, being less affected by unfavourable striking angles or add-on armour plates.
The British fielded only one airborne gun in the anti-tank role: the Vickers Class S. This was designed around the naval 40x158R AA case, with special armour-piercing loadings. As such, it was much less powerful than the Army's 2 pdr anti-tank gun, but the attack speed of the aircraft helped to provide a penetration quoted as 50-55mm (range and striking angle not specified). This was a long-recoil gun which was fed by a 15-round drum (a sixteenth round could be carried in the chamber). A 30-round drum and a belt-fed version were developed but not adopted. The same fate befell an interesting adaptation to use the Littlejohn squeezebore shot. The AP projectiles fired were full-calibre steel shot, without even a ballistic cap.
The British developed other weapons for this purpose. The 6 pdr (57 mm) Molins gun was intended for this role, but used only by Coastal Command. The 47mm Class P gun was not ready until after the war.
The USA did fit one 37 mm gun to its aircraft - the M4. However, this fired low-powered 37x145R ammunition and was not very effective against tanks, being intended for air combat. Much more impressive was the M9, which was a belt-fed development of the Army's M1 long-recoil AA gun and fired powerful 37x223SR cartridges. Special AP loadings were developed for this gun but it was never used in action.
from http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
-
It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees.[/b]
That's why the 37mm cannon on the G-1/2 were so much more effective when mounted on the Stuka than it was when it was used as a ground anti-tank gun.
ack-ack
-
Add the ability to choose the most optimal attack direction and angle which that gun in ground use could not do.
-C+
-
I say we get those guns. It make the Stuka MUCH more used, and it was used ALOT in WWII. No one can argue that. It'll also give a different way to combat GVs.
-
I say we get those guns. It make the Stuka MUCH more used, and it was used ALOT in WWII. No one can argue that. It'll also give a different way to combat GVs.
Another "HO wagon".
-
"HO wagon".
What dose that mean?
-
I say we get those guns. It make the Stuka MUCH more used, and it was used ALOT in WWII. No one can argue that. It'll also give a different way to combat GVs.
To get those guns, we would first need to get the plane they were used on and we don't have that plane currently.
ack-ack
-
Would give me another option to ho with....my Il-2 is getting a wee bit holy...
-
Would give me another option to ho with....my Il-2 is getting a wee bit holy...
I seriously doubt that using a Ju-87G-1 or G-2 would be good for HOing other planes. Considering the rather slow rate of fire of the Flak 18 37mm cannons, each pod only carried between 6 to 12 rounds.
ack-ack
-
Well lets have it in the game and lose that hanger queen we got now. :salute
-
Well lets have it in the game and lose that hanger queen we got now. :salute
Why?
I never understand this mentality that units should be removed.
Sure, add a Ju87G-2, but keep the Ju87D for other purposes.
-
Add the ground attack stuka :rock and can we plz have at least our current stuka available without ord. Now with the set up we have if ord down you cant up one :(
-
Man, I have had a blast online in the later war maps in the Ju87G in IL2. The one I remember the most I think is the one where we were in a three plane formation low on the deck just above the snow covered countryside. We finally spot the artillary blast of our ground forces firing at the allied tanks, all three of us turned tword the colum of tanks in single file take turns pumping lead into them untill our guns were spent then as the allied defenders started to give chase we in tight formation headed for home. Man that was intense radiator full open, borderline overheating, tree dodging fun.
We only lost one of our 87s to the persuing spit before our gunners hit his oil forcing him to withdraw.
-
Add the G-2. It's a rare bird (one source says only 174 built), but the rarity seems irrelevant given that only ~105 Wirbels & ~45 Ostwinds were built (LTAR's go thru that many in one night :D), and we have both. By all accounts the G-1 and G-2 took a fiercesome toll on the Eastern Front, so the G-2 would probably see a lot of use in base defense.
-
the single engine airplane with the biggest cannon is the yak 9k. it had 1x 47mm cannon! :rock
-
long long ago, the ju87 in ah1 had the 37mm gondolas. but they were removed for some reason (crying gvers) :cry
they will never add them in game, the power of these would make gvs useless. i wish they would add the g as a perked plane (10-15). but never happen, its a conspiracy against anti gvers. :noid
-
long long ago, the ju87 in ah1 had the 37mm gondolas. but they were removed for some reason (crying gvers) :cry
Sure you're not talking about a different game? The only thing AH1 had for a long time were constant requests for adding a Ju-87 at all ;)
The Ju-87 was finally introduced to Aces High in December 2002, version 1.11
-
Why?
I never understand this mentality that units should be removed.
Sure, add a Ju87G-2, but keep the Ju87D for other purposes.
+1 on that. I got a fighter hangar with the 1800kg bomb. Once, but i still use the Stuka. Add the G-2 version and keep the D version as well.
-FYB
-
Once, but i still use the Stuka. Add the G-2 version and keep the D version as well.
-FYB
It should be the G-1 we'd get since it was a converted D-3, which is the model we have. The G-2 was a converted D-5.
ack-ack
-
It should be the G-1 we'd get since it was a converted D-3, which is the model we have. The G-2 was a converted D-5.
ack-ack
Okay, so we just need to make some minor adjustments to the D-3 (while still keeping the D-3 model) and call it the D-5. Both planes were similar in basic plane structure correct? :confused:
-FYB
-
Okay, so we just need to make some minor adjustments to the D-3 (while still keeping the D-3 model) and call it the D-5. Both planes were similar in basic plane structure correct? :confused:
-FYB
You really don't get the point. There is no need to have the G-2 since the G-1 is the same thing with the only difference it's on the D-3 airframe. There aren't minor adjustment, the D-5 had longer wings and a different power plant as well as different wing guns (20mm cannons). And no, the G-2 did not retain the 20mm wing cannons from the D-5.
ack-ack
-
You really don't get the point. There is no need to have the G-2 since the G-1 is the same thing with the only difference it's on the D-3 airframe. There aren't minor adjustment, the D-5 had longer wings and a different power plant as well as different wing guns (20mm cannons). And no, the G-2 did not retain the 20mm wing cannons from the D-5.
ack-ack
ouch that stung a little ack-ack.
-FYB
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9cc67582fd
The title says "bombing" but to me it looks like a G at work.
-C+