Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- on May 15, 2001, 06:20:00 PM
-
Ive been reading 'The Luftwaffe fighter force:The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al (ISBN 1-85367-327-7)
'The Fw190 anti-tank aircraft were equipped with 12 Panzerschreck (Tank-terro) RP. The rockets wer fired in threes from mounts fitted to a wing bomb rack.Later the FW 190 were fitted with 12 Panzerblitz (tank-Lightning) RPs. Then the bomb racks had to be taken off each wing and a special rack for 6 Panzerblitz RP built under each wing. The FW 190 anti-tank aircraft could always carry along a bomb under the fuselage and instead of the Panzerschreck rack,bombs could be carried on the wing bomb racks.'
It obviously refers to the 190 but unfortunately not the varient.
However I have read the 190F8 and 190F9 flew in geschwaders together and one of them used the rockets.Couldnt we in the interest of gameplay have air to ground rockets?
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Those rockets are just field infantry style Panzershrek with slightly larger rocket motors. Their effective range was in th 120-200M range. Luftwaffe pilots found them absolutly useless as even a tank co-ax gun could shoot you down at those ranges.
-
R4/M ATA/ATG rockets:
Fuselage Diameter: 55mm
Length: 812mm
Weight: 3.85 kg.
Fuel Weight: .815kg
Explosive Weight: .520kg
Wing Span: 242mm
Wing Area: N/A
Performance:
Velocity: 525 meters per second
Range: 1500m
Targeting:
Roughly same ballistic qualities as the Mk 108 30mm cannon so the normal Revi gunsight could be used.
Ballistic Information Round Types:
High Explosive and Anti-tank
Round Weights: N/A
In December 1944, the highly efficient missile Panzerblitz 1 (Pb 1) system consisting of six and, more often, eight R4M air-to-air missiles. They were adapted for tank destroying by mounting an 80 mm M8 type warhead for an armor penetration of up to 90 mm. Using the Pb 1 unit it was possible to destroy tanks at a 200 m distance. The only limitation was a maximum speed of 490 km/hr, not to be exceeded during missile firing (in a salvo of eight or in pairs). Up to February 1945 the Luftwaffe received 115 Fw 190F-8/Pb 1 planes. The successor to the Pb 1 unit was the Panzerblitz 2 (Pb 2) unit. The main difference between them was the replacement of the M8 warhead by a hollow-charge warhead able to penetrate up to 180 mm armor. Also developed was the new missile system Panzerblitz 3 (Pb 3) with a 210 mm hollow-charge warhead, but it was not operational by the end of the war.
http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/67700/r4m.htm (http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/67700/r4m.htm)
[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 05-15-2001).]
-
http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/fockfw190.html (http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/fockfw190.html)
Designated Fw 190F-8 (in stead of Fw 190F-4) to synchronise on the Fw 190A series. Armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 guns in stead of 2 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17's. Further features include an improved fuel-injection system, revised radio equipment, provision for 25.3 Imp gal (30.4 US gal; 115 liters) of auxiliary fuel in a 30.4 US gal (25.3 Imp gal; 115 liter) rear-fuselage tank, and a modified bomb-release system capable of dropping of the bombs in a single salvo or a number of ?sticks?.
A lot of Fw 190F-8's could also be fitted with 24 × 2.16 in (55 mm) R4/M rockets, or 14 × 220 lb (100 kg) RBS B/F21 rocket bombs, or two clusters of 3 × 9.84 in (280 mm) WGr.28 rockets, or Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets in 2.16, 3.07 and 5.12 in (55, 78 and 130 mm) calibers, or large numbers of small anti-personnel bomblets
-
Yes yes yes! We need a good LW tank killing plane.. Chog is fun, but LW tankie rockets sounds awesome!
Oct
-
Originally posted by Octavius:
Yes yes yes! We need a good LW tank killing plane.. Chog is fun, but LW tankie rockets sounds awesome!
Oct
Like kids in a candy store gotta love it. I am all for it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Well, I love firing rockets. Would be nice if we actuallygot some A2G ones (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://stsantas.tripod.com/stsanta.jpg)
-
sorrow where do you get your roadkill info from? If you just make it up post your own fantasy thread and keep out of mine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
They were effective according to every account of their use i could find.Stated effective ranges do vary however.
im in the 'If they had em put em in' camp
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Just a consideration. While it is true they where effective only at close ranges, exposing your 190F to the light tank mg, the frontal and belly armour of 190F should be more than enough to stop these small cal bullets. That is, firing those rockets against panzers at 200 m should not imply a high risk for the 190 pilot. This consideration derivates in a last question: Is 190F armour able to stop small cal guns (in AH)?
-
The rockets and bombs used by the Lavochkins need to be added too.
Anyway, everyone knows that the best jabo plane of the war was the Tiffie. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But if the LW had rockets then I guess they should have them. But I still think the Stuka should be added. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
The rockets and bombs used by the Lavochkins need to be added too.
Anyway, everyone knows that the best jabo plane of the war was the Tiffie. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But if the LW had rockets then I guess they should have them. But I still think the Stuka should be added. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hijack? Where? Here? Never, good thing we are still talking about the LW rockets right? Ok good whoo close one. Funked I have some books on these so called rockets. WIll dig up the info, and yes it does matter which version was being used as far as range is concerned. Accuracy was a problem that did plague it, even the ground fired panzerschreck was not very accurate, "read a report 3 out of 10 hit the target". Granted when those 3 hit they would kill all but the strongest Russian tanks.
Was very interesting to read about the fausts being used in house to house fighting as well "side note". AS a test see if you can shoot a bomber down from the 6 position with the 21cm's we have now. Notice the huge drop in alttitude they suffer. From what I read flight deviation was around 100 feet for every 1000 feet. Or around there
-
I have posted about these rockets many times. They were short-ranged and inaccurate. But I'm certain we could still make use of them. And it looks like at least 115 Fw 190F-8 were specially built at the factory for rocket-firing duty.
Mandoble, I doubt the AH F-8 has the extra armor that was used on some F-8's. From my readings it seems that this was only used on the first few F-8's built, and was then abandoned because the plane was too heavy. And the real "White 7" did not carry the extra armor.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-16-2001).]
-
Actually after reading the F-8 armoring was not all that significant. If you do remember the A-8's had a belt of armor on the bottom of the fuselage to protect against bomber gunners when they broke off there attacks from the 6. It has been along time since I have read that, and it might only apply to the Sturm unit. The rockets would be a plus for now if you fire well you got to be dead on ot there useless.
Surprised HTC has let this go on as long as it has. Adding useless weapons that are not used makes me wonder why add them? Fix them and they will become usefull. R4M would be very nice to have (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Those rockets are just field infantry style Panzershrek with slightly larger rocket motors. Their effective range was in th 120-200M range
Interestingly, from what I've read, the range at which the Typhoon rockets gained there maximum speed (and hence were supposed to be most effective) was 2,200 yds in a 45 degree dive. Certainly not usuable that that range in Aces High...
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Originally posted by Graywolf:
Interestingly, from what I've read, the range at which the Typhoon rockets gained there maximum speed (and hence were supposed to be most effective) was 2,200 yds in a 45 degree dive. Certainly not usuable that that range in Aces High...
Same with 5 inch HVAR's they hit max speed at some 1 mile from launch. According to pilots they were hard to aim and hit anything with a small profile.
-
ok ok the Hvars are innacurate ..go post yer own thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
the reason im asking for the rockets on my 190s is that at the moment i get 1 shot with a 500kg to bust a tank and then all i can do is make noise!
If i have non AP ammo in my 190 so be it but please give me something else to kill them with.
R4M were used so thats what im asking for.
The fact i will have to get within whatever range is not the issue.
If the rockets were hard to use so be it ill learn to use them.Only thing is with blast radius in AH as it stands firing a rocket into an object 200 yards in front will surely kill my plane? a 50kg bomb has a habit of doing that when dropped low so what would happen at 200 yards.
1 other point is these were modified rockets with collapsable fins and rifled tubes.Surely if they had to be fired at 200 yards in a plane diving close to 300mph the fins would barely have time to be of any use?
Im gonna look into this more if i can but common sense tells me 200yards is rediculous.
hell ive made toy rockets that fly better!(hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
aha my mistake! 200 meters!!
200 meters is fine please put them in (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
another quote for you:
by Generalmajor Hitchhold and Major I. G. Jacob
'Anti-tank raids: Anti-tank missions were conducted in the same manner as other ground attack missions, as shallow dive and low level attacks.For the special anti-tank units, cooperation with bomb carrying ground attack units to keep down AA defences was especially important.
The most important type of anti-tank operations were those with large calibre weapons and rockets.With cannon of 3cm. and 37mm. the direction of attack was determined by the necessity of scoreing hits of 90degree angle of impact on the vulnerable parts of the tank, usually the stern.Shooting at heavily armoured parts was useless.For RP attacks,these limitations did not apply.
The attack took place in rotte or schwarm formation, in battle column, and the interval between aircraft was large enough that the first attacking aircraft was not endangered by the ones behind it and so that mutual interference in aiming did not occour.Until reaching effective range, 200 to 50 meters, they had to fly evasively in order to minimise ground defence, which always got stronger and stronger.For attacks with RP the same principles pertained.'
***********
so you see 30mm with AP or hexogen armour destroying rounds were used AND rockets and we have neither! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
[This message has been edited by hazed- (edited 05-16-2001).]
-
OH IT GETS BETTER (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
same book :
'It was apparent that ordinary ground attack units were not able to destroy enough tanks with their guns, cannons and bombs, but the special anti-tank units with armour peircing cannon and special anti-tank rockets were very successfull.Anti-tank aircraft were the henschel 129 with the MK 101 3 cm.,later the MK 103 3cm.,; the Ju.87 with 2x37mm. cannon,and the usual F.W.190 ground attack model with rocket tubes fixed to its bomb racks.
These aircraft were successfully used against tanks which had broken through on the battlefield or all the way into rear areas.The missions against tank assembly areas were a great mistake because these areas were always protected with many anti-aircraft guns and resulted in high losses compared tocompletely unimportant accomplishments.For attacks on assembly areas it was better to use formations which carried a great number of containers of 4kg hollow charge armour piercing bombs, which can be dropped halfway outside the effective anti-aircraft fire.'
GIVE US 4kg HOLLOW CHARGE BOMBS (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
not very effective?
'Experience and practice in immediate recognition of tanks andshooting them up in the first attack brought about good successes without important losses.In the last year of the war , the Russian tank troops had accustomed themselves to the anti-tank flyers and the tanks were well camoflaged wherever possible.At the approach of anti-tank units they immediately sought cover near house, tree clumps, or hay stacks.Often the tanks could only be found from their tracks and the russians usually erased these by dragging branches behind the tanks.'
************
effective? doesnt sound too bad to me.
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Funked said:
"Mandoble, I doubt the AH F-8 has the extra armor that was used on some F-8's. From my readings it seems that this was only used on the first few F-8's built, and was then abandoned because the plane was too heavy. And the real "White 7" did not carry the extra armor."
Well for some reason, the F-8 is most certainly heavier than the A-8 in AH -> it's climbrate is some 200fpm worse off...
What else could it be, but the weight of extra armour?
-
Could be the weight and drag of the bomb racks.
-
bomb racks slowing the f8???? who cares!!!
this is about rockets and whether we can have them?
the slightest thing and thread is hijacked! all this typeing ive done is to hopefully get an answer not discuss ins and outs of drag!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Originally posted by hazed-:
sorrow where do you get your roadkill info from? If you just make it up post your own fantasy thread and keep out of mine (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
They were effective according to every account of their use i could find.Stated effective ranges do vary however.
im in the 'If they had em put em in' camp
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
My info came from Funked's pages put up long ago about this topic. Have issues with it as "roadkill" take them to him, don't rip into me.
The rockets BTW were developed from PanzerShrek technology- just improved in size and load.
The range was 200M, accuracy was poor, don't look at the statistics from the german side- those are crap. The Soviets were absolutly unafraid of these devices and enjoyed when they attacked with them. As I mentioned at a range of 200M (I assume thats the "Hit the broad side of a damn barn not just the side of a tank" accuracy range BTW) a co-ax MG could poke a bazillion holes in a plane- and regularly did so unless completely surprised.
Compared with Soviet or Allied rockets that were usually fired at ranges of 1000M or more (albiet with the same or poorer accuracy tho thats beside the point) these would be suicide devices.
-
Sorrow u are pretty stupid to think a tanks coaxil MG would be of any use vs airplanes. First of all tanks have minimal elevation for the main gun and coax gun, and second tank turret traverse is waaay to slow to track planes, also a tanks main sight has too narrow field of view to track planes. And nearly all soviet tanks with the exception of the last few late spring 1945 JS2 Stalins and JSU Stalin SPG, and some early KV1, had no AA MG whatsoever.
-
Sorrow, if you are refering to a Mg at the top of the turret, ok, else, no way to track and hit any plane. Any tanker getting out to fire the turret Mg is exposed to both, the rocket effect and the guns of the 190. For the 190s, aproaching 200m and firing at tanks with no enemy AAA present should be an almost null risk task. Obviously, if there are 500 tanks and 4 attacker 190s, probably the tankers wont be very afraid of them, numbers are numbers.
-
Originally posted by funked:
Could be the weight and drag of the bomb racks.
Nuh uh - top speed is (oddly enough) the same.
-
Grunherz,
Blow it out your pipe.
The co-ax gun was regularly used against low flying aircraft by US and Soviet tanks- even German ones. You don't usually have to elevate the main gun just line it up close and start blazing, almost all of the were gimbal mounted.
And almost all soviet & German tanks by '43 had a MG for attacking planes. If they didn't they travelled with AAA support or vehicles that did.
Lastly why is it people maintain you cannot track a plane with the main gun of a tank?? You think planes move around like mosquitoes? They line up and run down predictable pattern unless they are dive bombers from above. Several Russians in shermans tried to bang away planes with their main guns- just with no success. The stories are out there. But in all cases flying low in a fighter or bomber was absolute suicide against armor coloumns or concentrations. Ground fire was so heavy it looked like the whole sky was full enough to walk on.
Mandoble- Yes you are right-in a way. Unless the plane was a "surprise" that comes in low with no warning ground troops and armor fired everything they could bring to bear at an incoming plane. While the target tank would probably have 20mm popping all over it (and good incentive to keep his head down) his surrounding and accompanying units would fill an attacking plane with a billion holes at such a low range.
Tracking was not such a problem- you are of course talking of a plane coming right at you!!! Put enough fire in his way and you hit him. And unless he surprises on his first pass or fires out of small arms range he is in great danger. Thus the most succesfull planes were Dive bombers that dropped above most gun traverse and out of small arms range, Allied and soviet rockets fired from out of range and planes that could come in low and quiet and hit on the first pass before leaving. To use these rockets only the last applies. And it has the worst survival rate of the three. No wonder this wasn't a preferred weapon compared to the relative safety of a dive bomb!
-
facinating this F&*king co-axle gun / bomb rack drag debate isnt it?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) lol
never seen a hijack team at work before (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Hazed
9./JG54
-
Sorrows your post simply proves you know nothing about the subject of tanks.
First of all co-axial guns are hard mounted in line next to the main gun in the main guns cradle. Thats what co-axial means you moron. They must elevate and traverse with the main gun. The turret traverse speed and main gun elevation and sighting are totaly unsuited to tracking airplanes. These guns are not gimbal mounted and I have no idea where you got that stupid idea from.
Most Soviet tanks DID NOT carry any turret mounted AA machine guns till late in the war. Even then only late production JS2m and ISU series had a single 12.7mm DShK, this was extremly rare and mostly seen in the May 1945 Berlin fighting. T34s never had turret roof AA MGs in WW2. The only other soviet battle tanks that had AA MGs were some early 1941 KV1s and some of the prewar/ early war T28, T35, and T100 large multi turreted heavy tanks. Then that was only a DT 7.62mm MG which is useless against any mid-war plane.
If you dont understand just how slow a tanks turret traverse and elevation are, you have no business posting on this subject. You simply betray your ignorance of the issue.
Sorrows have you ever had a WW2 fighter fly low over your head?
I had a P51D fly 30feet over my head at about 250mph he was gone in a flash. My head rotates much faster than a tank turret and could barely turn around fast enough to see him depart before he was little spec above the ground. A tank turret could not track this speed. Try tracking a plane in the turret of AHs Panzer IV, through the main gunners sight.
So the only MG left in any tank now would be the bow MG, usually operated by a 5th crewman in the front hull. This weapon is usually gimbal mounted.
First of all this weapon was hard mounted in the JS2 so it could only be aimed by the driver steering the tank. There was no elevation for this gun. JS2 hid have a 7.62mm in a ball mount on the turret rear but this weapon only had about 5-10 degrees of elevation as it was used to sweep infantry tank killers off the rear deck. It simply could not elevate enough or sight planes thrugh its little peep hole gun sight.
As for the T34 it had a ball mounted 7.62mm bow MG, with identical elevation and sighting restrictions. Plus it obviously cold not fire backwards.
As to your assertion that several tanks tried to bang away at planes with their main guns thats true, there certainly is nothing to stop them from doing so. But you also add that they had NO sucess which simply proves my point, battle tank turret traverse, sighting and elevation are too slow to track ground attack planes.
As for your assretion that attacking armored colums of battle tanks being suice please read up on the sucess of heavy cannon armed tank busters such as the Stuka, Sturmovik and HS129, I am assuming that you are indeed literate?
To close it up I offer you this quote by famous Panther Ace SS-Oberscarfuhrer Ernst Barkmann of 2nd SS Pwnzer-Division "Das Reich", when asked about aircraft attacks.
BTW Sorrows please remember Panther has one of your murderous 7.62mm AA MGs on the turret.
Heres the Question and Answer by Barkmann.
Q: What defense did you have against air attacks?
A: (Barkmann) NONE, smoke was our only EFFECTIVE defence.
Im may be unduly hard on you sorrows , and I apologize, but you know very little about tanks and I feel I must educate you so you dant make such mistakes again.
-
Can you guys please just make your points without the personal comments? If you can't win the argument on facts alone... then you've lost.
-
Hazed we are taking this thread to Cuba!!!
-
Funkeds right, my facts here are solid but as usual my approach is inaproriate,