Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Aladar on September 13, 2000, 09:34:00 PM
-
We need a Ju87G2, Tankbuster version. It's almost impossible to kill those tanks!!
------------------
KOMET, ADMIT IT, YOU WANT ONE!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Aladar:
We need a Ju87G2, Tankbuster version. It's almost impossible to kill those tanks!!
I'd love an 87G..but with only 12 rnds of 37mm I'd have to have someone distract them while I came in from behind.
They'd start picking me off way before I could get close enough to accurately hit them. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Wingnut
-
You wanna bust tanks? You need the BEAST (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/il-10.html)
-
ahem.
May I suggest a better designed assault aircraft?
Il-2m3.
Good Day.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
------------------
leonid, Kompol
5 GIAP VVS-KA, Knights (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Yep Il-2 or Il-10, planes that killed a LOT of tanks. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
What about this beautiful kite, never ever modeled in any sim (CK beta apart):
(http://www.classic-books.co.uk/images/hs21.gif)
"We took off from Schweidnitz to attack a Russian tank column which was advancing between Streigau and Jauer. Flying with me in an Hs 129 B-3 as Number 2 in my Schwarm was a young pilot with fewer than ten operational missions to his credit. On our third approach against a T-34, his shot hit the side of the tank, just below its turret. The 75 mm round blew a hole about one metre (3 ft) in diameter in the left hand side of the hull and the tank immediately caught fire. During the following operation that day, while we were operating against tanks in the city of Streigau, a tank exploded after the first shot. The impact of the 75 mm cannon was extraordinary."
-
Lol gatt - it would be even better if it carried the downwards-firing array of 75mm recoiless guns. They were set off whenever the aircraft passed over a large metal object - which would make hitting those tanks a bit easier (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Gatt -
Where is that quote from?
-
Jerry,
check at:
http://www.classic-books.co.uk/books/tophs129.html (http://www.classic-books.co.uk/books/tophs129.html)
one of the best books I have ever red.
Regards,
GATT
-
You have 2 very excellent tank busters in the game, the Typhoon and F4U-1C.
-
Rip, but for us historical German squads, we sorely miss something that can kill armour with cannons only.
We don't even have air to ground rockets.
Our birds can carry only one egg.
Our 30mm and 20mm are useless against anything with a little armour.
I'd be happy if the A8 had some of the bomb loadouts discussed in other threads, but a tank buster would make me jubilant (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime
-
Did the Typhoons really knock out Panzer IV only with 20mm cannons? I mean from any angle.
I suspect that the high number of tank kills in AH by the Tiffies and the C-Hogs depend on uber-Hispanos. But I can be wrong.
Dedicated tank-busters can also be used in scenarios. We need also a self-propelled gun.
Fighters, medium bombers, tank busters, tanks, self-propelled guns ... voilà we can run the Kursk scenario.
Ok, ok, after the Dora, ok (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Knocking out panzers with 20 mm is baloney. I'm sure it could happen theoretically, but in practice, both Axis and Allies were forced to put larger and larger cannons in planes or develop anti-tank rockets.
Planes like the Il-2, Il-10, Ju 87G, and Hs 129 were far more effective against panzers in RL than the stuff we use here.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 09-14-2000).]
-
Hs-129 or Il-2 Type 3. Either would be fine for anti-tank/building/hangar work. The Hs-192 would just blast everything to rubble, while the Il-2 T3 could hit low-alt BUFFs in addition to nailing tanks.
VYa 23mm cannon on that Il-2 could punch through an inch of armor-plate steel at 400 meters. That's AP ammo of course. HE shells would just blow things to bits, kinda like a high-velocity 30mm Mk 103.
The Hs-129 I never heard of before a few people started mentioning it here. A single 75mm cannon from above would kill even a Tiger I E tank.
Either one I'm all for.
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
-
Yes, Panzer IVHs were vulnerable to Hispano cannons.
Even Panther Vs were destroyed by Tiffie cannon, just VERY rarely. Panzer IVs would be quite vulnerable.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
you Must be kiddin, Karnak.
Maik
-
Of course, tank-busters like the IL-2 and Hs-129 would need protecting. But at least the Sturmovik would have a rear gunner (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Hurricane IID? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Then we could get other versions of the Hurri (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Regards
'Nexx'
-
How about we get the latest version of the Il-2, the Il-16 (I think). The Il-2 was easy meat for fighters. The Il-16 would not be that much harder to kill, but it would be more survivable on average.
------------------
Rendar
-
From Russian Aviation Museum (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/)
"Il-16. Ground-attack monoplane. Few built, and never entered service."
You probably mean the BEAST (http://hep2.physics.arizona.edu/~savin/ram/il-10.html)
-
Kidding?
Why? 20mm could both penetrate, crack or melt apart a panzer IV's turret. It's NOT a damn panther ppl, it's a tank from early-mid war even if it served until the end. If it was a Panther I would cry foul too- but.. it's not! When we get a full damage model for the panzer IV I am sure you will see less kills from frontal plate hits and also see more kills from engine strikes. Allready I noticed by last version IV was only instantly killed from high attacks to the top or rear. Now I have had quite a few survivals with multiple hits when attacks come low or to the front of my turret.
-
Oops, I meant the Il-10. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)
------------------
Rendar
-
We need to be able to select ammo type then. Have a "ground attack" mix and an "air-to-air" mix.
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Kidding?
Why? 20mm could both penetrate, crack or melt apart a panzer IV's turret. It's NOT a damn panther ppl, it's a tank from early-mid war even if it served until the end. If it was a Panther I would cry foul too- but.. it's not! When we get a full damage model for the panzer IV I am sure you will see less kills from frontal plate hits and also see more kills from engine strikes. Allready I noticed by last version IV was only instantly killed from high attacks to the top or rear. Now I have had quite a few survivals with multiple hits when attacks come low or to the front of my turret.
early my arse. Pz IVH: produced April 1943 through July 1944, 3774 made.
Hull armor: 80/30/20
Turrent armor: 80/30/20
roof was @ 12mm if I recall right
That is without the schuerzen and applique plates (we have schurezen, dunno about the applique armor plates)
Where as the Panther G:
Hull armor: 80/50/40
Turrent armor: 100/45/45
Ugh I forget the roof armor I think it's around 20mm
The Panzer IV actually has an advantage vs the Panzer V when under attack from the air. While the Panzer V has great sloping for protection against horizontal shots, the armor is angled at 45 degrees and steeper, making a perpendicular shot much easier for an attacking plane. (where the best chance of penetration is) With a big enough cannon round it wouldn't really matter because it would most likely go through at any angle but with the lighter A/C MG's and cannons the sheer thickness of the Pather's armor will save it. Where as in some places on the Panther where it's armor is simular in thickness to the Panzer IVH the flatter armor would help defeat penetration. (odd angle contact)
Gotta remember most tanks that were knocked out of action by from air wasn't because some cannons penetrated and blew it up...alot of it was demobilzation and then crew destruction. Even the 20mm Hispano ain't gonna do much once it penetrates roof armor. AP will most likely damage the engine or engine systems but starting the kind of reaction needed for a kerblooie tank kill isn't really there. An HE hasn't got much chance of penetration (none at all really, with the Hispano HE rounds)
BUT when the engine goes dead the turrent goes dead too. They crew would have to go to hand cranks and that takes FOREVER when laying the gun is critical. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Blah.
- Jig
-
The biggest problem I have observed is not in Tanks or Ostwinds themselves.
Its the pilots attacking them.
From my experience, 80% or more of all attacks on my armored vehicles are strafing attacks that come from about 4k out, straight in at a very low angle of attack (10-20 degrees dive) at tree top level.
This is the easiest type of pass to make, but guys this will get you killed every time if your attacking an Ostwind, because it makes you a very easy target yourself.
There are two different techniques that can be used in successful ground attacks.
1.) Make a high angle dive bomb/cannon attack. This should be done with at least a 45 degree dive, or even as much as a 90 degree dive.
2.) Low level strafing pass with a jink. Make your normal low angle attack, but instead of point yourself directly at the target, aim your nose at about a 10 vehicle length point in front or in the rear of the vehicle you are attacking. This makes you a crossing target and much harder too hit. At about 2k-1.5k (or closer if you can do it and still get the shot) roll hard back into the target and fire as normal.
Just a few pointers I have picked up, both from attacking, and playing target (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Has anyone had success, limited or otherwise, on hitting tracks whilst strafing tanks ? I would expect that 20mm should do a fair job of damaging roadwheels and such. I know whenever I strafe it never seems to give mobility kills, and as a target it's rare that I lose a track to planes.
Just curious.
-
UH, P-39?
-
Nice thinking Dudedog (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But lets go further along that line of thought and.....
P-63 KingCobra (Aircobra on steroids for latewar planeset)
Yak-9T (Even better cannon than the P-39 or P-63)
Il-10 (Ultimate latewar Sturmovich ... well sorta)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Nice thinking Dudedog (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But lets go further along that line of thought and.....
P-63 KingCobra (Aircobra on steroids for latewar planeset)
Yak-9T (Even better cannon than the P-39 or P-63)
Il-10 (Ultimate latewar Sturmovich ... well sorta)
blah
(http://www.geocities.com/panzerdweeb/xa38-1.jpg)
much better choice if ya ask me.
[This message has been edited by Jigster (edited 09-15-2000).]
-
Naw, I'll stick with the Il-2. It had so many different antitank systems that you'd get dizzy figuring out which one to use (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Here's the roof armor thickness for a few German tanks:
Panzer IV H: 10mm [0.4 inches] @ 74º
Jagdpanzer IV (PzIV/70V): 20mm [0.8 inches] @ 0º
Panther: 15mm [0.6 inches] @ 0-6º
Jadgpanther: 17mm [0.67 inches] @ 5º
Tiger I E: 26mm [1.1 inches] @ 0-9º
King Tiger B: 44mm [1.7 inches] @ 0-10º
A single round from a VYa 23mm cannon would punch through the turret roof easily on most. The exception being the King Tiger B. As for the 75mm cannon on the Hs-129; say "bye-bye".
Info taken from German Tanks of WW2
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessetncom/~delta6)
-
Thanks Flak-
I stand by what I said jig- Panthers by reputation were much tougher cookies than a mkIV.
The MkIV may have been a '43 tank (did it really take until '43? thought they were around in '42 as well) but it's design was early war and it's armor was never better than mid war despite when it served. Both Il-2, Spits and Typhoons had good success punching through their roof with 20mm, and destroying engines. And by far I think with the Il-2 when 20mm went through the roof it was catastrophic inside. Think tin can hammerred through the roof with a .22 cal. Whats left of the mice in the can? juice! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(don't ask me how I know that... )
And though I can't find any solid references Il-2 seemed to be having success against MkIV with just the 20mm ShVAK as well. Engines could be destroyed and multiple hits could split turrets if "concentrated". I think some folks overestimate the effect of 10mm of armor against a high velocity 20mm shell (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
OTOH I do feel that the damage modeling on the front plate etc etc will change things. Currently there seems far too much ease in effectiveness of low approaches. They really should have to come in steeper and concentrate fire to accomplish things. in the future we should see more engine kills and less kerblooie kills.
-
Il-2 or Il-10. Nothing else comes close.
-
I will take one of these please.
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0321.jpg)
Armament:
Two remotely controlled powered barbettes on sides of fuselage each housing one 13mm MG 131
And
Internal weapons bay housing various combinations of weapons ranging from 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns, MG 151's, Mk 108 30mm cannon, BK5 50mm cannon with 21 rounds all the way up to 210mm rockets in a rotary tube configuration (tested, but poor results prevented front-line use).
Or
Two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs
And
External Racks for two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs
Plus
Two Ruestatz external packs housing Mg 151, Mk 108 or Mk 103 cannons were fitted to some variants
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
Luftjägerkorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
I'd like to say Mossie, but fairness forces me to say Il-2.
All of the other ground attack aircraft that have been suggested, do not together equal the contribution of the Il-2. We need more Russian planes as well. Seems like a perfect setup to me.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
A very small projectile (20 mm) without any explosive capability and that hardly penetrates a part of tank with thin armor will not cause much damage. It will not spew sharpnel around and also it will not flood the insides of a tank with molten pieces of metal (as with HEAT-rounds often happens).
As the roof armor of the Panzer IV is thin (apparently 10mm) there might just be a few pieces of metal flying and the projectile. If the projectile hits a crew member dead on, it will kill or at least disable him but it wouldn't have very good chances of blowing up the ammo and thus the tank.
IIRC simplified, the chances to destroy a tank would be greatest with a very large projectile penetrating the tank where it's armor is thickest.
Ok, so now you armor experts out there, please correct me in the things that I got wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
---
SageFIN
"The wolves are gathering, the stars are shifting...
come, join us in the hunt!"
---
-
Hurribomber 2x 40 mm and the most beautiful plane ever to be conceived Muhahaahahhahahah!
Better not enlist in the DAK!!!!!
------------------
Oh Jeez, if I only had a rearview mirror!
Bies
(http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Adventure/5503/ww2planes/huricane.jpg)
And bring the A26 and Hurricane (Mk IIC/D) to AH!!!
[This message has been edited by YankeeStation (edited 09-16-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Sorrow[S=A]:
Thanks Flak-
I stand by what I said jig- Panthers by reputation were much tougher cookies than a mkIV.
The MkIV may have been a '43 tank (did it really take until '43? thought they were around in '42 as well) but it's design was early war and it's armor was never better than mid war despite when it served. Both Il-2, Spits and Typhoons had good success punching through their roof with 20mm, and destroying engines. And by far I think with the Il-2 when 20mm went through the roof it was catastrophic inside. Think tin can hammerred through the roof with a .22 cal. Whats left of the mice in the can? juice! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(don't ask me how I know that... )
And though I can't find any solid references Il-2 seemed to be having success against MkIV with just the 20mm ShVAK as well. Engines could be destroyed and multiple hits could split turrets if "concentrated". I think some folks overestimate the effect of 10mm of armor against a high velocity 20mm shell (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
OTOH I do feel that the damage modeling on the front plate etc etc will change things. Currently there seems far too much ease in effectiveness of low approaches. They really should have to come in steeper and concentrate fire to accomplish things. in the future we should see more engine kills and less kerblooie kills.
Sigh. The Panzer IV was not a early war design or a based on an early war design. For it's time it was built to replace the aging Panzer II and Panzer III series of main battle tanks. The turrent rings on those classes could not hold a higher caliber weapon turrent in most cases. So a modernized chassy was developed to incorperate a better suspension system and wider tracks, and to serve as a main battle tank with the 75mm Pak. Keep in mind the Panther is a late mid 43 tank and the Tiger was a 1942 and the King Tiger was a very late '43 tank.
There is a very large difference in the situations that the Panther and Mark IV saw combat. While the Panther was present at Kursk, it was the worst version, the D. Now I bring this up because the Panzer IV and Panzer VI were used in the offensive actions in Russia, with little cover and alot of moving through open country. Here the VVS could wreak havoc on the tanks because they had no where to hide, and there was a much higher chance of the tanks being spotted and multiple sorties being carried out on one formation. Now the Panther came into it's own after the Normandy invasions on the defense, when the Panther A series was already fighting and Panther G's were being made. These tanks stayed under cover and had the dense woodlands of the French and German country side to hide from allied air cover.
All that means is the Panzer was more exposed during it's combat service before it went on the Western (and eastern for that matter) defense, and statisically it will show to have been knocked out by more enemy air action. Look up the VVS's ATG kill stats...they saw more and killed alot more tanks, of any kind.
Yah, Typhoons were effective tank killers, but it wasn't JUST because they carried 4X HS 20mm cannons. They were assigned to ground attack roles, so they had at least some intellegence reports where tanks and thus the chance of encountering tanks to kills was much more common. Obviously the Typhoon pilots weren't carrying the 3 inch rockets by choice...probably some mandate by the high command...since cannons are so effect right? Anyway... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
The engine compartment on the German tanks (and most others for that matter) is seperated from the crew compartment by a fire wall. Most damage to the rear hull of the tank won't affect the crew unless it's a large or extremely high velocity cartridge that continues through the engine compartment and into the turrent bell. Shells such as the AP tank shells (for the most part APCBC rounds, AP rounds with explosive cores) that can cause fuel ignition with the explosion that can catch the ammunition on fire if the crew has no way to prevent the fire from spreading.
Sure 10mm isn't alot of armor. But don't think that the 20mm round isn't going to be signifigantly slower after passing through a solid object. It takes alot of energy to get through a cast iron engine block too.
And and part of the turrent is the least likely to be penetrated. Many turrents are solid cast which makes them very very strong, along with the thickest armor on the tank because it is usually exposed to fire most often (at least with a good commander) When you get away from the 1939, 1940, and even 1941's almost purely rivited hulls and turrents, the turrent becomes the most durable part of the tank to damage, with the engine decking ("roof") being the weakest because it needs to be removed often and easily for servicing. Even the turrent hatchs on the Panzer IV had 2 inchs of armor. The Panther had close to 4.
It's been posted before...but aircraft cannons on the western front was very seldomly the reason the tank was lost to actions. Most often enemy tanks, infantry attacks, artillary, rockets and other HE devices and sometimes cannons.
Just think of the angle needed to pass through the engine decking, (without ANY deflection from the armor) and then connect with the engine itself. (the radiator is normally protected well enough, at the expense of decreased preformence. Tanks were often prone to overheating, especially German heavies) It would need to be over 60 degrees in most cases. Very hard to concentrate guns there, and still pull out.
Perhaps the main thing lacking is damage to road wheels and linkage equipment. Blowing tracks isn't very hard...enough US .50's would even be good in that respect.
Rockets work pretty good in AH f your accurate with them...mostly engine kills which is about right...a hit to the side hull probably isn't going to do much but hitting the engine venting on the roof or rockets exploding underneath have a good chance of blowing trough the floor decking of the engine compartment because of the relative lack of armor (and why mines were so very effective vs tanks)
Blah (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Originally posted by leonid:
Naw, I'll stick with the Il-2. It had so many different antitank systems that you'd get dizzy figuring out which one to use (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Span: 67.08 ft.
Length: 51.7 ft.
Height: 15 ft. 6 in.
Weight: 36,332 lbs. maximum alternate gross weight
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns (two fixed in the lower forward nose and two pairs in General Electric remote-controlled dorsal and ventral turrets); one 75 mm cannon plus a variety of external stores including bombs, fuel tanks, smoke screen chemical tanks, torpedoes and depth charges
Engines: Two Wright GR-3350-43 "Cyclone" radials of 2,300 hp. each
Crew: Two - Pilot and Gunner
Maximum speed: 370 mph. at 17,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 350 mph. at 16,000 ft.
Range: 1,625 miles
Service Ceiling: 29,000 ft
"...a departure in attack planes, being built around a 75 mm automatic cannon which extended from the nose of the ship, giving the plane a most distinctive appearance. The aircraft carried a pilot and gunner and mounted six .50 caliber machine guns in addition to the cannon. It was designed as an attack plane with a primary mission of attack and destruction of tanks, armored vehicles, light surface vessels, ground installations, and submarines by gunfire. A secondary tactical mission of bombing and laying smoke screens could be performed by externally mounting bombs, depth charges and chemical tanks.
Empty weight of this twin-engine all-metal mid-wing monoplane was 23,230 pounds with a design gross weight of 29,900 pounds; however, various combinations of fuel, oil, external bombs, external long range fuel tanks and smoke tanks could be carried at gross weights up to maximum alternate gross weight of 36,332 pounds.
Length of the plane was 51.7 feet and wing span 67.08 feet. Outside maximum width of the fuselage was 56 inches and maximum fuselage height 92 inches. "
Convinced now? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Bombs attached:
(http://www.geocities.com/panzerdweeb/xa38-2.jpg)
With fuel tanks:
(http://www.geocities.com/panzerdweeb/xa38-3.jpg)
Better yet can someone name it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Hey, could anyone e-mail me any info on the Hs129 (to teemto@worldnet.att.net), I was inspired by what gatt said about this plane never being modeled before, so I took on the challenge. I build planes for a game that maybe some of you have heard about, FSDOE (Fighter Squadron: The Screamin Demons Over Europe) so here is what I got on the stove.
(http://tuvok57.tripod.com/Canyou.gif)
------------------
KOMET, ADMIT IT, YOU WANT ONE!!!!!!!!
-
Jigster,
I have no clue, but it isn't Soviet (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I know what it is (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
-
I know what it is, but it destroyed exactly Zero (zilch, donut, nil, goose egg, nada, jack squat) tanks in WW2.
-
I know what it is, but just can't remember the name. AFAIK, only a few were made.
-
Actually PZ-IV top is 10 to 15mm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(but hey, it's 50% difference at some spots!)
you guys forget here that you're not shooting top of the tank from zero degree elevation.
If you wan't to do zero shots, you have to do it somewhere beyond 300 yards or you'll go splat into the ground. (and accuracy in that is different story..)
Elevation can provide very good bonus toughness for the armour.
With enough elevation, bullet just goes ricochet with just scraping the paint.
I wonder if AH models shot elevation on armor..
Little funny thing here is that usually when plane strafes tank in AH, it usually blows up or driver wounds, instead of losing engine or turret...
I'd keep it more realistic that tank would go into bits by part, not just *poof* no more. (by 20mm)
Your Über Hispanos might be good for punching through top, but from what range?
Nobody has never told me 'how far' they did do it in real life.
Well.. then I wonder why doesn't LW / Soviet guns punch through any armour?
If it's true that guns uses mixture of ammunition in AH, then MG151/20 and ShVAK should have AP also and I doubt those are useless...
-
Originally posted by funked:
I know what it is, but it destroyed exactly Zero (zilch, donut, nil, goose egg, nada, jack squat) tanks in WW2.
lol never made it beyond the "X" stage (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Friggan dorks in ETO. They could of ordered them. But nooooo...
Kinda like P-38K's.
- Jig
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Actually PZ-IV top is 10 to 15mm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
(but hey, it's 50% difference at some spots!)
you guys forget here that you're not shooting top of the tank from zero degree elevation.
If you wan't to do zero shots, you have to do it somewhere beyond 300 yards or you'll go splat into the ground. (and accuracy in that is different story..)
Elevation can provide very good bonus toughness for the armour.
With enough elevation, bullet just goes ricochet with just scraping the paint.
I wonder if AH models shot elevation on armor..
Little funny thing here is that usually when plane strafes tank in AH, it usually blows up or driver wounds, instead of losing engine or turret...
I'd keep it more realistic that tank would go into bits by part, not just *poof* no more. (by 20mm)
Your Über Hispanos might be good for punching through top, but from what range?
Nobody has never told me 'how far' they did do it in real life.
Well.. then I wonder why doesn't LW / Soviet guns punch through any armour?
If it's true that guns uses mixture of ammunition in AH, then MG151/20 and ShVAK should have AP also and I doubt those are useless...
I've already wasted to much time trying to explain armor slope and impact angles...they never listen (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
I know what it is also! A Beech XA-38, which was modeled from the C-45 Expediter.
"Make It And They Will Fly It!"
Cranky
-
Dedicated tank buster? Give us the IL-2 if the decision is based on pure production volume. Otherwise, I'll take an Hs-129. BTW, if you goto the site GATT listed for the book (Which is excellent), you should also buy their Me-262 book series. It is the best series on the 1Swallow' I have seen. They also have an excellent soft-cover series on the history of Luftwaffe Paint Schemes, but they also give you an analysis of the entire Luftwaffe history and plane types in the various squadrons and operations.
P.S.- Does anyone have the link for that new series of books just (The first Volume is out) released on the Aerial Warfare on the eastern front? `Red Star/Iron Cross' I think is the name of the series. I misplaced the link and want to order the first volume. Thanks.
-
www.amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com)
-
Sundog -
The URL you want is: http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/ (http://www.blackcross-redstar.com/)
I got the first volume recently, and it's very good.
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
I've already wasted to much time trying to explain armor slope and impact angles...they never listen (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I must agree with this one...
-
I'd like to find that Hs129 book, but cant find it ANYWHERE.