Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BaldEagl on February 09, 2012, 11:51:28 PM

Title: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: BaldEagl on February 09, 2012, 11:51:28 PM
I was just playing in LW.  Any old airplane can now kill a heavily armored Osti, Wirble or Panzer in two passes so why in the world would you need armor piercing shells in airplanes?

I can see tracking them or turreting them but a total kill in two passes?  I'm going to quit using the specially equipped planes.  Why bother?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: guncrasher on February 10, 2012, 02:57:29 AM
which airplane?  i want to get kills too.  once i killed a tiger with just one pass in my spit9, he had no damage, i was just marking it but it blew up, the bad names i got called that day.  wirbie should be killed from above as they have an open turret.  I have only turreted them but never killed one.   osties were not known to be heavily armored. i think.


semp
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Butcher on February 10, 2012, 03:03:57 AM
I was just playing in LW.  Any old airplane can now kill a heavily armored Osti, Wirble or Panzer in two passes so why in the world would you need armor piercing shells in airplanes?

I can see tracking them or turreting them but a total kill in two passes?  I'm going to quit using the specially equipped planes.  Why bother?

Film? I'm guessing not or you'd check to watch the aircraft strafing you while someone sneaks up on ya  :salute

Only way i've been killed with something smaller then a 37mm is the 20mm's on the IL2, other then that I can't recall ever being killed by gunfire unless flipped over.

Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: AWwrgwy on February 10, 2012, 03:45:58 AM
Film? I'm guessing not or you'd check to watch the aircraft strafing you while someone sneaks up on ya  :salute

Only way i've been killed with something smaller then a 37mm is the 20mm's on the IL2, other then that I can't recall ever being killed by gunfire unless flipped over.



If you get hit with enough of anything and take damage, be it an 88 or a .45, and damage bring cumulative, eventually you will go boom.

In the case of a .45 it may take a reeeally looooooong time but I'm sure if you get shot by enough of them you will die.

The line forms over there------------->




wrongway
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: DREDIOCK on February 10, 2012, 05:42:43 AM
I was just playing in LW.  Any old airplane can now kill a heavily armored Osti, Wirble or Panzer in two passes so why in the world would you need armor piercing shells in airplanes?

I can see tracking them or turreting them but a total kill in two passes?  I'm going to quit using the specially equipped planes.  Why bother?

Can ya do it consistently without using zoom?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: icepac on February 10, 2012, 07:34:55 AM
And the 38mm at the field can land 276 hits all over the osti or wirb from 600 meters and it drives off undamaged.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 10, 2012, 07:49:31 AM
As always, and as always forgotten, it matters greatly where you hit your target.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: SmokinLoon on February 10, 2012, 08:00:44 AM
First, it doesn't take much to render a mechanical device inoperable (AA guns) when your speaking of projectiles moving at thousands of feet per second, be it AP or HE.    For an aircraft to be able to disable a turret is rather quite easy, it is do different then destroying a manned ack/auto ack in a gun pit on a field.  Just get a single round of HE in a near miss or a few rounds of direct hit MG (AP FMJ's). 

Secondly, now that HTC has taken the step towards experimenting with different icon ranges in the MA (and a big  :aok to HTC for doing so), I'd really like to see them reduce the amount of zoom a pilot is able to have.  I have not been able to pin point what exactly the pilot zoom is, but I know it is greater than 2.5X that the gv's have (from the TC position).  I think it is safe to say that pilots in WWII did not peer through binocs while lining up their foe in the sights of their fighter.  At minimum, I'd really like to see the pilot zoom reduced to 2.5X.  This move would make the Storch that much more valuable in reporting gv position and heading.  It would also probably give the fragile gv's a very small increase in survivability against aircraft guns because the pinpoint accuracy will be harder to accomplish. 

I understand the need for a zoom in terms of game play, but some times I believe it is rather apparent that the aircraft have it far too easy.     
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: RipRap on February 10, 2012, 08:13:19 AM
wirbie should be killed from above as they have an open turret.  I have only turreted them but never killed one.  semp

Got killed rather easily the other day by Spit16.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: wil3ur on February 10, 2012, 09:11:46 AM
I think it has a bit to do with the Jeep bug...  Possibly a ricochet underneath the tank killed the driver?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: save on February 10, 2012, 09:21:10 AM
that is not working IRL , I promise no one can give evidence they did it in  ever on a ww2 MBT.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Rich52 on February 10, 2012, 09:22:30 AM
.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 10, 2012, 09:23:42 AM
I would think that rounds fired directly into a wirbles turret would kinda bounce around inside and make  a mess outta the rest of the tank.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Rich52 on February 10, 2012, 09:24:03 AM
First it was the F3, next the evil Vtards have the AP shells on the Stormbirds targeted. I was defending a base yesterday and with the fighter hangars down, ords down, it was an easy matter for a swarm of Vtards to over-run the base. We all know they are talking about the IL2 cause its the only airplane with AP that actually has impact. Now that the gelded IL2 has only the tortured gulag prisoner in the back seat its helpless against fighters. Instead of "StormBird" I now dub thee "CrowBait". (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aviation/il-2-37mmfire.jpg)

So now "they" want AP removed? Imagine if History was truly copied and the CrowBaits chucked out about 200 of these onto their King Tigers? (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/WW2/PTAB-2_5KO.jpg)
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aviation/yak9-PTAB.jpg)

Before you know this this place will be a $15 per month World of Tanks.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Butcher on February 10, 2012, 09:43:05 AM
The Wirb and Osti have an option top area - in real life a plane wouldn't dare be that near to one of them, in our cartoon world a pair of aircraft can be used to easily disable a wirble, one keeps him occupied and the other dives in.

this is why we have supplies
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: waystin2 on February 10, 2012, 10:02:58 AM
I was just playing in LW.  Any old airplane can now kill a heavily armored Osti, Wirble or Panzer in two passes so why in the world would you need armor piercing shells in airplanes?

I can see tracking them or turreting them but a total kill in two passes?  I'm going to quit using the specially equipped planes.  Why bother?

What plane Bald?  There was a bug a year or so that allowed any plane with .50's or better to kill the Wirbel or Osti in one pass to the frontal armor.  Tested it, filmed it and posted up to HTC and they corrected it.  I hope I am understanding what you are describing... :headscratch:
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: matt on February 10, 2012, 10:05:52 AM
And the 38mm at the field can land 276 hits all over the osti or wirb from 600 meters and it drives off undamaged.
:furious yep
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Daddkev on February 10, 2012, 10:19:16 AM
 :bhead :bhead :bhead we have Tanks?  :bhead :bhead :bhead
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 10, 2012, 11:57:25 AM
And the 38mm at the field can land 276 hits all over the osti or wirb from 600 meters and it drives off undamaged.

1.  Field auto guns are adjustable in lethality for gameplay purposes.  and did you really count out 276 hits?   :lol
2.  Do you understand that the Osi or wirb has --->NO ROOF<---
3.  Do you understand that that a field gun firing an essentially flat trajectory will hit the armored sides of the vehicle?
4.  An airplane diving in can shoot the top of the turret, which does not have armor due to there being --->NO ROOF<---
5.  Take a Wirbl for example,  Lets see, a quick check of the armor tables shows...oh my, 80mm of frontal hull armor, 16mm for the turret that also has --->NO ROOF<--- and a whopping 11mm on the hull top.
     Hmm....where would I want to shoot this thing? The the hull top that has at best 11mm, or the sides that range from 20mm(rear) 30mm(sides) or 80mm(front)


In simple terms, bullets go through thinner things better than thicker things, the top is thinner than the sides :aok
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Butcher on February 10, 2012, 12:00:53 PM
:bhead :bhead :bhead we have Tanks?  :bhead :bhead :bhead

What the hell? Why wasn't I notified of this? WHEN DID WE GET TANKS?!?!!?!?!?!?!?
 :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Tilt on February 10, 2012, 12:23:09 PM
YUP

please model the PTaB............
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Shuffler on February 10, 2012, 01:07:51 PM
An 88mm flak burst over a osti or wirb would be interesting.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: lyric1 on February 10, 2012, 03:58:14 PM
I would think that rounds fired directly into a wirbles turret would kinda bounce around inside and make  a mess outta the rest of the tank.

Very true & what would be inside that turret? People :aok

I thought that part of the damage model of the flacks was not so much the mechanical but the human element. You take two bullets to a pilot & he is dead the plane go's boom.

So in keeping bounce a few rounds inside that open turret & the same result in that all the crew is dead hence no one to fire the gun. With no human figures in AHII on GV's you get a smoked turret instead of a corpse?

 
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: BaldEagl on February 10, 2012, 08:25:14 PM
Waystin, I was upping into a bunch of F4's, 190's and 109's in a Wirble last night.  Every time the first or second pass killed my turret and the second or third pass killed me.

HT said in the release notes that cumulative damage would kill a GV.  I expect that's what I was experiencing and if that's the case then no armor piercing shells should be needed anymore, just enough cumulative damage with anything.  Thus my question, why even have planes with armor piercing shells?

Rich.  I'm not in the V squad so make sure you know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: AWwrgwy on February 10, 2012, 10:32:31 PM
Thus my question, why even have planes with armor piercing shells?

More effective, ie faster, damage?


wrongway
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Delirium on February 10, 2012, 10:41:21 PM
I was just playing in LW.  Any old airplane can now kill a heavily armored Osti, Wirble or Panzer in two passes

I would like to see the film of that one.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Karnak on February 10, 2012, 10:58:03 PM
The cumulative damage doesn't mean a P-51 can strafe a Tiger II to death.  If the round cannot penetrate it does no damage.  Now, on the open topped vehicles the round can enter the interior and do damage, eventually resulting in a destroyed vehicle.  Prior to this version a P-51 could not kill a Wirbelwind or Ostwind because once the turret was destroyed it stopped allowing the damage to progress even though that same turret gave the P-51's .50 cal rounds access to the interior of the vehicle.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: icepac on February 11, 2012, 10:14:45 AM
1.  Field auto guns are adjustable in lethality for gameplay purposes.  and did you really count out 276 hits?   :lol
2.  Do you understand that the Osi or wirb has --->NO ROOF<---
3.  Do you understand that that a field gun firing an essentially flat trajectory will hit the armored sides of the vehicle?
4.  An airplane diving in can shoot the top of the turret, which does not have armor due to there being --->NO ROOF<---
5.  Take a Wirbl for example,  Lets see, a quick check of the armor tables shows...oh my, 80mm of frontal hull armor, 16mm for the turret that also has --->NO ROOF<--- and a whopping 11mm on the hull top.
     Hmm....where would I want to shoot this thing? The the hull top that has at best 11mm, or the sides that range from 20mm(rear) 30mm(sides) or 80mm(front)


In simple terms, bullets go through thinner things better than thicker things, the top is thinner than the sides :aok

What I do understand is the axe you grind.

I was 600 yard away and laid rounds on every single part of the wirb including about 80 rounds landed on the tracks.

A p51 strafed it down in one pass and I got no assist.

Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 11, 2012, 10:31:53 AM
What I am trying to explain is how to properly attack a GV, in this case an open topped wirbl, but it is clearly falling on deaf ears because then I get comments back, "but I shot every part and it didn't die"  Also the angle at which you hit the target can make a huge difference.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Tilt on February 11, 2012, 11:48:56 AM
Quote
.  Prior to this version a P-51 could not kill a Wirbelwind or Ostwind because once the turret was destroyed it stopped allowing the damage to progress even though that same turret gave the P-51's .50 cal rounds access to the interior of the vehicle.

really? An ost/wirblewind can now be destroyed by strafe damage incurred thru the main gun deck?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 11, 2012, 12:33:09 PM
really? An ost/wirblewind can now be destroyed by strafe damage incurred thru the main gun deck?

It appears that way.  I attacked a wirb with a niki in a almost vertical dive and the wirbl exploded, which surprised me as I didnt think that would have been a kill shot.  Other than that anecdotal evidence I havent really noticed.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: BaldEagl on February 11, 2012, 02:55:27 PM
I was stafed to death last night by two 110's in one pass in a Wirb.  Wirbles and Ostis are now no more heavily armored than an M-8, M-16 or Jeep and since they were built on a Panzer chassis I suspect the Panzers are as easily killed.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Karnak on February 11, 2012, 03:19:21 PM
I was stafed to death last night by two 110's in one pass in a Wirb.  Wirbles and Ostis are now no more heavily armored than an M-8, M-16 or Jeep and since they were built on a Panzer chassis I suspect the Panzers are as easily killed.
Panzers are not open topped vehicles, why would you think they were as easily killed?

If they are, it should be a bug.

You do know that the turret was not an isolated compartment separate from the driver, right?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: BaldEagl on February 12, 2012, 10:04:14 AM
Panzers are not open topped vehicles, why would you think they were as easily killed?

If they are, it should be a bug.

You do know that the turret was not an isolated compartment separate from the driver, right?

Last night my Tiger was killed by the .50 cal on an M3.  He must have emptied it on me while I was busy with other tanks but it killed me.  Last time I checked Tigers were not open topped vehicles.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: wil3ur on February 12, 2012, 10:12:57 AM
I survived the straffing of many 110s, B25s and LAs last night in my panther... I did lose my tracks though.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Karnak on February 12, 2012, 10:13:34 AM
Last night my Tiger was killed by the .50 cal on an M3.  He must have emptied it on me while I was busy with other tanks but it killed me.  Last time I checked Tigers were not open topped vehicles.
That should not be possible.  I would make a film of it and send it to HTC as a bug.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: waystin2 on February 12, 2012, 11:09:46 AM
Waystin, I was upping into a bunch of F4's, 190's and 109's in a Wirble last night.  Every time the first or second pass killed my turret and the second or third pass killed me.

HT said in the release notes that cumulative damage would kill a GV.  I expect that's what I was experiencing and if that's the case then no armor piercing shells should be needed anymore, just enough cumulative damage with anything.  Thus my question, why even have planes with armor piercing shells?

Rich.  I'm not in the V squad so make sure you know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

Interesting.  I guess that I missed that.  Mind posting a link?
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 12, 2012, 11:28:36 AM
I think he means this quote from the patch notes of version 2.27

"Wirbel and Ostwind turrets can no longer take on indefinite damage after they've been destroyed without eventually destroying the vehicle."
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: DREDIOCK on February 12, 2012, 11:52:23 AM


So now "they" want AP removed? Imagine if History was truly copied

If history was treuely copied. Alot less tanks would be killed outright by a single IL2 using guns alone.
And that would be according to the Russians own data which I posted here a couple of years ago
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 12, 2012, 02:47:29 PM
Last night my Tiger was killed by the .50 cal on an M3.  He must have emptied it on me while I was busy with other tanks but it killed me.  Last time I checked Tigers were not open topped vehicles.

B.S.  You were not killed by a M3 while in a Tiger this tour.  Both of your Tiger deaths were from a Tiger I and a Panzer IV H, your only death by an M3 (most likely from the 75mm at close range) was when you were in a Panzer IV H, not a Tiger.

ack-ack
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Butcher on February 12, 2012, 03:11:12 PM
I lost a Panther to a wirblwind due to cumulative damage, thus being said - I also had one track knocked out, engine and turret, so eventually the damage was to much.

Now for everyone to think strafing a tank works - I had 3x vTards in a Me110s attack my Panther, all three strafed and strafed until one used the wittle bomb to track me, I went AFK for 5 minutes and came back to still be alive and all 3 either out of ammo or running home.

For the ones who think strafing a Tank does much damage think again, or even destroying a tank.

Your best bet is to track it and even then its not an easy task, assuming I had any ammo in my Panther I'd probably would of shot the planes down except I was empty and the pintle gun was blown off from a tank earlier.

When I eventually died - it gave credit to the tanker not the 110s even after all 3 pumped probably all their ammo into me.

Only damage he actually did was knock off the pintle gun, no other damage was done, still he got credit for the kill over the 3 aircraft.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: BaldEagl on February 12, 2012, 03:49:07 PM
B.S.  You were not killed by a M3 while in a Tiger this tour.  Both of your Tiger deaths were from a Tiger I and a Panzer IV H, your only death by an M3 (most likely from the 75mm at close range) was when you were in a Panzer IV H, not a Tiger.

ack-ack

Oops.  You must be right.  I must not have heard the tank round hit and I didn't look at my stats.  Never even thought about it.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: hotard on February 12, 2012, 03:52:22 PM
First it was the F3, next the evil Vtards have the AP shells on the Stormbirds targeted. I was defending a base yesterday and with the fighter hangars down, ords down, it was an easy matter for a swarm of Vtards to over-run the base. We all know they are talking about the IL2 cause its the only airplane with AP that actually has impact. Now that the gelded IL2 has only the tortured gulag prisoner in the back seat its helpless against fighters. Instead of "StormBird" I now dub thee "CrowBait". (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aviation/il-2-37mmfire.jpg)

So now "they" want AP removed? Imagine if History was truly copied and the CrowBaits chucked out about 200 of these onto their King Tigers? (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/WW2/PTAB-2_5KO.jpg)
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/aviation/yak9-PTAB.jpg)

Before you know this this place will be a $15 per month World of Tanks.

Just to clue you in Richie, Vtards had nothing to do with f3 in Il2 going away.. It was the chose few whinning to HTC because GHI was clobbering them in his Il2.. As GHI and the Devils Brigade are both bish.. I rather doubt they would push for the f3 view to go away.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: hotard on February 12, 2012, 03:57:38 PM
I have a much bigger problem with the unrealistic amount of damage a Wirb/Ostie can  take from tank rounds than I do from hiw easily it is/is not killed by airplanes. Everyone here has put 4+ rounds into a wirb/ostie without killing it all too often. It has become a running joke in the MA
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: MK-84 on February 12, 2012, 05:54:10 PM
I have a much bigger problem with the unrealistic amount of damage a Wirb/Ostie can  take from tank rounds than I do from hiw easily it is/is not killed by airplanes. Everyone here has put 4+ rounds into a wirb/ostie without killing it all too often. It has become a running joke in the MA

quote from the patch notes of version 2.27

"Wirbel and Ostwind turrets can no longer take on indefinite damage after they've been destroyed without eventually destroying the vehicle."

I take this to mean that if I kept smacking a turret before I could never kill a wirbl.

no I can,  I think this has been recently addressed.  Hitting them in the hull is no easier or harder than a regular panzer as near as I can tell.
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: hotard on February 12, 2012, 06:22:42 PM
quote from the patch notes of version 2.27

"Wirbel and Ostwind turrets can no longer take on indefinite damage after they've been destroyed without eventually destroying the vehicle."

I take this to mean that if I kept smacking a turret before I could never kill a wirbl.

no I can,  I think this has been recently addressed.  Hitting them in the hull is no easier or harder than a regular panzer as near as I can tell.

Perhaps they have finally have fixed this.. but I'll swear I've put multiple rounds into the hull of a wirb/ostie.. much more so than the tank version.. Now if they would only fix the warping drones
Title: Re: Why have armor piercing shells on planes?
Post by: Vulcan on February 12, 2012, 06:31:21 PM
First it was the F3

If you were a Panzer 3F then yes it will die from strafing 20mm/50 cal aircraft. Interestingly enough this debate was done to death in WW2OL... and the outcome was yes a Panzer 3 has thin top turret armour and thin top armour over the engine. And historically aircraft did run a mix of ball/HE/AP ammo - iirc that was done to death over there as well.

One thing I think is underused in AH tanking is the top Mg's or 50's. They make for great camp-breakers especially when there's a ton of M18's at a spawn :D