Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on February 10, 2002, 03:41:00 PM
-
Waaa-Piiiiiiish . I just had to get out this dead horse and whip it some more. Was driving around in a Panzer today for kicks, trying to kill another Panzer. The other Panzer spotted me first and started firing off shots at me. Me not being a very good tank gunner, I fired off a few smoke rounds in between us just so he'd leave me alone till I got closer. At this, a Spitfire appeared and tried to strafe me. He came in high, so I couldn't shoot back. I'd guess he had about 1 second of firing time. In that second, he obliterated my poor Panzer.
Was the Panzer IV this wimpy IRL? Why did they bother putting big ol 75mm and up cannon on there? They should have just put a quad mount of 20mm "Hizooka" cannon- surely those are more effective at killing tanks (and if they weren't in real life then something is wrong with the copy of AH I D/L'ed, because they sure as hell are here).
Or perhaps a different route... was the Hispano THAT good against armour? I can understand it being good against planes, don't have a problem with that, it is absolutely fine with me. But TANKS? BUILDINGS? Come on, there is no way a few rounds of even well placed Hispano cannon are going to take out a friggin tank, much less a building. Also, as far as I can tell (in other words, from first hand experience only)- only the 23mm cannon on the IL2 approach the lethality of the 20mm hispano against tanks. The 20mm Mg/151 isn't worth a nickel against armor, nor are the 20mm cannon on the La7, La5, and Yak. I've blown 400 rounds of MG151 on a Panzer and had him trundle away completely unharmed, and on the other side I've taken an La7s complete clip (AND 2 of those teeny bombs they carry) in a Panzer with no effect at all.
So WHY is the Hispano so effective against tanks in this game? Was it really that good in real life? Has any got any evidence one way or the other (because I sure don't)?
-
Urchin,
I don't think this is a problem with the Hispano. I think it is a problem with the Panzer. The Panzer is too easily killed by all guns (other than 75mm AP rounds:rolleyes: ).
-
I think you are right, but like I said before- I've taken an entire clip from an La7 before, and damn near spent an entire clip in the 190A5 (and I didn't even see any damage, much less kill him).
-
Hi,
The only thing I can bring to this discussion is that the Hurricane earned the nickname Tankbuster against German armour in North Africa. Does have 4 Hispanos though.
Cheers
Witless
-
Perhaps against Pz2's and P38t tanks. but a pz4.. no way, that thing has waay too much iron for a 20mm to penetrate.
OTH, it DOES and SHOULD blow the tracks if you hit them. Remember that most disabled tanks are counted as "kills"
-
I agree, i could empty a 190 a-8's (w/30mm) ammo into a pazner, and it chugs along, but I made 1 pass on a pazner in a p38 firing 50 cals only, and boom it went. Plz Fix! :mad:
-
I dunno, agree it's more of a weakness vs guns in general. 109f4 with gondolas is my favorite tankbuster.
-
And you have success killing tanks with the 3x20mm cannon? I never seem to kill them by strafing, I can sometimes get the kill by strafing the hell out of them and then someone comes along and puts a rocket or bomb into them, but not just by strafing.
-
Yeah, edited to get more to my point but after you'd replied. Any of the smaller cannon planes it's very easy to come at a near 90 degree angle very close and still pull out easily. A good burst at a good angle like that and they're done.
Same with the spits, ki-61, I prefer any smaller plane really because it's very fast to climb 4k for a dive, and easy to dive low speed and still pull out.
-
50 cals dont kill tanks.
20mm do but only weak thin areas like engine grills and the very top of tanks where armour is thinner.
A panzer being hit anywhere else would just chip the metal unless it was very close when fired I'd say.
I dont see why we have such an easy time with 50 calibre and such a hard time with mg151,mg131,mk108,etc etc all higher calibre (slower admittedly) but much more powerfull.
Otherwise why did the 190 pilots on the eastern front describe straffing tanks as they hid in haystacks and destroying them?
Ive seen pictures of russian tanks all shot up by 20mm in a book on 190 aces.light tanks admittedly but the armour looked fairly thick.Hispanos no dout would work too but not all over a tank.Make it a skill to kill tanks in AH i say.
I believe the 37mm was used on stukas right? well how different is the 37mm to 30mm in rate of fire and velocity/explosive fuel?
I can bust tanks quicker in p47s than 190a8s i know that.
-
A complicated subject - the more I research it, the more complex it becomes!
First, the weapons and their ammunition. The standard British Hispano loadout from around 1942 onwards was an equal mix of SAP/I and HE/I. The SAP/I could penetrate no more than about 20mm armour, at short range given a favourable (ie head-on) hit. There was AP ammo (the USA made some) which pushed the performance up to over 30mm, and the British also developed a tungsten-cored shot capable of 45-65mm penetration, but this was never used.
The .50 M2 AP or M8 API were also capable of penetrating around 20mm maximum, in the most favourable conditions at up to 200m.
The 23mm VYa could penetrate 25mm/500m (striking angle not specified) - it was much more powerful than the Hispano.
The MG 151/20 was much less powerful than the Hispano. It did, on the other hand, have AP ammo in regular use which was capable of penetrating up to 24mm at short range. The 20mm ShVAK also had API ammo which was probably capable of around 20mm at short range. The 15mm MG 151 was much better and there was a Hartkern round capable of penetrating around 40mm.
These performances (with the possible exception of the VYa and MG 151/15) are clearly not good enough to penetrate the vertical armour of any medium or heavy tank. Tank roofs were only around 10-15mm thick early in the war (although the German tanks went to 25mm and even 40mm at the end). The problem is that all of these penetration figures assume a favourable striking angle. To attack the roof (unless you catch the tanks obligingly climbing up a very steep slope) this means a near-vertical dive, which you have to pull out at some considerable height to avoid crashing.
On the other hand, it wasn't always necessary to penetrate tank armour to disable the vehicle. Any of these guns was capable of knocking tracks off, and if lucky bullets might even slip through engine cooling louvres and cause havoc there. If a tank has been evacuated because of the risk of air attack, it is also possible that the hatches had been left open - again, an easy target.
So, while early generations of tanks were certainly vulnerable (the French found the Hispano quite effective against 1940 era Panzers) by 1944 the main battle tanks were fairly safe against aircraft gun attack - at least, from the RAF and USAAF. The Germans and the Soviets both fielded specialised anti-tank aircraft carrying large cannon which were certainly capable of penetrating tanks.
The German 30mm MK 101 or 103 could penetrate a realistic 40-60mm (up to 100mm at best) with Hartkernmunition, the Soviet NS-37 around 48mm/500m, the German BK 3,7 up to a mximum of 140mm at very short range with Hartkern shot, and the BK 7,5 would flatten anything it came across.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
NOTE NEW ADDRESS
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
I think a PanzerIV who gets showered by 20mil from directly above is going to be hurting, albeit probably not completely destroyed.
More of a problem than the damage modelling is the sheer ease of identifying a single tank from a fighter flying at several thousand feet at 300mph. All terrain in AH is effectively totally open for visability purposes, which means the tankers never have anywhere to hide.
I can understand why this makes sense for gameplay - but for gameplay maybe the panzers armour needs to be thickened to compensate...?
Vladd
-
I believe the Germans made only two types of ammo for the Mk108 30mm (the 30mm in AH): HE (Mine) and HE/I. Neither of these rounds would have much armor piercing ability.
Hooligan
-
It would help if the Panzer wasn't Day-Glo Yellow.
-
I agree about the Day-Glo yellow :D . I think the tank should be modeled to accomodate for engine grills and weak spots in the roof. The other less vulnerable roof areas should then be stronger. I don't know how easy the panzer (or any vehicle) model would be to modify, but I would like to see some changes! That's just my piece though...
-
Originally posted by Hooligan
I believe the Germans made only two types of ammo for the Mk108 30mm (the 30mm in AH): HE (Mine) and HE/I. Neither of these rounds would have much armor piercing ability.
Hooligan
Generally correct (in fact, the mine shell was an HEI, achieved by mixing some aluminium powder into the HE). There was a pure incendiary, possibly used mainly by Schräge Musik installations for firing into fuel tanks.
One curious fact; quantities of MK 108 ammo dumped in lakes after the war has been recovered, loaded with Hartkern!!! I can see no earthly use for this, as the muzzle velocity was far too low to make this worthwhile. I can only presume that right at the end of the war, the supply of mine shells dried up so they loaded whatever they had to hand, on the grounds that it was better than nothing.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
imo, pzrs and flaktanks should be killable by bombs and rockets only (killable as in blow up OR kill their turrets). 50 cal and 20mm IF they hit from a side and from tree-top level should blow their tracks.
M8's should be vulnerable to 20mm but not 5 cal (unless they hit the wheels)
M3 and M16 should DIE when the get peppered with anything.
-
I was always under the impression that all tanks in general are vulnerable to fire from above. The critical angle for richocet's is 38 degree's so coming "straight in" at a 90 degree angle isnt required to be successful. My understanding is that the engine grating is the real weak spot. Most tanks destroyed by strafing were the result of engine fire or damage....also have read about p-51's and jugs killing tiger tanks by firing into roadway (rear attack) and igniting fuel with ricochets off pavement.
-
Yeah But....the pz4 didnt have armor all around it. It, like most tanks had heavy frontal armor, the sides not as thick but, the rear was prolly it's weakest spot.
-
Originally posted by humble
also have read about p-51's and jugs killing tiger tanks by firing into roadway (rear attack) and igniting fuel with ricochets off pavement.
Were those the same P51 "tankbusters" from Saving Private Ryan? :rolleyes:
-
Well, I don't have any books on the Panzer 4 (or any other tanks lol), but I did look up a website:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4
They have armor information on two varients there. I believe we have the H version, which isnt listed, but the G version is.
It goes like this : Position: Armor Thickness/Armor Angle
Front Turret: 50/11
Front Upper Hull: 50 or 50+30/10
Front Lower Hull: 50 or 50+30/12
Side Turret: 30/26
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/10
Rear Upper Hull: 20/12
Rear Lower Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/85
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 50/0
The SAP/I could penetrate no more than about 20mm armour, at short range given a favourable (ie head-on) hit.
Favourable means what here? I am not a munitions expert, so explain it to me like I am an idiot (which some will argue I am anyway). I would assume that 'most favourable' means a zero degree of deflection in the armor plate. So the Hispano, if I am right, could have no chance of penetrating anywhere on the tank except the top and bottom of the hull (and I'm not sure what role, if any, the armor angle would play), or the top of the turret? And would I be correct in assuming that it would have to come in at a near vertical dive and get within a few hundred meters before firing to even penetrate that? Same goes for the .50 caliber, and the Mg151/20 would have an even tougher time getting through the armor (which does in fact seem to be the case, at least personally).
-
I wonder if some of the exploding panzers aren't just commander kills? You can use the commander's MG, which means the tank is unbuttoned. That means a strafing plane could hit the commander's body outside the turret and/or put some rounds through the open hatch and into the turret.
-
punt.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Favourable means what here? I am not a munitions expert, so explain it to me like I am an idiot (which some will argue I am anyway). I would assume that 'most favourable' means a zero degree of deflection in the armor plate. So the Hispano, if I am right, could have no chance of penetrating anywhere on the tank except the top and bottom of the hull (and I'm not sure what role, if any, the armor angle would play), or the top of the turret? And would I be correct in assuming that it would have to come in at a near vertical dive and get within a few hundred meters before firing to even penetrate that? Same goes for the .50 caliber, and the Mg151/20 would have an even tougher time getting through the armor (which does in fact seem to be the case, at least personally).
You are correct. The USAAF/RAF gun armour penetration figures I quoted before were generally measured at about 200m, and involved striking at 90 degrees (or 0 degrees, depending on which convention you favour). Penetration fell off increasingly rapidly as the striking angle became less direct, although the rate of fall-off depended on the design of the projectile; there is no formula which will give you this. Yaw was also a factor (ie the degree to which the bullet wasn't travelling point-first - particularly a problem at short range before the bullet stabilises in flight, and can also be caused by hitting anything en route to the target). The following extract about the .50" from my next book illustrates this:
"The official requirement for the M2 AP was to penetrate 22 mm steel at 183 m (the M8 API was expected to match this figure at 92 m). The striking angle is not specified but is assumed to be 90º. Official US tables for the M2 show penetration at 300 m as follows: 21 mm / 90º, 13 mm / 60º and 5 mm / 30º. These measurements were to the USN criterion which called for 50% of shots to penetrate. British tests at 183 m determined that the M2 would penetrate 21 mm at 0º angle of yaw (i.e. the bullet was flying perfectly straight) but this dropped to 15 mm with only 10º of yaw (such as might be caused by passing through an aircraft’s skin before hitting the armour). Taking the effects of striking angle and fuselage structures into account, it seems likely that the practical penetration of either the M2 or M8 was in the region of 10-15 mm in normal circumstances."
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II lists the H turret top armor as being 15mm at 84 - 90 degrees. Superstructure is 12mm at 85 - 90 degrees and the hull is 10mm at 90 degrees.
I don't really bother with anything down on the ground, so I have no firsthand knowledge of tankbusting. I'd have to say though, that even with a bit of added energy from a diving airplane, a .50 from an M2 would not be a reliable penetrator if Tony's data is correct. Taking into account the vagaries of construction & quality, previous damage, etc, certainly not impossible. But it's not likely that a .50 armed plane should be popping Panzers like grapes. Are they really? Do we have film examples on guaranteed unharmed tanks?
D
-
During the 1944-5 NW Europe operations, an Operational Research team from the RAF trekked around the battlefields as soon as the enemy had departed, examining German equipment and assessing the reasons for its destruction.
Their conclusions were that very few tanks were destroyed by any form of air attack. On average, they found perhaps one-tenth the number that the fighter-bomber units were claiming. Those which were destroyed in this way were generally hit by rockets or bombs.
This is discussed at length in Ian Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1939-45" which is required reading for anyone interested in this subject.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Now that I'm back with my sources, I'll add a bit more to the AP performance figures.
Realistically, an attack on the roof or decking of a tank is not going to be made at better than 60 degrees, with 30 degrees being more likely. Furthermore, it's not going to be at very short range. So let's take 300m range and strikes at 60-30 degrees as typical.
As I posted before, the .50" M2 AP could penetrate between 13mm and 5mm in these circumstances (with the smaller figure being more likely).
The MG 131 AP could similarly manage between 7mm and 3mm
The MG 151 15mm AP (non-Hartkern) from 19mm to 12mm
The MG 151 15mm Hartkern 24mm to 12mm
The MG 151 20mm AP between 12mm and 8mm
The 20mm MG-FF AP between 9mm and 6mm
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
The Hispano would be similar to the .50 and Mg151/20 rounds, correct?
Also, those figures are for AP rounds- are the planes we have in the game loaded with AP rounds? I don't believe the German planes are, but I don't know about the U.S. and British ones.
Oh, and as far as Hispanos 'popping Panzers like grapes', I'll do some ground attack runs in a Typhoon and film myself doing it. I watched a Tiffie strafe 3 or 4 tanks, he killed them all in a single run.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
The Hispano would be similar to the .50 and Mg151/20 rounds, correct?
Given proper AP rounds, the Hispano would be significantly better, but AFAIK the US M75 AP shot wasn't used in Europe. The RAF loaded only HEI and SAPI according to my info, and the SAPI was about the same as the .50 M8 in AP performance.
The .50 AP M2 and API M8 were both in widespread use (from 1944 onwards, I think the M8 almost replaced other types completely). The 20mm MG 151 AP was also in common use, but only as a small percentage of the typical ammo belt loading; perhaps one in five, or two in five at the most.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Panzer IV H Armor Specifications from German Tanks of WW2.
Hull Front: 80mm (3.1 inch) @80º
Hull Sides: 30mm (1.2 inch) @90º
Hull Rear: 20mm (0.78 inch) @78º
Turret Front: 50mm (1.97 inch) @79º
Turret Sides:30mm (1.2 inch) @64º
Turret Rear: 30mm (1.2 inch) @74º
Turret Roof: 10mm (0.39 inch) @74º
Remember now, AH uses combined ammunition types based on the most common belting used during the war. That would probably explain a lot of the strangeness here.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think my maker wants to hear from me right now. I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/perky.gif)
-
Originally posted by flakbait
Panzer IV H Armor Specifications from German Tanks of WW2.
Not my area of expertise but I understand that the Pz IVJ, which came out in mid-1944, had the roof armour thickened up, and that the Panther and Tigers had thicker roofs to start with.
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
your all forgetting something....something that i use to terrify tankers....THE HURRICANE IID.........TWO 40MM CANNONS>.....WILL FACK UP ANY TANK U SEE........just tap the cannon button and one shot should rip a m3....m16........hold for a few round.....m8 dies.......put a good 10rnds into a panzr and it will die spectacurlary
-
There's an item on the 40mm Vickers S gun fitted to the Hurricane IID and IV on my website. Basically, it was capable of penetrating around 50mm armour; enough to deal with a Pz IV in a side or rear attack, but not enough for a Tiger. The IID was quite successful in N Africa, until the Tiger came along, and was later successful in SE Asia against the lightly-armoured Japanese tanks. However, the last Hurricane IVs in Europe were taken out of service in March 1944, before D Day. Possibly a mistake...
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
It is not only a matter of penetrating armour, the shell must keep enough energy to cause havoc inside the tank, not just some holes in the roof. IMO, only hurryIID, IL2 and Yak9T should be able to kill panzers with guns.
Now look at the PzIV gun mounting and the gun thickness, how easy would be to disable the gun? Probably much harder than just penetrating the roof of the tank while we have guns disabled in AH everyday due straffing.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
It is not only a matter of penetrating armour, the shell must keep enough energy to cause havoc inside the tank, not just some holes in the roof. IMO, only hurryIID, IL2 and Yak9T should be able to kill panzers with guns.
You are right to point out the difference between penetration and destruction. There was one incident in N Africa when Hurri IIDs drilled through several tanks. However, the crews had taken cover beforehand, and were able to get back into the tanks and drive them away.
There are several different damage scenarios. The most likely is that a penetrated tank will be temporarily out of action due to injuries to the crew, from steel fragments flying around inside. That didn't always happen; there are stories of AP shot punching straight through a tank from side to side, and not injuring anyone.
The next level might be a disabling hit, eg on the track or suspension, which takes a bit of time to repair. More serious would be a disabling hit on the turret ring, which might jam it. You do of course get occasional freak shots. I have seen a picture of a Panzer IV with a neat hole drilled from side to side through the gun barrel, done by a Hurri IID.
Catastrophic destruction of a tank, beyond any repair, was generally caused by fire and explosion. Achieving this was really a matter of luck; it depended on what the penetrating shot hit. Obviously, the bigger the projectile you can hit the tank with, the more likely this is to happen. The Germans found the Bk 7,5 slung underneath a few of the Hs 129s to be very effective. But then, I have a round of ammo for that gun, and it takes quite an effort to lift.....
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine
guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
PzKpfw-IV H
top turret armor 15mm
deck armor 12mm
Here is what i think.
If shot from VERY high angle dive and close hispano could penetrate top turret.
If rear deck was hit from high angle dive(more than 45degrees) 20mm hispano round could penetrate armor and damage weak spots in engine and fuel system.
On sides, rear and front armor is simply too thick to have any other effect than round ricochet off.
Also realistically .50cal isnt any threat to PzKw-IV.
.50cal was useful against some german Jagdpanzers like Panzer-IV(note not PzKpfw) and Hetzer which only had heavy and well sloped front armor but not much on rear/top. All armored cars, lightly armored Panzerjägers (Marders, Nashorns) and halftracks were very vulnerable to .50cal fire from any direction but frontally.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
IMO, only hurryIID, IL2 and Yak9T should be able to kill panzers with guns.
Not only would this address the reality issues we are discussing here, I think this will also VASTLY increase the utility of these planes in the MA. I was in a few tank battles this weekend, and was having no end of fun in the Hurri2d. But there isn't much point in flying it since you can accomplish the same thing with greater ammo and ease with a P-47.
-Sikboy