Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: DarkHawk on August 04, 2002, 12:45:27 AM
-
Can some one explain why 50 cal MG can kill a tank.
I can see 20 or 30 mm cannon but 50 cal. The 50 could kill the pinta gun, but the turent or main gun. IF AP round can not always kill a tank on the first strike. Then why 50 MG, they should bounce of that armor plate like water form a ducks back.
I can see possible engine damage if the strike is
in the correct direction. I just feel that MG rounds against a tank are over rated.
Just an opinion, now lets hear yours.
DarkHawk :eek:
-
I once asked my dad about the capabilities of the .50 MG, as he is a former US Army tanker. He told me that the .50 is capable of engaging and killing anything up to a Main Battle Tank. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other such armoured fighting vehicles can be easily killed by the .50.
However, WW2 tanks were nowhere near as well armoured as a modern tank such as the M-1 Abrams. Most WW2 tanks had armour more comparable to a Bradley. This means that a .50 could quite easily kill a tank if it were fired at the right place. The armour on all tanks is quite thick at the front of the tank and throughout most of the sides of the turret. The armour is a little less on the sides, even less to the rear, and very thin on top and bottom. This means that an aircraft attacking from above could fire through the top of most WW2 tanks. In fact, it was apparently quite common for P-47s attacking German tanks, which were the best armoured on average of all WW2 tanks, to score kills with their .50s alone. The .50 is quite capable of penetrating a significant amount of armour, and the volume of .50 slugs emanating from eight .50s coming through from the top, would likely chew up a tank pretty good. So while the .50 isnt quite an ideal tank busting weapon, even on the thinner armoured vehicles of WW2, it is capable of making a kill if you attack from the right angle and lay on the fire.
It seems to me that it is probably about right in the game from what I have seen. I have trouble killing Panzers with .50 calibre MGs, but if I attack straight down, and fire long bursts, sometimes I get them. Usually they are just disabled though, which also makes sense. .50s would do extreme amounts of damage to the external mounted guns, the engine, and the tracks.
-
so all ww2 tank constructers was stupid , and that why modern antitank aircraft guns are 30 mm canons:rolleyes:
no plane mounted 50 caliber used inaf long barel ,and if top of pnzr was les thick but real life 0.000001 % pnzr get kiled this way :p
-
Originally posted by Durr
I once asked my dad about the capabilities of the .50 MG, as he is a former US Army tanker. He told me that the .50 is capable of engaging and killing anything up to a Main Battle Tank. Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other such armoured fighting vehicles can be easily killed by the .50.
However, WW2 tanks were nowhere near as well armoured as a modern tank such as the M-1 Abrams. Most WW2 tanks had armour more comparable to a Bradley. This means that a .50 could quite easily kill a tank if it were fired at the right place. The armour on all tanks is quite thick at the front of the tank and throughout most of the sides of the turret. The armour is a little less on the sides, even less to the rear, and very thin on top and bottom. This means that an aircraft attacking from above could fire through the top of most WW2 tanks. In fact, it was apparently quite common for P-47s attacking German tanks, which were the best armoured on average of all WW2 tanks, to score kills with their .50s alone. The .50 is quite capable of penetrating a significant amount of armour, and the volume of .50 slugs emanating from eight .50s coming through from the top, would likely chew up a tank pretty good. So while the .50 isnt quite an ideal tank busting weapon, even on the thinner armoured vehicles of WW2, it is capable of making a kill if you attack from the right angle and lay on the fire.
It seems to me that it is probably about right in the game from what I have seen. I have trouble killing Panzers with .50 calibre MGs, but if I attack straight down, and fire long bursts, sometimes I get them. Usually they are just disabled though, which also makes sense. .50s would do extreme amounts of damage to the external mounted guns, the engine, and the tracks.
This is not a flame.
This 'topic'/(legend)/(fairy tale) has been brought up too many times to now warrant a response. Not your fault you didn't see the other posts however.
But...
Dig up some data on the best possible penetration of armor plate by the .50 MG carried by the P-47.
Dig up some data on the armor plate of any post '40 MBT that fought in WW2, *including* BHN and quality ratings.
In short - what you posted is wrong. Even aircraft carrying 2cm cannon couldn't really affect MBTs in WW2. MBT kills by aircraft were *massively* overclaimed.
Numerous books talk of 'hundreds' of German AFVs being 'destroyed' by 'rocket and cannon firing Typhoons' at the 'Falaise gap' during the battle for Normandy in 1944.
USAAF and RAF records, from a very detailed study that was undertaken only 1 month later found that ~6 (SIX) German MBTs were 'destroyed' by air attack at the 'Falaise gap'.
Destroyed = vehicle destroyed...set on fire, and/or exploded, or damaged to the point that repair is not an option.
LW pilots, being interviewed by USAF intel types in the 1950s when the USAF was planning for the possibility of fighting the Soviet Union, explained that even 3.7cm and 5.0cm cannon, along with bombs, were not very useful vs. the T-34. You had to hit too small an area while flying at too high a speed unless you got down to a slow enough speed that you were practically commiting suicide.
From 1944 onward German ground attack pilots...flying Fw 190Fs, etc., armed with 2cm cannon with AP ammunition, bombs, cluster bombs, rockets, etc. - were trained to attack the fuel supply vehicles of Soviet armored spearheads - because trying to kill individual Soviet MBTs was basically a waste of time and/or effort. Kill the fuel and all the MBTs aren't a threat in 100 or so miles, and then they are out of gas and ready to be easily killed by counterattacking German units.
The big problem with perception vs. reality = guys like Rudel write a book. It's too easy for some to assume that because Rudel could do it, that even 5, or 10 other pilots in the entire LW could do it.
MBTs were often 'mission killed' by air attack - meaning they had their tracks or wheels damaged, or their gunsight messed up, etc. And then they were useless for the next couple of hours at least, which was fine for the guys fighting said MBTs who called in the air support.
But it was very, very rare for any post '40 MBT to be 'exploded' or 'knocked out with significant crew casualties' as a result of an attack made by an enemy aircraft.
Read some armored unit AARs from WW2. I gurantee that the 'Tigers' that were 'killed' by the P-47s was a case of this...
1. P-47s strafe a column of German vehicles. They probably see some Pz IVs that they ID as Tigers (no shame here - 95% of all German MBTs were 'Tigers' in the opinion of most US and UK combat troops - be it pilots, riflemen, AT gunners, etc.).
2. Pz IV crews see they don't have AAA coverage. First pass is MG hits. No damage. Next pass could be bombs. Get the hell out of the tank and hide a safe distance away.
3. P-47 pilots see AFV crewmen abandoning AFVs. 'Looks like an AFV kill'.
4. P-47s leave. Pz IV crewmen check Pz IVs for damage and resume march.
Think this is crazy? Read some AARs from actual armored units (I have), or interview some actual armored unit veterans (I have) - very, VERY common to bail out of the tank when there is lots of smoke in the crew compartment (like from an exhaust that's been screwed up by cannon fire, or a near miss from a bomb or artillery shell). Smoke dies down, or gasoline burns off (any idea how hard it is to get gasoline to actually 'explode', as opposed to just burning?) and the crew gets back in the AFV.
I'm not saying you don't know anything, and I'm not saying you aren't a smart guy. But I have studied armor and penetration data a great deal. A P-47 could not destroy a Pz VIE with .50 MG fire.
Re: your Dad - the most likely explanation...the .50 MG he dealt with (assuming post WW2) had much better penetration than the .50 MGs of a WW2 era P-47.
.50 MG ammunition data:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/50.htm
Cool chart of how .50 MG ammunition became more lethal:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cal50evol.gif
Note the penetration data for these rounds is going to be vs. 'average' quality steel plate at 90 degrees impact angle.
The armor of a WW2 MBT is going to be much 'harder'...by 'harder' I am referring to BHN or Brinell Hardness Rating (do some minor studying on this maybe).
Here's a link which lists a Pz VIEs armor in great detail:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm
I hope this helps.
Mike/wulfie
-
good post wulfie steve74 (i think) posted something very similiar and included quotes from about the falaise gap. The so-called "Day of the Typhoon" amounted to 6 destroyed mbts. Support vehicles were shredded though.
ps we all know jug pilots could bounce 50 cals off dirt / cobble stone roads so thy would penetrate the "unamored" underside of a mbt. After all the germans were stupid and never thought about having to deal with anti-tank mines :)
You think 50 cals killing tanks are bad a wwiiol fella says he knocks out tanks with mgff :rolleyes:
-
The one thing that is common knowledge to those of use who have been playing AH for a while is that the GV's in AH are not modeled all that well.Personaly I feal that this may be a game play conshion. How would people react if they had to up a special plane or a special load out for their plane to kill a GV, any GV for that matter. Some P 51 adact would not be to happy to find thaT he neaded a Il-2 to kill a tank with because his P 51 could not cut the mustard. IMO GV's should nead special load out's or special planes to deal with them effectively every plane should not be a GV killer. Every weapon after firing log enough should not kill or disable a GV. GV's should receave the same attention as Aircraft modeling in AH does. I am a big history buff and when I get killed by 50 cal fire from some TBM I get realy disgruntled because I know it is BS.
-
Did some testing with a 300 WinMag and a .50 Cal against 1/2" steel. These were only 1ftx1ft steel plates and it was at a 90 degree angle... so they are pretty irrelivant when it comes to tank striking... BUT...
The .50 penetrated every strike. This is with ball ammo. We didn't try it with HE (maybe next time).
The 300 WinMag did not fully penetrate. It did leave bullet size holes about 1/3 of an inch deep in the plating. Extended exposure to 300 WinMag would have eventually penetrated.
So.. I imagine the tanks had hardened steel (at least harder than what we were working with) and angle of deflection became an issue thus making these tests virtually inapplicable. What I cannot imagine is that the armor was unaffected by the impacts.
AKDejaVu
-
armor penetration doesn't depend on the calibre of the bullet, but on it's length and it's density of mass compared to that of the armor plate.
therefore armor piercing rounds are long, and today often made of uranium.
he rounds (20mm, 30mm, 37mm...) shouldn't hurt armor much, their density of mass is to low, and they're short (after the HE part went boom).
in real life pilots weren't as good shots as some in the game. if some experts here open fire at a GV 500 rounds hit within 2 or 3 seconds. i don't think anyone in RL could do that. it either requires the nose to be pushed down - dangerous, or trimmed down (combat trim does it here) - even worse.
-
Have to agree with Durr, I see alot about the .50s impact on MBTs. The panzer F, G, H and J was produced in hugh number right up to the end of the war. But compared to such monsters as the Maus, King Tiger, Panthers and Tiger I it was pretty wimpy in the armor department.
Armor in these tanks were designed and placed to protect it from other tanks. I'm sure air attacks were considered but topside armor was still pretty thin. Though in real life you may not have gotten the big explosion you see in AH the .50 still ought to have good chance of penetrating topside armor and disable a vehical such as the IV H.
-
no it wouldnt. There were battle studies and inspections of destroyed damaged and abandoned vehicles.
One of the most famous a2g (vrs armored vehicles) was the typhoons raid against german tanks trying to relieve the falaise gap. Wulfie mentions this in his post. The effect the typhoons had was undeniable it distrupted greatly german movement but after the fact 6 tanks were found to be clearly put out of action. Typhoons sortied with mostly rockets but the had hispanos.
Follow wulfies links it demonstates that 50 cals will penetrate 19 mm at 300 meters and at 90 degrees.
Also not every round will penetrate. There have been post on this board that explain penetration data. The were posts that go into detail about the "day of the typhoon".
ccvi touches on it.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
armor penetration doesn't depend on the calibre of the bullet, but on it's length and it's density of mass compared to that of the armor plate.
therefore armor piercing rounds are long, and today often made of uranium.
Actually... its more than just density of mass. Its mass... density... shape... material... velocity... several other things. Teflon coating helps not because it increases any of those features, but because it decreases initial loss due to friction.
And bullets aren't made of urnanium. They have depleted uranium tips. The 30mm used by the A-10 is capable of penetrating 12" steel with depleted uranium tipped bullets. I have a tendancy to think that's not a requirement for killing tanks... but its sure nice to have. I have a tendancy to think that gun and those shells were developed to demolish any hardened target.
AKDejaVu
-
One good 'rule of thumb' when it comes to armor and penetration:
Against high BHN armor plate, which is what you are going to find on MBTs, in aircraft (as purpose placed armor that is), etc.:
If the diameter of the AP projectile is less than the effective (as in accounting for slope - hit 3" of armor plate at 45 degrees impact angle and the 'effective' thickness of that armor is ~6") thickness of the plate, there is a very high chance of a 'clean deflection' or 'shot shatter' on the part of the AP projectile.
'Shot shatter' can be avoided with super dense penetrator cores, which is why you saw tungsten cored AP penetrators for use specifically vs. armor (an AH applicable example is the tungsten cored MG 151/15 AP rounds issued on the Eastern Front specifially for ground attack missions) in WW2, and why you have DU cored AP penetrators of one type or another today. Solid steel penetrators will shatter very easily when hitting thick face hardened plate - especially very high velocity ones (like 2cm and .50 AP).
Mike/wulfie
-
Thanks wulfie, good post
Here's a link to a short discussion in Aircraft & Vehicles about armor penetration. Has some interesting links there also:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59047&highlight=penetration
mauser
-
Here is another thing:
The RAF Fighter Command ordered the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII 'Tsetse' as an anti-tank weapon. The Tsetse, for those few who don't know, was armed with a powerful 57mm automatic cannon.
RAF Fighter Command cuncluded that the Tsetse's weapon was inadequate against MBTs before it even went into action against them. Due to this finding they gave all their Tsetse Mosquitoes to Coastal Command for use against shipping and U-Boats where it was quite effective.
If a high velocity 57mm cannon is ineffective, where do you think that leaves .50 cal fire or 20mm fire?
Pretty useless against MBTs is where.
-
There are many reasons for something to be ineffective Karnak. One of the main reasons is that the ROF on a gun like that is abysmal... and aiming from a moving airborn platform at something as small as a tank is tough.
But then.. there are stories of the 75mm bouncing right off of the forward armor of some late ware tanks too. I just don't think that applies to the Panzer IV... and I know it doesn't apply to the Sherman.
AKDejaVu
-
DejaVu,
The specific reason cited was penetration.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
DejaVu,
The specific reason cited was penetration.
How would that perform against Kurt Tank?
-
Originally posted by Karnak
DejaVu,
The specific reason cited was penetration.
That doesn't invalidate Deja's argument, necessarily. A poorly aimed round is very unlikely to hit at a ninety degree angle on demand.
Still, I remember that scene in 'Saving Private Ryan' where the German 20mm(?) cannon was brought in to shoot the Infantry guys swarming on the Tiger. The only thing penetrated there was flesh. Ah, but that's Hollywood.
-
I posted this in another thread a long time ago.
Many use the battles in Normandy as examples of how devastating airpower is against ground units. In fact, most Whermacht-wieners (LW whiner sounds wrong when talking about ground units, but you find these guys everywhere there is a discussion about wwii) will claim that the only reason the allies won in Normandy was because of their airpower. While this may be true or not, airpower had an almost neglectable effect on combat damage in Normandy. Let me give an example:
Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons. That is 9 out of 178 tanks actually used in the area. It is also interesting to see the claims. British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged, the real number was 9...
It seems that very few German tank were lost due to hits from weapons carried by aircraft. Probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. Rather it seems that air attacks on tank formation protected by AA units were more dangerous to the aircraft than to the tanks. Allied losses of aircraft were considerable, the 2nd TAF (including elements of Air Defence of Britain that took part in the Normandy campaign) lost 829 aircraft, while US 9th Air Force lost 897
The main reason for the poor results of air attack on tanks was lack of suitable armament. Machine guns and cannons had sufficient accuracy, but lacked the power necessary to produce more than superficial damage. Heavy bombs could destroy a tank, but it took a direct hit, which was very difficult to achieve. The vaunted rockets had sufficient penetration capabilities. Trials against captured German Panther tanks showed that the rockets could penetrate the armour except on the front of the tank. The accuracy of the rockets was however alarmingly low, even when fired in salvos of eight. At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4 %. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower.
Mortain is not an example of unusually low efficiency for the allied air forces either. It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results:
6 June - 7 August 1944
AP shot: 36
Hollow charge projectile: 7
HE shell: 7
Aircraft rockets: 7
Aircraft cannon: 2
Destroyed by crew: 6
Abandoned: 3
Unknown: 13
8 Aug - 31 Aug 1944
AP Shot: 11
Hollow charge projectile: 1
HE Shell: 1
Aircraft rocket: 2
Aircraft cannon: 1
Destroyed by crew: 44
Abandoned: 30
Unknown: 6
17 Dec - 16 Jan 1945
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5
Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz IV's (yup..our panzers) nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks.
Oh..and the number of German tanks knocked out by MG:s or .50 cals is 0.
Source: I. Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers Versus German Armour in North&endash;West Europe 1944&1945: Myths and Realities (Journal of Strategic Studies, vol 14, No 2 June 1991) p. 221. The basic sources for the data on destruction of German tanks and other equipment used by Gooderson are the reports of the operations research teams that investigated the battlefields after the end of the battles and examined the wrecks found. These are probably the most reliable sources for such information avialable today.
-
Originally posted by DarkHawk
I can see 20 or 30 mm cannon but 50 cal.
Well I can't.
-
Originally posted by Creto
Have to agree with Durr, I see alot about the .50s impact on MBTs. The panzer F, G, H and J was produced in hugh number right up to the end of the war. But compared to such monsters as the Maus, King Tiger, Panthers and Tiger I it was pretty wimpy in the armor department.
Armor in these tanks were designed and placed to protect it from other tanks. I'm sure air attacks were considered but topside armor was still pretty thin. Though in real life you may not have gotten the big explosion you see in AH the .50 still ought to have good chance of penetrating topside armor and disable a vehical such as the IV H.
Not much change at all. You can ignore facts if you want to.
Here illustration of 50cal penetration against PzKpfw IVh top.
(http://216.91.192.19/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=419862)
-
seems steve comes throught again :)
-
Interesting, this is with a 75 mm round, you can also see the thickness of the hatch (i think)
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=92292
wipass
-
Answer: "its a game concession" ;)
-
Warbirds III vehicles are much better, that HotSeat guy is a nut for tanks and even went to the actual tanks and measured armor for his models. AH vehicles are OK, but my impression is they were not nearly so well done as their Warbirds counterparts.
The quest for the perfect game IMO would be Warbirds vehicles and AH planes.
-
warbirds vehicles??? otto and all? +)
SKurj
-
Not much change at all. You can ignore facts if you want to.
Here illustration of 50cal penetration against PzKpfw IVh top.
http://216.91.192.19/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=419862
Take a closer look at that diagram, Illo. Notice how much the penetration falls of at a 60° impact angle? Looking at that diagram, a .50 round would penetrate out to about 375m, but once you get out to a 60° impact angle, the penetration drops to almost nothing.
Now think about this for a moment. 100% penetration out to a distance of 375m when the firing plane is diving vertically on the tank, with penetration falling off to near-zero at a dive angle only 30° shallower. At a dive angle of approximately 70°, the 100% penetration range is only 250m.
Assuming that the pilot is diving at a dive angle of 70° at a speed of 300 mph (480 kph), fires precisely as he reaches a range of 250m, and immediately begins a pullup to leave him level at an altitude of 50m, which requires a 6.5G pullout -- assuming that the pilot pulls out immediately upon reaching a range of 250m. If the pilot lets his range close to 200m to put more rounds into the target -- less than half a second after reaching 250m -- the G force in the required pullout increases to 8.8G.
If the pilot's aircraft is moving faster, the required G forces become uglier. At t speed of 350mph (560kph), the pullout from 250m range is at 8.8G, and the pullout from 200m range is at 12G.
From the attacks I've watched from the target's view, I have never seen an attacker attempting to strafe my tank from a dive angle more than 45°, which from the diagram you reference would give no chance at all to penetrate the top armor, and no data about penetrating the side armor -- but if the side armor is at least as thick as the top armor (pretty well guaranteed), the .50 fire would have no chance to penetrate the armor there.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Cool chart of how .50 MG ammunition became more lethal:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/cal50evol.gif
Those SLAP rounds are sabot rounds I believe. They are not something you would want to use in foreward firing aircraft guns.
-
panzer mk IV had 10mm top armor , early MK IV had 14mm side and rear, latter MK IV 30mm side and rear.
for the metric challenged, 10mm =3/8" , 14mm= 1/2", 30mm=1 1/8"
-
Posted this before, and is relevant to this discussion.
In my reading time in recent days, I have been enjoying a good one that Sancho loaned me. Its called "ANGELS ZERO by Robert Brulle. It’s the one fighter-bomber pilot’s story of his role in WW2 in Europe between mid-June 44- wars end. Bob flew P-47's the duration of the war with IX TAC (9th Air Force). This is a highly recommended read for of us, not just the P-47 nuts, or the allied nuts.
On to the subject. I found this very interesting. I am going to just quote it straight from the book for you all to read.
After D-day, and a foothold was established in France, the pilot had a chance to inspect some rubble and damaged locomotives once they were moved to a temp field in France.
"We first noted that the cab (of the locomotive) had two inch thick steel plates welded around it to protect the engineer. It was obviously not armor as several 50 cal bullets had pierced it. I also followed the path of a 50 cal API round that went through the steel drive wheel several inches thick, ricocheted off the lower flange of the engine I-beam structure, and imbedded itself sideways in the upper flange. I had a hard time prying the round out for a souvenir, and it didn’t have a scratch on it. It was an amazing revelation of the power of a single armor-piercing round"
"A tiger tank was disabled by repeated strafing, and twelve trucks and a staff car were destroyed.
The reader may wonder how strafing a tank could disable it. Recall that our .50 cal API rounds pack a wallop that could penetrate several inches of soft (not hardened) steel. (Recall the story on our visit to the Laon railroad yard, where I followed the path of a .50 cal API round that went through a locomotives drive wheel.) During the war, we thought the penetration power of our API round was sufficient to disable a tank by shooting off the tracks. To research the issue and keep the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and specialists. Their collective views are summarized below*.
The .50 API round fired from fast moving AC does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and .50 API were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might cause the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-45 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV, which was a medium tank comparable to the American M4 Sherman tank, and two 50-plus-ton heavy tanks, the mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger. The Panther and the Tiger completely dominated the Sherman.
The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated with our 50 API rounds and set the engine on fire, but the panther and the Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing. In those tanks the crews would just button up and hope that we wouldn’t call in AC that had bombs since that would finish them. There is a case on record where a Panther tank was strafed by P-47's for an extended time. The massive strafing shot off all the equipment parts carried outside the tank, and entombed the crew by dinging the hatch lips, effectively welding the hatches closed. If we could catch the tanks while on a road march far from the front lines they sometimes-carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped on the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them. Although we couldn’t be sure of damaging or destroying a heavy tank, our strafing was sure to affect the crew psychologically, having to stay cooped up hearing the constant rattle of our rounds hitting the tank and not knowing when a bomb or other heavy gun would finish them off. In summary, strafing a tank could do nothing or it could destroy them, depending on the circumstances.”
*= Conversations with Dr. William Atwater, Director, US Army Ordinance Museum, Army Proving Ground, Md., and Mr. Uwe Feist, historian and author of German Armored Vehicles. Two of his books are recommended. Ewu Feist and Bruce Culver ”Panzerkampfwagon Panther” and “Panzerkampfwagon Tiger”
Brulle is a good author, telling it like it was for a “Jabo” pilot in the days after D-day and through the war. I suggest it to all that enjoy WW2 aviation books.
-
good stories but as steve posted there were examinations of destroyed and abandoned tanks and from the ones I have read never has 1 been shown to have been put out of action by 50 cal.
several jug pilots report bouncing bullets off the ground and killing tanks.
Do you believe this?
the diagram illo shows penetration at angle and distance.
even it it was a sherman and and german 20 and 30mm killing them in ah it would still be bs.
-
Probably, the biggest difference in WWII and AH is the way pilots use planes anyway. Surely, a Spitfire or P51 pilot would not think of attacking a convoy of GV's during the war. Online though, they don't have to be concerned with a long internment in a POW camp, or worse yet an actual death.
I understand Tiffies, FW's, and Mozzy's atacking GV's. That's what they are supposed to do. But a Spit, Pony, Niki, or Zeke? That just seems wrong!
Online, I've backed the tail end of my Panzer up to a hill, only to have a Hellcat kill my engine from frontal fire! That was irritating.
Game concessions, right?
-
Voss,
Actually Spits and P-51s were employed in ground attack roles quite extensively, and were quite lethal to light vehicles, even armored vehicles like the Puma. But MBTs were basically immune to them (and Tiffies, Mossies, P-38s and P-47s) unless a direct hit with a rocket or very, very close hit with a bomb were obtained.
According to what I have read something like 1 in 100 or 200 rockets hit and 1 in 400lbs dropped by fighter/bombers on vehicles hit.
Building are much easier to hit and fighter/bomber raids on them were vastly more effective.
-
Not this again :rolleyes:
Matt Damon said P51s were tank busters, so it must be true!
My great uncle's fourth half cousin flew P47s and he said they used to bounce rounds off of trees so they would go right down the tank barrel and explode the shell inside.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
several jug pilots report bouncing bullets off the ground and killing tanks.
Do you believe this?
No I do not, and I doubt Brulle believes that either. A ricochet has lost considerable amounts of energy. and it will ot impact on its axis. This projectile is no longer efficient. Hard enough for a non-ricochet to damage an armored vehicle. Basically it took a lucky hit(s) to disable or destroy tanks with 50 API. In AH, we have the luxury to concentrate alot of fire on a Mk 4 panzer over and over. And in some cases, if the pilot is persistent enough, or there is several other pilots straffing the panzer, it will go down. Very rare that I actually get a panzer to die from my P-47 straffing.
-
Raubvogel,
That is based on their historical operations, not Hollywood BS.
Maybe you'd care to ask FunkedUp about the mission logs he has of a Polish Spitfire Mk IX squad. Guess what. Its all ground attack. Mission after mission after mission of Spitfires loaded up with bombs to go attack things on the ground.
Rolley eyes my ass.
Shiva,
You forgot something in your description that makes it even worse for the aircraft. When a heavy aircraft like any WWII fighter pulls up, it doesn't simply go the way the wings are pointing, it contiunes to go down even as the wings and prop try to pull it out. I'd love to see an AH film of somebody in a 70 degree dive at 300mph make a successful pullout starting at 200m in a P-51, P-47, P-38, Typhoon or Mossie.
I've pancaked so many Mossies doing that its not funny.
-
When I asked this question I did not expect some much information. From what I have read. It would seem the HT needs to adjust the hit envolope for the tank. This would require some to use tank buster and rockets and not 50 cal. mg. From some of the discussion information is base on more likely todays values and not the ammo used during the war.
thanks for all of the information and the response
DarkHawk
-
ammo wufie and illo provided penetration of the 50 cal.
illo chart shows penetration from 65 to 90 degrees from 250- 375 yards.
Translate the jugs airsopeed into feet per sec and you will see it doesnt that much.
Now a jug at 70 dive into the "top armor" of a panzer iv how acurate do you think they will be at speeds from 300-400 mph. How many seconds do they have to pull out?
Train locomotives being destroyed is onething. Theres no way to know how old the the locomotive is or the quality of the steal. Plus its under steam pressure and lotsa of heat.
Whats telling though is the reports from the examined destroyed or abandoned tanks.
Even with bombs tanks were hard targets to hit. Rudel killed most of his tanks after he moved to the ju87g. Even then most could not get the results he did. He was nut, and should have been dead countless times.
Brady spends lotsa time in gvs and he has been killed by 50 cals numerous times. Far more then "rare" occassions.
-
You all seem to forget that the only succesful tank hunters were Ju87Gs, HS129s and IL-2s. They were the only able to kill tanks with cannons. Other fighter-bombers had to use *bombs*.
Statistics about rockets use in Normandy showed that the Typhoons performed badly. Same thing even for 40mm armed Hurricane IID in North Africa during 1943: they knocked out mainly PzIII, trucks and cars.
Again, everything else looks to me as a game concession. Its not a big problem in the Main. However, it could ruin a scenario (remember the one in North Africa?)
-
Do we need such a game concession?
We have the IL-2, we have fighterbombers.
Would it hurt gameplay if they were the
only ones capable of killing tanks?
I'd say it would make the game more
interesting, apart from giving those
plane types an unique role in AH.
-
Of cource we dont need such a game concession.
The damage model needs an overhaul. This is very apparent when you look at the effects of the current damage model on ground vehicles and objects.
Something is very wrong with the damage model if you can use MG's to destroy a stone building, or if panzers can kill eachother on distances above 3000 yards etc etc (list can be made very long)
-
While at the HTC offices during the Con Pyro showed us his book on the ballistics and penetration characteristics of just about every single weapon in the game. It's a collection of the actual charts made by the various combatants. It accounts for muzzle velocity, type of projectile, angle of incidence, depth of penetration, face hardened steel, "normal" steel, etc.
I remember him saying that the .50 graph shows that it would penetrate the thickness of the top turret and rear deck armor of the Panzer we have. Seems like he said something like people don't like it and it seems wrong but there's the actual data that says it will penetrate. So if you use the steep angles of attack on the top it will go through. You can argue damage because it is and always will be somewhat subjective but you can't argue penetration when you have the graphs.
Anyway, that's pretty close to what he said but not a quote.
Will it penetrate the top armor near a 90 degree angle of incidence? Yep. Is the damage model subjective? Yep.
;)
-
i totally trust ht ballistic modelling of the 50s he and others have shown it be correct.
Some people argue for "realistic" effects over realistic modeling. ie the seemingly extended ranges of firing and hitting at nme planes 700-900 range for instance. They would argue dumb down the ranges of the guns.
Thats not quite the samething here. Ground vehicles (admittedly I dont really use them as much as some) are easily disabled and or killed by 50 cals. Not just in planes but brady sites an lvt 50 cal at d1000 his fe damaging a track, his eng and turret. Examples like this arent rare.
If there is ever to be a perk ground vehicle then with the gv dm as is there would be no use for it.
I argue over the roll of bombers but I think there needs to be a discussion over the roll of attack aircraft. Like the il2 for instances. While certainly capable of destroying ground vehicles any of the 50 cal aircraft with no ord are equally effective at killing gvs but have the added capability of a2a.
From my experience (as shiva states) most straffing of ground vehicles arent at angles any where near 65-90 degress and the damage comes at ranges further then 275-500 yrds.
Certainly firing at a low angle out side of gun convergence and at ranges d500+ arent going to explode the panzer.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So if you use the steep angles of attack on the top it will go through. You can argue damage because it is and always will be somewhat subjective but you can't argue penetration when you have the graphs.
Oh yes you can. Let me take one example. In US tests "penetration" meant that it was possible to see light through a crack of armour. In German tests "penetration" required complete penetration by the projectile. This leads to the conclusion that all penetration values given by a US test are ..eh.. somewhat more generous than they should be.
These penetration graphs are more complicated than you'd expect.
-
Nice one Toad ;)
BTW, the question about sims is: does it have to be like the real thing or not?. In other words: if something is theoretically possible but practically quite rare (or impossible) should it be allowed in a realistic sim? It comes in mind the dogfighting Ju87 in WW2OL ... ;)
-
I don't remember Pyro talking about the different definitions of penetration.
I do remember him saying that the angle of incidence, velocity curves, etc. ARE part of the AH programming.
He also said damage modeling IS subjective and there were things they wanted to look at.
The game will continue to evolve. I think the DM will get a look from time to time during that process.
There are gameplay concessions in every "sim" or game.
-
But, as robsan asked and Hortlund answered, do we really need this 'gameplay concession'? Or rather, can we even call it a 'concession' or should we call it a 'bug'? :confused:
Let's say the probability of penetration on main battle tanks with very steep and fast strafing runs in AH is reasonable. If so, what about the instance of M3 or M16s, Ostwinds disabling Panzers?
Yes, the AA vehicles stand no chance if the tank spots him first and knocks him out from afar. But usually, if you are in a heavy tank, and there is one lightly armoured AA vehicle defending the town, you would hesitate to charge in. That 'light vehicle' literally squashes the 'main battle tank' Panzer IV like a bug if the distance gets close. By the time you fire two 75mm AP rounds, the M16 or Ostwind rakes across the body of the tank and knocks out every damageable part there is. How can this be explained with the penetration values? Quad .50 AA guns splashing against Panzer armour and disabling it like a cardboard box!
Why would anyone take up a slow-firing Panzer with weak AA capabilities when any plane or GV can just strafe it and disable it in the first pass? It is no wonder people usually use just two GVs. Ostwind for ground attack/assault + AA defense, and the M3 for capture. The M8, M16 and PzrIV is pointless.
....
This 'concession' allows people to kill a main battle tank with a plane or a GV that would have none or very very slim chance of even damaging it in real life.
The result we ended up with is every plane armed with Hispanos and M2 .50s becoming a multi-purpose fighter which effectively negates the usage of some many interesting and specialized planes which have been modelled in AH. As it is, they are modelled in vain(sorry Natedog and Superfly :( ).
There are GVs advancing to town. What do you do? Up a fighter and go strafe it. Why'd you need an IL-2 when a Spitfire with bombs would do the job? Drop the bomb, strafe it a few times and the engines smoke, tracks shatter, turrets bend... plus, if there are enemy fighters nearby you could even fight them too.
If there should be a gameplay concession, they should just hard-code the DM so heavily armoured GVs are immune to anything less than 37mm cannons. Unrealistic? Yeah. But at least with this simple coding you'd see people upping IL-2s or Hurri2Ds, Yak-9Ts.
-
Not to beat it to death, but I think they're aware of what you guys are saying.
However, remember that you have 7 folks doing all the work. Two of those are almost exclusively doing artwork. Figure two are doing "customer service" related issues... accounts, tech support, etc. That leaves three to do all the "master plan" deep thinking, research and programming, debugging, implementation of new features (Mission Theater), etc.
Yes, they are aware of the GV issues in the thread. Be patient. They've done well for us so far.
-
I agree. It is a lot of work for such a handful of people.
Let's just say these threads are 'suggestive' discussions to perhaps move some of the 'priorities' the community thinks nicely of up the list of 'to-do's for the staff.
;) The longer the wait, the better the results, we hope. Impatience is a way of showing affection in the aggressive manner. :)
-
"If a high velocity 57mm cannon is ineffective, where do you think that leaves .50 cal fire or 20mm fire?"
Were they AP rounds or HEI?
"The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated with our 50 API rounds and set the engine on fire, but the panther and the Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing. In those tanks the crews would just button up and hope that we wouldn’t call in AC that had bombs since that would finish them. There is a case on record where a Panther tank was strafed by P-47's for an extended time. The massive strafing shot off all the equipment parts carried outside the tank, and entombed the crew by dinging the hatch lips, effectively welding the hatches closed. If we could catch the tanks while on a road march far from the front lines they sometimes-carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped on the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them. Although we couldn’t be sure of damaging or destroying a heavy tank, our strafing was sure to affect the crew psychologically, having to stay cooped up hearing the constant rattle of our rounds hitting the tank and not knowing when a bomb or other heavy gun would finish them off. In summary, strafing a tank could do nothing or it could destroy them, depending on the circumstances.”
Wotan, I never would have guessed that the rear of the Panzer was vulnerable which is precisely how I straf the GV's.
I never would have guessed that the Republic P-47
Thunderbolt WASN'T a "tankbuster", wait it WAS and it's grandson is too, the Fairchild A-10 T-Bolt II.
The rear of the Panzers were vulnerable.
Jay
-
why do people keep calling the panzer MK IV a "main battle tank" and "a heavy tank " the MK V & MK VI were heavy tanks but they are not in game yet, the ostwind was built on a MK IV chassie so it's body armor is same as PNZMK IV, the MK IV was a medium tank.
a rapid fire 37mm has always ben used as a anti tank weapon.
a .50 cal AP will knock holes in a masonary wall, and had effective range of 1300 yds.
the US penitration data is "if 50% of the rounds go through , it is penitration".
no AP rounds "bounce off" they all cause some damage, deforming the outer skin and/or causing spalling* of the inner surface which can damage people and equipment.
panzer mk IV had 10mm top armor , early MK IV had 14mm side and rear, later MK IV 30mm side and rear.
for the metric challenged, 10mm =3/8" , 14mm= 1/2", 30mm=1 1/8" app.
so stop whining about your german super tank that gets damaged by the puny US .50 cal.
* spalling: thats when hard metal pieces brake off the inside surface and fly at high speed around the inside of the tank hitting things.
44MAG
-
try reading the thread and following the links. :rolleyes:
-
Just 2 clarifcations here...
1. I was commenting on .50 MGs vs. the Pz VIE.
2. I don't have any concerns about HTC and 'realism' when it comes to AFV armor and gun penetration effects. For those who do - there have been errors in lethality and FMs in every sim ever made. HTC fixes the errors when they find them. That's about all you can ask for in my book.
Mike/wulfie
-
50Cal penitration chart.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/pyro/50chart.jpg)
HiTech
-
Originally posted by john9001
why do people keep calling the panzer MK IV a "main battle tank" and "a heavy tank " the MK V & MK VI were heavy tanks but they are not in game yet, the ostwind was built on a MK IV chassie so it's body armor is same as PNZMK IV, the MK IV was a medium tank.
a rapid fire 37mm has always ben used as a anti tank weapon.
a .50 cal AP will knock holes in a masonary wall, and had effective range of 1300 yds.
the US penitration data is "if 50% of the rounds go through , it is penitration".
no AP rounds "bounce off" they all cause some damage, deforming the outer skin and/or causing spalling* of the inner surface which can damage people and equipment.
panzer mk IV had 10mm top armor , early MK IV had 14mm side and rear, later MK IV 30mm side and rear.
for the metric challenged, 10mm =3/8" , 14mm= 1/2", 30mm=1 1/8" app.
so stop whining about your german super tank that gets damaged by the puny US .50 cal.
* spalling: thats when hard metal pieces brake off the inside surface and fly at high speed around the inside of the tank hitting things.
44MAG
Im not whining..why would i need to..hell i don't even play this game.
I just say 50cal penetrations to Panzer IVh didn't happen atleast by looking battlefield research.
Btw you should check your numbers. Early war PzKpfw IVe and late war PzKpfw IVh differ like night and day,
Top turret armor is 15mm and rear deck armor is 12mm. Yes if you shoot in near vertical dive at point blank rounds will penetrate.
About spalling and armor flaking effect...it really is subject when tanks are shot with rounds over 75mm calibre.
-
hitech, what is the definition of penetration in that chart?
Is it the US variant ("penetration" meaning that it was possible to see light through a crack of armour) or any other variant (such as complete penetration by the projectile)?
Since that seems to be a US penetration chart, Im guessing it might be penetration=Possible to see light through crack in armor?
Because that difference might explain the discrepancies between in game effects and effects described in real life.
-
Seems that would only apply if you're talking about a single round hortlund. If its penetrating enough to put a visible opening in the armor... and you have 6 .50's shooting at close to the same area... well... I think even you can understand that it will be a cumulative effect.
-
hortland , here is the link to the US definition of pentration
http://web.archive.org/web/20010710224457/www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/usa_hardness_gun.html
compared to other countries the stats only vary by a few % points even though each country used different testing methods.
as i said above, the US said if 50% of the rounds went through it was pentration.
here is a link to the whole site
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/index.html
-
Seems that would only apply if you're talking about a single round hortlund. If its penetrating enough to put a visible opening in the armor... and you have 6 .50's shooting at close to the same area... well... I think even you can understand that it will be a cumulative effect.
Why would that only apply if we were talking about a single round? We cannot know what bullet #2 will do even if it hit the exact same spot as bullet #1. Penetration tables are more about averages than anything else. Most have some sort of explanation like "the graph shows the max penetration acheieved by 50% of the fired bullets" or stuff like that.
It is much more complicated than just looking at a graph and follow the lines to where they cross and say "yup, at distance x, angle y and speed z, the projectile will penetrate 2,782 inches of face hardened steel". It doesnt work that way. What you will get is more like, "at distance x, angle y and speed z there is a 56,745% probability that the bullet will penetrate 2,782 inches of face hardened steel".
And besides, questions like "How much would the penetration be if we fired 1000 rounds at the exact same spot?" are pretty useless to everyone.
And the odds of two rounds fired from a moving airplane hitting the same spot is...well not too good.
And just because there will be a cumulative effect, it doest mean that there will be penetration. A cumulative effect is not the same thing as cumulative damage.
Take a look at the facts, the British study of tank kills is an excellent place to start. The brits actually went over every single tank wreck they could find from Normandy to Bastogne, to find the reason what killed those tanks. Not one was killed by MG fire, not one.
-
Ok lets for a moment say that the Chart that HTC is using is sound and that under optimonal conditions a penatration could be acheaved( although in all reality a tank doesent seam to of ever been killed by this 50call ammo).
Why am I being killed by 50 cal fire outside the effective envelope of fire from this weapon?
Why am I loosing an engine from over the ranges that 50 cal fire could effectively penatrate my rear plate.
Why are my tracks being taken out at range when this has been proven imposable at almost any range and angle.
Why does the above hapen frequently.
Why can I disable a Panzer IV engine with a MG 34 at 400 yards?
-
Why do tanks instantly spawn 20 miles from their VH, depriving the players of hours of enjoyment driving their slow crawling armor over the beautiful terrains?
Why do tanks run down hill at 100+ mph?
Why does an Osty with a 37mm nearly always kill a tank with 75mm at max range in a nose-to-nose slugout?
Answers:
A. Because this is a game
B. Because the damage model is "off".
C. Because HTC has been so busy doing other more important stuff that they haven't revisited the entire GV issue
D. All of the above.
:D
-
Masherbrum,
The Mollins 6pdr used AP ammo. It was intendedas an anti-armor gun, and it did work quite well against U-Boats and freighters.
However, the armor on German tanks was too thick for it to be much use, and the lighter vehicles could be destroyed with 20mm fire. There was no need for the 57mm gun. It was overkill for many things, nad not good enough for the targets that a new weapon system was needed for.
-
Funny I see em and do em all the time.
Where in the rules does it say you HAVE to dive at 300mph?
Originally posted by Shiva
From the attacks I've watched from the target's view, I have never seen an attacker attempting to strafe my tank from a dive angle more than 45°, which from the diagram you reference would give no chance at all to penetrate the top armor, and no data about penetrating the side armor -- but if the side armor is at least as thick as the top armor (pretty well guaranteed), the .50 fire would have no chance to penetrate the armor there.
-
This whole thing is running in circles because people are completely convoluting the issue.
There's no sense in arguing that a .50 cal AP round could not penetrate the top of a panzer because it is possible. Those using terms such as "never" and "impossible" need to get out more.
Toad is on the money for the rest of it... with the exception that somehow we are only talking about Panzers. Ostwinds are too well armored in the turret and M-16, M3s and M8s are too well armored period.
None of this really matters much because the game is called Aces High.
Also notice... I've not seen HTC defend their current GV damage model. All I've ever seen from them is a reply to the "its impossible for a .50 to penetrate the top armor of a panzer" posts.
The whole thing is getting downright silly. Nice of some people to really start going on the rampage here.
AKDejaVu
-
keep fighting brady!!
you've got many supporters, even if they aren't as persistent! +)
SKurj
-
Infantry used to put .50s on top of buildings and take out tanks with them because of the lighter armor on top. If they could do so an AC should be able to do the same. Can't remember where I read that but it was more than one source.
-
Hmm. just saw special on cable about p47 pilots in ETO and in interviews with combat pilots they commented on destroying Tiger tanks with their 50cals by strafing the fuel trailers the Tigers would pull while in transit to the front lines or by bouncing the 50cal rounds off the roadway and penetrating the belly armor.
These actions I believe mainly took place during Normandy invasion and the months after as far as these pilots actions.
They also spoke of a major operation that was conducted that virtually annialated the Luftwaffe in one day involving nearly 2000 fighter & bombers in an all out attack on Luftwaffe airfields, I think I recall that they destroyed several hundred Luftwaffe aircraft in a single day on the ground mainly and in the air.
-
We all know how it is. As for armor though, Hotseat in Warbirds did a damn fine job that is just a fact - but in all fairness that is a totally different damage model too. AH GV's have never been that strong a selling point, I did a trial some time back and the GV's were even worse (enough to pass on subscribing at that time)
The Gv's we have now are "OK" but perfect - no way! Still though I'd rather see HTC spend time on airplane stuff first.
-
dont drag up the impossible.
no tanks were killed by 50 cals on a building. No tanks were killed by bouncing rounds off the ground.
Those are dead rediculous issues and have nothing to do with this what is being talked about here.
Yes 50 cals can penetrate the top armor but at angles and ranges that make those hits near impossible. But even so thats not what we see in ah. I dont think anyone is saying that 50 cals in general are too strong but they are saying that they way gvs in particular the panzer recieve damage from ranges and angles is "screwy".
No one is calling for ht to stop everything and fix it and we know this a game. GVs are but a side show. But the fella who started this thread asked a pretty good question. The replies should be focussed on answering him.
We see 50 cal planes at lo angles, 20-25 degrees, at ranges in excess of d500 destroying tanks. We see lvts m16s and m3 disabling and destroying tanks at angles that are seem impossible.
Dont confuse whats being talked with your own bias.
at 70 degress and at 300 yrds 50 cals killing tanks would not be much of a concern for me.
Please keep the crazy bullet bouncing stuff out of here.
:rolleyes:
-
Interesting.
Then why did they get rid of the 'car-bombings'? Is that not theoretically possible?
Or why don't they allow B-26s to get off from carriers? If a B-25 did that historically, we could limit the bomb load and let them off the CV, right?
How come they decide to keep something in favor "possibilty" when they decide to get rid of some other thing in favor of "probability"?
There are a lot more cases of 'realistically possible' or 'technically feasible' issues which the people have suggested to be included in AH, which was met with harsh scorn from the very same people here as they were referred to as "almost impossible in real life", "very slim chance", "unlikely case and not an example of any kind". Talk about being "selective"! "Slim chance", "unlikely case" meant something back then, but it doesn't mean anything now?
....
So what is it we're talking about here? Are the arguments in favor of the MG penetration based on gameplay concession or reality? Or is it both?
One thing for sure, either way, it stinks.
Consider it in the aspect of game play concession: it killed the need and usage for special ground-attack vehicles in the game. It creates an exclusive over usage of certain type of vehicles and planes. The only 'concession' here is but to enable people too lazy to up a proper anti-tank platform to go kill everything else in a MG armed fighter.
Considering it in the aspect of realism: it emphasizes on the "possibility" part only, with no regard to "probability".
....
Unless somebody comes up with something proving a lot of tanks were destroyed by MG strafing, the fact of AH will continue to be BS.
-
The penetration/angle model may be off. I don't know. I get the distinct feeling Pyro thinks it is pretty close though.
I know I have to get real close and make several passes to kill a fresh GV with .50's and I rarely live long enough to make 3-4 passes if I try. But that's just my own problem.
Anyway.....
So then how do you feel about 100+ MPH downhill in a tracked vehicle?
"Scotty, Beam me to the spawn point" transporter rooms for GV's that allow a GV to instantly snap back to a spawn point after a death... faster than a fresh killed fighter can even get airborne to start his 5 minute flight back to that same spawn point?
Crewman that stands to his Turret MG as a Jug rolls in with 8 .50's.. and wins that battle with no bodily damage?
Gameplay or reality?
GV's are indeed a problem right now.
If you had to make a choice right now would you prefer to:
1. Take them out. They're too porked and there's no resources to do a major overhaul at this time.
2. Leave them in as they are and accept the problems and get to the overhaul later.
Just curious.
-
Last tour I killed one Spitfire Mk. I. This Spit knocked out both tracks, the engine, and disabled the turret and pintle. I had hit him once with the pintle gun. That round hit his engine oil and he augered trying to make it back to base, but only after making at least four more passes on me (and finishing my tank). No, he didn't kill me, and fortunately there wasn't anything else nearby that could shoot at me. I sat in the tank until I got the kill message and then got captured. I was just 200yds from an enemy spawn point, and completely out of luck. He didn't have rockets, he could not attack from the rear (I had backed up to a hill), and he made low angle passes, which explains why I was able to shoot back on his first pass.
The last time I checked the Spit. Mk. I did not have .50 cal MG's. How do you feel about .303's disabling a Panzer IV?
I can tell you it doesn't bother me to have an aircraft kill my Panzer. I've been on the other side of the fence enough to know how easy it is (100 GV's in 4 hours with a Tiffy), but a plane with .303's?
I think the DM should be modified to knock out the pintle gun after some heavy fire, but require more fire to disable the 75mm. I thought I remembered the 75mm sight being killable, but it doesn't happen anymore. It seems to be a random event as to whether the turret or engine takes the damage, as why does the engine die on frontal attacks? Why des the pintle and main turret always die together?
Sure, we can live with it like it is (the Panzer can still be very effective), but it would be nice to have a few more details thrown in at some point down the road.
Yeah, I drive too many Panzers, but I enjoyed killing 242 of them last tour. :D
-
Damn voss.. I can see some argument for .50's damaging a panzer and potentially killing it from the top...
Just can't see it with .303s... no matter how its presented.
AKDejaVu
-
.303s huh? You do have a point there, that shouldn't happen in any world I know of.
-
Well, somethings screwey. I tried this in the TA and despite three Spit Mk. 1's attacking there was no damage done.
I'll check my film library to see if I recorded it.
No film.
DJ111 and I tried to strafe Panzers in the TA. The ammo loads are double there (approx.) and neither of us could kill one Panzer with a full load of Bf110 (him) and Tiffy (me). In the MA I can usually take down five panzers with guns only (Tiffy). Of course, they ditch once they are smoking, but I do make them explode occasionally.
IN the TA .303's appear to be useless, though. 50's smoked the tank, but never made it explode. 20mm's same, and 30mm too.
In the MA I have been killed outright by .50 cal fire, and the Spit incident I recounted above I had checked upon immediately following the incident. Something must have been amiss that night.
It's all good.
-
Ya I have taken out Engines with a MG 34, Panzer engines mind you.
-
Focus gentlemen.
The current GV damage model is off, I think everyone agrees on that. It looks like there is some form of cumulative damage formula in there somewhere that screw things up. Right now you can turn a stone building into rubble using MG's only, that should tell you that something is wrong.
There are two alternatives here. Either HT shares the view that there is something wrong with the gv/object damage model, and that it needs to be changed. In that case the damage model is on the "to do"-list will be changed sooner or later.
OR
HT wants the damage model to look the way it does as a gameplay concession.
I have now emailed this question to the Q&A forum, so hopefully we will get an answer soon.
-
In summery you could say this:
While it apears that under Ideal conditions a penatration could be acheaved using a 50cal round.
Howeaver that enevelope is so small and the angle of atack and range required to acheave this penetration are so steep and close that the chances of it actualy haping shuld be considered slight at best.
Historicaly 50 cal MG's were not AT weapon's, and if history bears any testomony to the case at had it is that the use of a 50cal weapon in the AT role was not at all effective aganst tanks.
Imobalization by 50 cal should be looked at in the same light.
-
Originally posted by Voss
Well, somethings screwey. I tried this in the TA and despite three Spit Mk. 1's attacking there was no damage done.
Err..isnt it in the TA where there is a small sign saying "Weapon lethality has been tuned down" when you enter?
-
Uh, haven't you learned that NO ONE reads those things? :D
-
Found two interesting sites while searching the web for more background info.
What US tankers thought of US equipment (http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~eswmn/IT.html)
Armament- Both 75-mm and 76-mm guns with available types of ammunition are incapable of neutralizing enemy tanks at ranges at which the latter are capable of neutralizing our tanks. When engaged at closer ranges with HVAP (high velocity armor piercing), 76-mm guns have disabled German tanks but penetration seems to be rare.
and
WWII pilot autobiography (http://www.madrebel.com/excerpts.html)
Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.
Conclusion: The Sherman would have been alot better if they had mounted eight .50 MG's instead of their 76-MM gun.... :-/
-
Seems that would only apply if you're talking about a single round hortlund. If its penetrating enough to put a visible opening in the armor... and you have 6 .50's shooting at close to the same area... well... I think even you can understand that it will be a cumulative effect.
Some months ago, I watched a program on the Discovery Channel about the P-47; there was one gun camera film they showed of a P-47 on a ground-attack sweep mission strafing a truck somewhere in France. When the pilot opened up on the truck -- at a range that was described as being about 400 yards -- the dust puffs on the ground from the bullet impacts covered an area four times the length of the truck in each direction when the pilot opened fire, shrinking to about three times the length of the truck when the pilot ceased firing and pulled up at about 200 yards range.
It seems to me that the problem with machine guns against tanks may not be that 80 rounds of .50 fire won't achieve enough damage against the deck and turret top armor to knock out the tank, but that the way that the shooting platform is modelled, each barrel is rigidly clamped into the airframe, which is rigidly clamped onto its line of flight, so that if the plane's guns are calibrated for 400 yards, at 400 yards all of the bullets in a one-second burst are going to hit the exact same spot on the target -- recoil torque and barrel flex being completely omitted from the ballistic calculations due to the increase in compute power required.
-
Yeah, last night on 'Steve Irwin's War Ghosts" they had a lot of footage of Corsair's and P-38's attacking Japanese shippig targets. The bullets were fired at pretty good range and grouped over a very large area, but determining precisely what was grouping and what were ricochetes is problematical.
Great show. Watching Irwin climb into the submerged Zero, the P-38 engroped by vines, the Japanese Sub-killer, and several other submerged vessels was very interesting.
I can't wait to have the time to snorkel and dive in the same area (Truk Lagoon and the like).
-
Voss,
Don't snorkel at Truk lagoon, or anywhere near it.
Many, many seasnakes there.
When you are on SCUBA you can look up and see them. 4/4 here - every time I have been there I have seen them near the surface, in decent #s.
Mike/wulfie
-
Irespective of what piolets say on the matter, studies done after the battle by inspectiors on the ground revealed that strafing atacks by Allied Jabo's( typhoons included) did not kill tanks.
It is all listed above.
-
Originally posted by brady
Irespective of what piolets say on the matter, studies done after the battle by inspectiors on the ground revealed that strafing atacks by Allied Jabo's( typhoons included) did not kill tanks.
It is all listed above.
Brulle, the author of "Angels Zero" and a 9th AF vet would disagree with you. He said disabling a Mk IV was possible. Is he a liar?
The evidence put forth here is not that conclusive. Its more like thats what You WANT to believe.
-
ammo there folks here have quoted specific jug pilots say they bounced 50 cals off the ground.
you tell me, are they lying?
No one said that 50 cals should never knock out tanks. They just say the angle and range that they do it here in ah makes one wonder if theres not something wrong
50 cals have what what a muzzle velocity of 870m/s = 2854f/s
How much energy does a 50 cal loose 1500yrds?
better what is its striking velocity?
ht chart says at 2800f/s and 0 degree (what I call 90) can penetrate what 28mm(1.1 inch).
but as the angle and striking velocity drop it fits with everything we are saying. When I strafe and kill panzrs I am never at hi angles or in close (d800) and I never fly 50 cal planes and I get kills pretty easy. Hell try a zeke they kills panzers easily from lo angles.
I would allow for some consideration in variances in fe except for the fact I have killed umm in ways that would seem impossible.
And this wouldn't explain lvt 50 cals or m3 or m16s killing at lo angles are long ranges.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Funny I see em and do em all the time.
Where in the rules does it say you HAVE to dive at 300mph?
PazKpfw IVh side armor is 30mm +5mm skirt. Skirt will deform rounds before impact on main plate and prevent penetration. This was designed to counter high velocity AT rifles and did much help against HEAT weapons too.
-
Originally posted by Stranger
Infantry used to put .50s on top of buildings and take out tanks with them because of the lighter armor on top. If they could do so an AC should be able to do the same. Can't remember where I read that but it was more than one source.
Ive read they did this to armored recon vehicles and recon halftracks. (Most of them having no top armor.)
I have never read about post 1943 german medium tank killed by 50cal...please post me some reference if you find. Reference must quote actual model of Panzer. You know US infantry called even unarmored panzerjägers "tanks" or even better "Tigers"
-
Originally posted by Wotan
ammo there folks here have quoted specific jug pilots say they bounced 50 cals off the ground.
you tell me, are they lying?
Yes pilots are lying. Panzer bottom armor was very tough (20-30mm) to protect crew from explosions of AT-mines. Deformed 50cal wouldnt do a scratch on it.
No one said that 50 cals should never knock out tanks. They just say the angle and range that they do it here in ah makes one wonder if theres not something wrong
50 cals have what what a muzzle velocity of 870m/s = 2854f/s
How much energy does a 50 cal loose 1500yrds?
better what is its striking velocity?
ht chart says at 2800f/s and 0 degree (what I call 90) can penetrate what 28mm(1.1 inch).
27mm at 50yards
20mm at 200yards
15mm at 400yards.
13mm at 500yards
7mm at 1000yards
IIRC
Also round must have leftover energy after penetration to do some damage..round that barely penetrates cant damage engine etc.
Yes even armored cars were relatively safe from 12.7mm (50cal) rounds frontally..they were designed to it. Usually around 12mm of armor with some slope (to make resistance about 20mm) was considered enough to stop Browning or DSHK 12.7mm rounds.
-
yes I think that is not true. A ricochet has spent much energy adn is no longer efficient enough to penetrate armor. I dont beleive that at all. But brulle did his homwork after the war, and did so with interviews with all kinds of folks. I stated some of his references in an earlier post. My point is the Mk IV we have, gets destroyed in AH and while I dont think the DM is great, at least it is representative to an extent. Toad himself has brought up anomalies that deserve equal consideration. I just doint thinkt eh 50 cals deserve the rap they are getting.
brady said--
Irespective of what piolets say on the matter, studies done after the battle by inspectiors on the ground revealed that strafing atacks by Allied Jabo's( typhoons included) did not kill tanks.
blaaaa
-
Heres one for you... define KILLING a tank, in AH that is, versus KILLING a tank in the war.
For example, in WW2 the brits find a panzer abandoned. What if that panzer had been straffed with 50's, and a couple of 50's ended up doing the ricochet inside? Now the chances are slim, mebbe a 1000 to 1, but... if a group of aircraft unload a few thousand 50 rounds at tanks that puts a few 50's cals bouncing thru a tank crew.
So mebbe the tank crew abandoned the vehicle? Or mebbe they were killed without major damage to the tank and the allied soldiers that found them buried them. The brit inspectors turn up and call it an abandoned tank.
Or say a tank was detracked by a tiffies 20mm and the crew decides to leg it cos they don't have time to fix it. Brits find it and classify it as what? How do they know what took out the track. Hell, an AT team might have spotted the tank sitting there and decided to to whack it just in case and then its classifed as an AT kill.
The stats are really pure conjecture. Until one of us sits in a Panzer while the other strafes us we really don't know toejam :)
-
how about just doing the math :)
bouncing 50 cal through the vision slit is probrably about the same odds as bouncing 1 off the ground. what kinda angle do you think you need to do that?
I dont know 100% sure. From what I gather tanks were abandoned as a result of their supply and support vehicles being destroyed. Out of gas, ammo etc. Joachim Peiper's crew left all their vehicles when they ran out of fuel in the battle of the bulge.
-
Gentailmen, the above pentration figures posted by illo, are for impacts from 90 degrees, illo what happens to that pentration from 85 and 80 degrees, would you mind my math math skills are not as good as your's m8t:)
Even rockets and bombs had a very slim chance of killing tanks on the battlefield, look at the info above.
No matter how you rationalise it how many angles you look at it from the sources above and the simple math of it all point to the fact that 50 cal's in AH are curentaly was outa hand when it comes to their distructive effect aganst The Panzer IV, and Osty Hull.
I have several books in my libary with conflicting data on all types of stuff, ranging from Submarines to Tanks to Aircraft, it is not unheard of for an auther to be wrong. Why would those batifield inspectors be blowing smoke up our but's from half a centuary ago, what the guy's were on the take? they worked for a tank company? dident want the Aircraft makers runing thier busisness?
-
Wotan... what do ya reckon ;) lets say 10000:1 odds. Now how many 50 cal rounds were hosed away per week by 51s and Jugs and 38s at tanks? It still works out theres quite a few 50 cals rounds bouncing around in them panzers.
Brady, as you said... Even rockets and bombs had a very slim chance of killing tanks on the battlefield.
The keywords are KILL and TANK. Look at these stats:
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5
10 tanks abandoned. WHY were they abandoned. Did A/C kill their fuel trailors, detrack them, or kill a significant portion of the crew?
10 Destroyed by crew. Once again... WHY?
5 Unknown. Unknown???
Of these stats over 50% of the casualties have no detailed explanation. That doesn't even take a look at the possibility that some of AP/HE shot tanks may have been at already abandoned or dead units.
They were blowing smoke up someones arse if they thought that this added up to informative data.
What I'm saying is a P51 pilot could have effectively disabled a tank and/or its crew. Now are AH tank 'kills' this sort of thing, or are they catastrophic destruction of the tank? If they are the later, then yes its screwed.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Heres one for you... define KILLING a tank, in AH that is, versus KILLING a tank in the war.
For example, blah blah blah
Or blah blah blah
So we are down to wild speculations now?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Wotan... what do ya reckon ;) lets say 10000:1 odds. Now how many 50 cal rounds were hosed away per week by 51s and Jugs and 38s at tanks? It still works out theres quite a few 50 cals rounds bouncing around in them panzers.
Brady, as you said... Even rockets and bombs had a very slim chance of killing tanks on the battlefield.
The keywords are KILL and TANK. Look at these stats:
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5
10 tanks abandoned. WHY were they abandoned. Did A/C kill their fuel trailors, detrack them, or kill a significant portion of the crew?
10 Destroyed by crew. Once again... WHY?
5 Unknown. Unknown???
Of these stats over 50% of the casualties have no detailed explanation. That doesn't even take a look at the possibility that some of AP/HE shot tanks may have been at already abandoned or dead units.
They were blowing smoke up someones arse if they thought that this added up to informative data.
What I'm saying is a P51 pilot could have effectively disabled a tank and/or its crew. Now are AH tank 'kills' this sort of thing, or are they catastrophic destruction of the tank? If they are the later, then yes its screwed.
The odds for shooting a .50 cal bullet through a vision slit is much much worse than 10000:1...try 1 000 000:1 and you are closer to the truth.
Abandoned=no visible battle damage, most agreed upon reason for that is no fuel. And exactly what is your mental picture of the 1944 German army? "Oh no, a P-51 strafed us and killed Heinz and Otto (who were outside the tank for some reason) we must abandon the tank instead of driving it home to get replacements."
Destroyed by crew=normal scenario, immobilized tank, allies approaching, crew bails and destorys tank.
If you look at the numbers you are quoting, they are from the 17 dec 1944-16 jan 1945 table. That means we are looking at German losses during the battle of the Bulge. Most people tend to agree that the German forces were pretty low on gas during that battle. Heck, some will even claim that alot of German panzer units had to abandon their tanks because they were out of fuel. But if you want to speculate that the tank COULD have been badly shot up by a passing P-47 who raked it a couple of times with deadly .50 cal bullets, and this scared the crew enough for them to abandon the tank and destroy it, go ahead.
Unknown is just that, unknown.
These are tanks that were so badly damaged that it was impossible to determine the cause of destruction.
If one were to speculate, it might be more concievable that those tanks were killed in close combat vs allied infantry, or that some of those 5 tanks suffered a direct hit from a 2000lbs bomb, or 203mm arty shell.
But if you want to speculate that some P-51 pilot might have bounced a couple of .50 cals off a tree, through the vision slit, and hit the reserve ammo to blow the tank up, then go ahead.
-
After reading extensively on the Subject over my life time ( I used to be an ASL junky), I know that mechanical break downs were for the German heavy tanks a bigger problem than the Allies. in fact most all the losses of German heavy tanks were from abandoment due to mechanical break down, If the tank was at the front and not able to be recovered, then It was destroyed by the crew.
If I were to engage in speculation , I would say more likely than not the AP shot "kills" were more likely on the Medieum tanks like the Panzer IV, and that the abandoned tanks were heavy's Panther's or Tiger's. To compiund this issue of abandoment All the tigers in the Bulge were the King Tigers save one( if memorie servies) This monster was very prone to break downs.
A prime example of how wacked the armor model is an event that hapened just a few minitues ago to me in the MA, ya I know not another storie... but bear with me...:)
I am in a M8 siting just behind the VH at a V base sofening up the VH with whats left of my 37mm HE.
A osty spawns, he drives around to whear I am so he can shoot me.
I wait, I got my trusty 50 cal UBER cannon in hand...no fear...take a drink....
He comes around the end of the VH and I T/O his turet with a 1 sec burst of 50 cal fire from about 50 yards( now that armore is 16mm thik and sloped at 25 Degreas....not to shure this is Possable in the real world)
I emideatly switch to his track, another one sec burst he is imobalized( even your vaunted expert on the killer 50 cal sya's that Panzer tracks could shrug off 50 cal fire)
Their he sits smoking and stuck in less than 3 seconds...But wait!
He is not one to give up easly, he jumps into his bow gun, and in just one short burst I lose my MA( the 50 cal).
I go back to my 37mm and continue on the hanger....
He respawns...
This time one shot from my 37mm to his turet t/o his gun, no suprise ost turet guns die easy.
Now I switch to his tracks, 5 hits in to his tracks and NOTHING he keeps coming firing his MG 34 the whole time, soon I lose a tire, then I explode...from a MG 34....lol
-
What I'm saying is a P51 pilot could have effectively disabled a tank and/or its crew. Now are AH tank 'kills' this sort of thing, or are they catastrophic destruction of the tank? If they are the later, then yes its screwed.
One of the things that is going to distort results in the MA is that players in AH lack the urgency of self-preservation that exists in RL. You get shot down, or blown up, and you just take off again; you've run your K/D down a bit, but it's not a big deal.
This is why, for example, you have people who can consistently take down heavily-armed bombers, or who have gunnery percentages many times what good pilots in WWII had -- when you can try again and again, and it doesn't matter if you 'die' dozens of times in the process, eventually you learn how to do it right.
How many tank crews would continue to man a tank after the main armament was disabled? Pretty few; they'd unass the tank and retreat ASAP. But we regularly see GVs and aircraft continuing to fight long past the point at which, in RL, the crew would have either disengaged or abandoned the vehicle. So even if the damage model is fixed, we're still going to get results that are distorted from what happened in RL. But we should at least be able to get realistic damage, even if what the players do with their damaged machines is ahistorical.
-
Originally posted by brady
After reading extensively on the Subject over my life time ( I used to be an ASL junky), I know that mechanical break downs were for the German heavy tanks a bigger problem than the Allies. in fact most all the losses of German heavy tanks were from abandoment due to mechanical break down, If the tank was at the front and not able to be recovered, then It was destroyed by the crew.
If I were to engage in speculation , I would say more likely than not the AP shot "kills" were more likely on the Medieum tanks like the Panzer IV, and that the abandoned tanks were heavy's Panther's or Tiger's. To compiund this issue of abandoment All the tigers in the Bulge were the King Tigers save one( if memorie servies) This monster was very prone to break downs.
Hehe, cool, Im an old ASL player too. Still play sometimes too. In the middle of a Red Barricades campaign with a couple of friends.
Your theory is sound, but the british study whose numbers Ive quoted only examined PzV wrecks. There are similar studies for PzVI and PzIV wrecks too.
-
I've never killed a panzer in AH with 50s b4 and have never seen it done. I've disabled plenty of armor in AH with 50 cals and when they abandon them they obviously explode and you get the 'kill'.
-
Oscar I do not know how much time you have online or do I intend this to be deragotary in nature, but last tour I hade over 180 hours on line, I have been playing for a few years and I have seen a lot of stuff, I have seen this happen often enough to warent my posting on this subject and based on my experance and knowledge of the subject matter find fault with it m8t.
Wow red baracades I have that one, had some good fights on it......ahhh those were the days:)
-
Well i can confirm that ive killed a panzer with 6x .50 cals in the P51. A squaddie needed to bring a goon in for capture and I used 1080/800 rds to kill the panzer made several passes and with 1 pass i got him smoking, i still kept shooting within the passes that were being made. And with 200 rds left i made 1 last pass and i seen the Panzer blow up.. I know he wasnt soft since he just spawned and i was the only a/c around when he spawned.
Moral of this story: Anything is possible. :)
-
I agree with WldThing...I have used the F6F MANY of times to kill ostys and panzers...I take out there main gun on the first pass and let em have it after that. The best way to kill a tank is from the back because the engine is there and it blows up the easiest. SALUTE ALL!
~BlueiceJ~