Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on August 07, 2002, 03:44:54 AM
-
While parked on the shore(near it at anyrate) I engaged an LVT who had just spawned, he was at least 1000 yards away whithen a few hits, just a few my gun was out, this I think is BS because the 50 cal could not pentrate the sides of my osty turet armor! No suprise hear the armor model is porked.
Now I turn and head for base to land my kills. thinking no way can he disable me I am so far away...Wrong I lose a track withen a couple seconds...grrrr.
So Is this some kinda of gameplay conshion? Are we foreaver forced to live with a Fantistac Aircraft model and a piss pore GV model?
What if the 7mm on the Val could kill B17's in one pass ? people would Balk at that one why not this 50 cal vs GV thing why do we have to put up with this?
-
The "single" 50cal is a wonderweapon on GVs, I'm always amazed how a single 50cal on an M3 can saw the tail off an Il2 or Fw190.
-
Pintel gun on the Panzer is pretty damn effective too, guys.
I have had wings and tails taken off from this seemingly "puny" weapon many many times.
As for the "armor" on the Osty turret, I thought someone posted specs somewhere once that showed it to be well within the penetration capabilities of the the 50 caliber MG? Not think armor at all, more like thin sheet metal?
And I am not disagreeing with brady's original topic......yes the GV damage model IMO is screwy.
We see large caliber rounds hit the front armor plate of a PNZR and riccochet off......why not the mg rounds too?
-
Ostie, shmostie. Give me 2 50 cals on the back of my Suburban and I will destroy your Ostie anytime! :D
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20020807/capt.1028736109.war_wagon_kbs204.jpg)
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/020807/168/1zvg1.html&e=14&ncid=996
-
Osty turet armor was 25mm thick.
I beleave that a 50cal round could not penatrate this at range.
-
It was 23mm IIRC and pretty well sloped, should be immune to 50cal fire from nearly all ranges.
-
Enclyopedia of German Tanks of WW2 gives 25mm.
-
Close nuff. :D
-
Actually the turret armor for ostwind is only 16mm.
The 23/25mm bothered me for some reason so I looked into it a bit more.
http://www.missing-lynx.com/panzerace.htm
5- Armor thickness of the plates on the sides of an “Ostwind” turret was?
Answer: 16 mm
Score: 32% answered this question correctly.
This misinformation stems from data listed in the original Heeres Waffenamt Technishe Daten Blatt G318I as Turm 25 mm (rundum) for the Flakpanzer IV, 3,7 cm (and was copied from this source onto page 111 of the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II). 25 mm is correct for the flat sides of a “Moebelwagen” superstructure (starting with No.46) but not for the turret of the Ostwind.
The correct data was found on an original turret drawing and original documents on mounting this same turret on a Pz.Kpfw.III chassis. The correct information was first published in Panzer Tracts No.12 in February 1998.
-
So based on this New data of 16mm given the slope what would the efective thickness be, given a shot at it was struck from 90 degreas.
-
90 impact angle (i.e. 90 degree angle formed by armor plate and impact trajectory of round) equivalent thickness = x1.
45 impact angle equivalent thickness = ~x2.
This is why sloping is so important. Your armor can be thinner and deflect bigger AP rounds with good sloping.
However, againts big HE rounds it's better to have plain old thick armor plate sometimes.
Mike/wulfie
-
20mm AP rounds could penitrate 20mm of armour at 100m at 90 degrees. .50 is about 12.5mm so theres no chance of it penitrating.
-
Which Ap rounds from what guns and fired at what distance's?
TY wulfie:)
-
I've seen 37mm ap rounds fired from m8 ricochet off of the osty turret . A lot of times when I get killed in a gv there is no noise, no hits, no gun fire, just damage sound . It's often times hard to tell who is hitting you and with what .
-
The M8, can kill, or disable an osty/panzer at close range from the side or rear, it howeaver seams to have no effect on the M3/M16 unless you use the 50cal MG on top.
-
At 1000 yards, could the .50cal fire have been arcing into the open top of the turret?
-
Please.........
-
Please what?
-
50cal bullets drop very little they have a very flat trajectory at that range ( it was 1k away so thats 1 thousand feet not yards btw sry:) ), and the LVT was in the water lower than me firing to my turet.
-
brady check out the .50in penetration chart hitech posted - at 330 yards the chart .50 could penetrate the ostwinds 16mm turret armour(37 degree slope according to actungpanzer.com), if hits were at an angle of around 25 degrees or less. Ie: if the LVT was shooting up at the ostwind at an angle of 12 degrees or more(37 degrees obviously being the best as it nullifies the turrets slope altogether).
-
The LVT was a lot farther away than that at leat 1k out.
-
brady, clarify please..........
When you say "he was 1K out" I automatically think in terms of AH measurements.......1K=1000 yards, not 1000 feet.
If he was within 1000 feet, heck yeah your Osty armor got ventilated.
If he was 1000 yards off, something is off, I agree. The .50 cal would have to have been arcing to get into the top of the turret at that range, and I agree with ya that the trajectory is too flat for that to happen in AH.
But don't post all these problems about your Osty dying without looking at problems with the Osty's killing ability itself.
I looked at a website last week that showed the Osty 37mm should NOT penetrate a PNZR armor, yet it is okay if it does in AH?
Be consistent in your criticism, not just pro-Ostwind. If a PNZR's 75mm AP shell is gonna bounce off the front armor, what makes it alright for the Ostwind's ammo to penetrate that same armor?
And yes, I have seen it and done it. Just last night I got into a fight with an Osty, range was 400 yards, I slammed two shells into his nose and had no effect. He opened up on my nose and I was dead. That sound right to you?
-
I appoligise for the confushion, it was late when I posted this and after reading it over I can see how it could be missleading( if not just stupid). I am not on the beach but still on the green, the LVT spawns in the water, I fire that is the range, their are no Icons so it is hard to be shure of the range, but he was out their, my center dot almost covered him compleatly, I can only estamate the range at 1 tousand yards not feet as I posted above.
I fear I may have damaged my cause with this stupid eror of mine, I hope all is not lost....
-
Just shoting from the hip ( not having looked at pentration figures for the osty 37mm) I find it's tank killing abaility's a bit suprising I assumed that it had a composit ammo load out whear some of the available ammo was AP and If nead be they Just slaped an AP clip in and went for it, howeaver hear agin I am speculating The only place I thought this would be effective would be on the rear or sides at best.
Shots from behind damaging things in the front of the plane, or vis a versa on the back of the tank always striked me as screwey.
I know their are some armor ammo issues that have yet to adressed, I have not brought al of them up at once perhaps I should have so as not give a biased impreashion, if that is the sase I am sory it was not my intenent.
-
Ostwind turret panels were made out of boiler plate, not face hardened armor. I imagine that would make them a bit easier to penetrate.
-
beter not imagine what you can imagine in AH:mad:
begin spend more time in IL2 like in AH
the diference ? rarely got banget 40 vs 1 like in AH :p
-
Originally posted by brady
While parked on the shore(near it at anyrate) I engaged an LVT who had just spawned, he was at least 1000 yards away whithen a few hits, just a few my gun was out, this I think is BS because the 50 cal could not pentrate the sides of my osty turet armor! No suprise hear the armor model is porked.
Now I turn and head for base to land my kills. thinking no way can he disable me I am so far away...Wrong I lose a track withen a couple seconds...grrrr.
So Is this some kinda of gameplay conshion? Are we foreaver forced to live with a Fantistac Aircraft model and a piss pore GV model?
What if the 7mm on the Val could kill B17's in one pass ? people would Balk at that one why not this 50 cal vs GV thing why do we have to put up with this?
You should have been driving a heavily armored AA vehicles/tank like the M3 or M16. The ostwin has paper armor compared to these heavily armored beasts
-
this is a silly thread.
the osty has a 6 inch gap in the front of the turret for the gun. are we sure that the round even penetrated? did a round get through that gap and miss the inner armour and get to the crew?
At 1000 yards the beaten zone of the 50 would be starting to kick in and a certain amount of drop of the bullets will occur.
at 1000 yards lets say it drops 10 meters and arrives in 1 second.
that beaten zone will kill your open topped ostwind.
of course any topogrophy that raised the rear of your osty at all would expose more of the turrent interior.
talking about absolutes in armour penetration is silly, especially vs an open topped vehicle.
The answer is to perk the ostwind.
-
I was flat on the ground and firing at a slight down angle to hit the LVT.
The whole point of this thread is to further illustrate the OVER effectivenns of the 50 cal in AH. I personaly feal the 50 cal's uberness in terms of it's general effectivenns vs every thing in AH is simply a game play function to enhance the usefullness of US aircraft/ vehicals.
-
Hold up brady...........
Don't let your bias toward German weaponry taint this. Hortlund showed both the .50 cal AND the 7.92mm MG will disable an armored vehicle.
Tilting this discussion with an evil eye towards just an American weapon takes away the validity of your argument, IMO. I've had wings and other vital flight controls disabled by both the .50 cal and the 7.92mm, so this is not just an issue with one of the two.
Either apply your "this is wrong and should not be happening" to both weapons, or please, let the subject drop.
From Hortlunds's thread on his testing:
"Effects of the current damage model:
7.92mm MG can penetrate and destroy the tracks on a PzIVH.
7.92mm MG can penetrate front turret armor and destroy turret on a PzIVH
7.92mm MG can penetrate front hull armor and destroy bow MG on a PzIHV
7.92mm MG can penetrate and destroy tracks on Ostwind
7.92mm MG can penetrate and destroy Ostwind turret from the front
7.92mm MG can penetrate concrete building and rubble it
.50cal can penetrate and destroy tracks on PzIVH
.50cal can penetrate front turret armor and destroy turret on PzIVH
.50cal can penetrate front hull armor and destroy bow MG on PzIVH
.50cal can penetrate concrete building and rubble it."
Looks like both weapons are too powerful or neither is, no?
-
Actually, this discussion is about the frequentness of armoured ground vehicles getting destroyed/immobilized/disarmed by simple machine gun/20mm cannon strafing in one~two passes from planes.
This particular 'sub-thread' just happens to use .50s and Ostwinds for a particlar example.
The real purpose of this thread is to demonstrate the absurdness of current AH method of attacking GVs, especially something like Panzers. People don't need, and don't use the special planes HTC took time to model in the game - such as the IL-2 or Hurri2D, Yak-9T - because every plane is virtually a multi-purpose plane when they can knock out armoured tank with simple few passes. Pardon me if this is subjective, but for the couple of years I've been in AH, almost 90% of the Panzers I've seen killed were by strafing.
People don't even take a bomb or rocket up anymore when they find out "Panzers are otw".
-
At 1000 yards the beaten zone of the 50 would be starting to kick in and a certain amount of drop of the bullets will occur.
at 1000 yards lets say it drops 10 meters and arrives in 1 second.
that beaten zone will kill your open topped ostwind.
Is there a mathematician in the house?
Pongo, look at the geometry of the situation. A drop of 10 meters in a distance of 500 meters gives a drop angle of atan(10/500), or 1.15°. Hardly gives much of a 'beaten zone', does it? The margin within which a round could pass over the front lip of the turret and still hit the back side of the turret is a 2.4" high window, assuming the turret top is 10' wide; a variation in gun elevation of 0.0035° means the difference between dropping a round into the turret and flying over the top of the turret and missing completely. I'd bet that a pintle-mount .50 jerks a lot more than that from shot to shot, except that most of the AH light weapons are all clamped into bench rests so they can't jerk from recoil.
Then you have to consider whether a .50 round dropping into the turret on that flat a trajectory wouldn't just punch its way out through the back wall of the turret, doing no real damage.
-
[Then you have to consider whether a .50 round dropping into the turret on that flat a trajectory wouldn't just punch its way out through the back wall of the turret, doing no real damage. [/B]
you defeat your own argrument, if it will punch through the back wall , why won't it punch through the front wall??
-
I'm not a mathematician but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn....
500 Meters equals 546.807 Yards, right?
Didn't Pongo say "1000 yards"? So 1000 Yards equals 914.4 Meters, right?
OK, back to the chalkboard. Shouldn't take long to rework it. ;)
-
Sure it wasn't an LVT-4 firing both howitzer and .50 cal?
-
That still won't explain M16s knocking out Panzers at those distances with .50 spraying like hell's rain on Armageddon day, Adam.
-
They were LVTA2's and the 75 mm on the LVTA4 is usless aganst armor.
-
you defeat your own argrument, if it will punch through the back wall , why won't it punch through the front wall??
Pongo was referring to dropping rounds into the turret via the open top, with the additional damage that it would do to the turret contents from not having to punch through the turret armor first. Regardless of whether it's 1000 yards or 1000 meters, the angle at which the round is dropping is sufficiently small that 'plunging fire into the open turret top' isn't a viable consideration for how fast the turret dies.
-
Well, you were the one calling for the mathematician. :D
It's not a question of "whether whether it's 1000 yards or 1000 meters" it's a question of whether you're going to work the problem at 1000 yards as Pongo stipulated or if you're going to work the problem at 500 yards, which is the range you chose.
I'd think you'd want to work the problem as specified by the initial poster, wouldn't you?
Even though your point may or may not still be valid.
I'm just saying if you're going to show Pongo how misguided he is, I'd probably use the conditions he stipulated. If I were a mathematician, I mean. But I'm not, as i stipulated.
:)
-
I don't quite get the "armor" discussion here. Seems to me the guns aren't protected by any armor at all. I'm pretty sure a .50 cal striking most gun barrels is going to result in enough damage to cause a serious misfire.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by brady
The whole point of this thread is to further illustrate the OVER effectivenns of the 50 cal in AH. I personaly feal the 50 cal's uberness in terms of it's general effectivenns vs every thing in AH is simply a game play function to enhance the usefullness of US aircraft/ vehicals.
Wow...can you say 'conspiracy'?
And another thing....how about a dictionary....or at least a Brady decoder ring? :D
-
but a definite BIAS........
-
the osty has a 6 inch gap in the front of the turret for the gun. are we sure that the round even penetrated? did a round get through that gap and miss the inner armour and get to the crew?
A 6" gap for the gun, which was filled behind the gap by a curved armor plate mounted on the gun itself, through which the barrel protruded.
It's not a question of "whether whether it's 1000 yards or 1000 meters" it's a question of whether you're going to work the problem at 1000 yards as Pongo stipulated or if you're going to work the problem at 500 yards, which is the range you chose.
You're right; I made a mistake. If the round is dropping 10 meters in the approximately 1000 meters of flight, then a bullet trajectory that went from roughly ground-level to ground-level would only be five meters off the ground at the midpoint of the trajectory (at which point it would be moving horizontally), which means that, computing the drop angle as the angle between the bullet at the point it was flying horizontally (halfway to target, or roughly 500 meters from the target) and the point of impact, the drop angle at the point of impact would be 0.57°, not 1.15°, and the 'window' for getting a round to clear the front of the turret and hit the inside of the back of the turret would only be 1.15" high, reducing the angular width of the trajectories that would do that from 0.0035° to 0.0017°.
I want to thank you for pointing out my error, Toad; it created the impression that the open turret top of the Ostwind was more vulnerable to direct machine-gun fire than it really was.
-
eddiek, I am not Biased, I have posted on other threads about the problem with the MG 34 and other rifle caliber weapons being over effective, I have also posted on low velocity 30 and 20mm canons being over effective aganst armor, those are Axis weapons. This post is about the 50 cal, I am trying to stay on subject m8t.
I also cahmpion plane and Vehical adation from all nations.
I am pro Sherman
I am pro Tu-2
I am pro H8K
I am pro proper ammo for the LVTA4
I am pro Coranado
I am pro early model P 38
I am pro He 162
I am pro Cant z.1007
I am pro PT smoke generator
I am pro Beaufighter
I am pro He 177
I am pro Grace
I am not Biased, I try very hard to be objective, you can look up past post's on the above topics and you will see I have backed all these and more.
Prety much I want it all:)
-
Originally posted by Shiva
If the round is dropping 10 meters in the approximately 1000 meters of flight,
Well is this the correct hypothesis to start with?
After all, if the gun is sighted in to be "on" at 500 yards, then the drop at 500 will be essentially zero. That is, it is sighted to be dead on at 500. In this case, using the .50 BMG, the bullet would be "on" at 500 yards, drop -18.6" at 600 yards, -45.2" at 700, -80.2" at 800, -126.5 at 900 and -183.4 at 1000 yards.
Nice Ballistic calculator at:
Trajectory (Basic) Input (http://internet.cybermesa.com/~jbm/ballistics/traj_basic/traj_basic.html)
Ballistic Coefficient for the .50 BMG is .685. Muzzle Velocity for the 36" gun is 2845. It's amazing how closely the Calculator matches the old Navy chart that HT put up.
Enjoy.
-
Hmmm, do we have any true marksmen around. I seriously doubt you have anywhere near that kind of drop on a .50 cal round at that range. I'm limited to firing rifles (mostly 22's) at shorter ranges but I'd guess that the drop on a .50 at 1000 yds is about 2 ft or so.
-
You don't need a marksman. 500 yards or 1000 yards... one is .18 seconds travel time the other is .32. How far does any object drop in that ammount of time?
Besides... its a moot point. The only thing the armor protects is the operator... not the guns.
AKDejaVu
-
Just how vunerable do you think that round tapered hardend barel is, which is pointed right at you, any thing not going right down the barel( ya right) is going to hit that taperd tube and bounce off into the gun shield.
-
One thing I forgot to mention It was Fester in that LVT, he could put one down the osty tube, so I gues this whole argument is now pointless?:)
-
Originally posted by brady
Just how vunerable do you think that round tapered hardend barel is, which is pointed right at you, any thing not going right down the barel( ya right) is going to hit that taperd tube and bounce off into the gun shield.
Any barrel is vunerable to a .50. The steel just isn't that thick. And barrels do not armor make. It doesn't have to penetrate anything... only distort in that situation.
My money says that there is an area that accounts for turret gun damage... and its not a mere 2" in diameter.
I also find it difficult to believe this much effort is going into the Ostwind's damage model. Seems you'd have better luck arguing about the M16's damage model. .50s should tear one of those apart... but they seem relatively impervious. An M3 should go down with only a couple of hits... yet they can take as many as 40 before exploding. Go for the obvious... give up on the not so obvious. It just isn't working for you.
AKDejaVu
-
Personaly I think the Idea of taking out the MA on the osty is prety far fetched with any MG unless it is from an aspect that can kill the crew throught the open top. I realy do not by the gun damage Idea no mater how well it is deleavered, I would be more apt to beleave the sight took damage befoe the gun did.
In so much as I can tell the osty turet is just as vunerable from fire provided it is brought to bear for long enough from any angle, not just the top, and that is what I am realy geting at hear, and from MG(rifle calliber or 50 cal) this should be adreased.
I know the M3 and M16 used to be way porked but they are a bit easer to kill now, see my new thread on the M16 and HE in this forum, I just took some screan shots I will post in their.
The only reasion It may not be working for me is the preception in the comunity that the osty is tough enough as it is, and any argument trying point to the contrary is going to be an up hill battle no matter how good the facts are.
-
Brady is to gv armor as Mandoble is to 190d9 .
I don't know if you've noticed but you're straight trippin, you should take a break bud .
-
I would but these post's just don't seam to be dying.....It seams I have created a monster, maybe somthing good will come of it all.
-
brady , go explan to samm how he can put 125% fuel into his airplane
-
Originally posted by john9001
brady , go explan to samm how he can put 125% fuel into his airplane
The same way you can put 1250cc into a liter jar .
-
Look if you two can't along I am going to seperate you.
:)
-
Suave is to base fuel supply as brady is to gv armor :)
-
But sheesh, when you make a statement like this:
"The whole point of this thread is to further illustrate the OVER effectivenns of the 50 cal in AH. I personaly feal the 50 cal's uberness in terms of it's general effectivenns vs every thing in AH is simply a game play function to enhance the usefullness of US aircraft/ vehicals. "
The .50 cal was a potent powerful weapon in RL, just as in AH. I mentioned the bias based upon your above statement, plus your NOT mentioning that Hortlund's tests indicated the 7.92mm was capable of the same damage as the .50 cal.......
Likely just me misreading you, but you stated the "whole point of this thread", not me.
BTW, give it a rest. Likely nothing is gonna be done about the GV damage model until the next release. I can understand your frustrations, but guy, the Ostwind is way overmodeled in the amount of havoc it can wreak, ya know? Making the most capable vehicle in the GV set (and it would appear your favorite)more durable and less susceptible to damage only helps you, not anyone else.
-
Yes eddiek, I too am going werey of responding to these threads, on the armor Issue, and I can see how that statement of mine could be construed as a biased one. espichaly if you missed my coments on the other threads about those other weapons you sighted. Howeaver after ponderring the evidance and beieng aware that gameplay is an issue for HTC, I in frustration ( years of it) punched out that comment.
I do agree that somthing neads to be done to the ostys effectivness aganst buildings,but a larger issue is the overal GV armore model and the airplanes effectiveness aganst them, people dont take tanks into battle because every plane in AH can damage them. In an osty you have a fighting chance. Thats why you see so many of them, like the spits, the Georges the La-7's it is comaprtively easy to get kills and survive. The problem with the osty is that their are no other vehicals to take in it's stead curently. Since aircraft in AH have unhistoricaly over effectiveness aganst armor, so to does the osty aganst the aircraft and the enviourment, fixing the osty is not the issue the whole thing neads to be looked at.
I use the osty as much as i do out of necesity, since I play for rank I prety much have to, in order to compeat, same with the use of allied Jabo's I nead to use them to compeat, german Jabo's are bad for rank.
I would gladely take a pause from this topic, I sincerly hope somthing is done with this issue, howeaver years of frustration over HTC's aproach to it have not given me cause for hope on this front.