Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BotaBing on July 24, 2000, 06:27:00 PM
-
Well...the last few weeks of running ground units, and attacking ground units, has left me with a couple questions. Please respond if you can help shed light (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
#1 - It seems to me that tanks are incredibly difficult to kill, unless you are flying something that shoots 20mm. Then, if a pilot can come in from behind, at a steep angle, he can 20mm kill you each pass, without any risk to himself. Does anyone else think that tanks are too vulnerable to these types of attacks? Any strategies on how to avoid it?
#2 - I have been flying the p47 a lot lately. I have repeatedly attacked tanks with the .50cal guns, and last night took the cake. I must have landed about 500+ pings on this tank, from all angles, with my p47...NO DAMAGE. I reloaded, and did it again, NO DAMAGE. He finally ejected cuz he was out of ammo.
Is that right? Would 1000+hits from a .50cal machine gun anywhere from 100-800 distance really not effect a tank?
-
Quite likely 1000+ hits with a 50 cal would have no effect. 20mm cannon may be a bit too powerful against tanks right now, but they did hit A LOT harder than a 50 cal.
Unlike in arcade games where you slowly wear the armor down (tank has 500 hits, each 50 cal round does 5, each 20mm does 20, 100 50 cal hits kills tank, 25 20mm hits kills tank) AH attempts to model reality. If a 50 cal round hits the armor of a tank it will almost certainly just bounce off. It does no damage to that point and if that point is hit again the new round will also bounce off. The 50 cal rounds don't hit hard enough to degrade the armor.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Well, you can annoy someone to death with that endless pings; it is the only way to get kill against pnzr with .50 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
If you want a kill against pnzr with only guns get tiffy or f4uC. Spits are not that effective against pnzrs now due to twice less hispanos and much less ammo that 2 abovementioned planes have, but you still can get couple of kills against panzers with spit IX.
(http://www.warriormage.com/legion/graphix/legion_fariz.gif)
(http://www.warriormage.com/legion/graphix/trainers_logo.gif)
-
I don't know where from you've got that in your mind that .50 caliber would kill Pz-IVh.. lol..
If you didn't know, .50 caliber is equal to 12.7mm, so you see that theres *bit* difference between 12.7mm and 20mm.
Also, 20mm is bit too strong at the moment against tanks.. specially those hispanos.
Karnak;
I don't think that this system is like in WB that ### amount hit points in a spot and it equals same as 20mm..
There is penetration values too.
(I have empited 3000 rounds of 12.7mm from point blank range with M16 into a tanks butt (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
-
.50's would normally work very well against the tracks but due to side skirts it ain't happenin.
The only thing that is lacking is turrent jams. While the gun would still be capable of firing, turrent power loss seemed to happen alot due to lesser guns. I believe this was due to chunks of steel from guns such as .50's deflecting off the armor and lodging between the roof and turrent. Not real sure about it. I do know that 20mm's caused it with great frequency for the detenation on impact.
We also don't have leaking fuel systems on alot of the German tanks. MG strikes could and did light them off effectively making the tank abandoned. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)
- Jig
-
.50 cals are just chunks of lead, they are not armour peircing rounds. You can shoot a tank all day long with a 1000 50 cal machine guns and all you'll do is ruin the paint job.
Its not just the size of the round. 20mm is 7.3 mm bigger (just over 1/4 inch) - they are specially designed to penetrate amour and explode shortly after contact. The are bigger rounds, heavier rounds (more kenetic energy) with special tips to knock stright thru armor.
Also it seems that Hispanos are something in the realm of 10 times more likely to kill a tank than mausers, havent tried SHVAKS or other types. I know the hispano round is heavier and has a higher muzzle velocity than the mausers, so it should do more damage. But i have never even damaged a tank with mausers, and i can kill a panzer in a single pass with hispanos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If ya wanna kill a tank, get a tiffie, or a hog-c - that'll do the trick.
Spat.
-
if possible roll a darn tank to kill that tank its more fun for all involved.
but if not so inclined
drop a bomb on the dang sucker
HTC has fixed the bomb damage to reward a good drop on a vehicle with a kill so any plane in teh set that carries large bombs can knock a tank out easy if the hit is close enough or multiple bombs are dropped.
I fly the f4u1c when the opposition knocks out the vehicle hangar and rolls an armored assault and use 1k bombs as the primary weapon against tanks and the rockets against m16s each is effective if aimed accurately
-
Yes, Fishu, thats exactly what I was saying. I was saying its NOT like the arcade-like system I described.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
I second Citabria.
Bombing a tank is the easiest and fastest way to kill it. All you have to do is fly directly over the tank, pull a loop and drop the bomb on the way down from the loop. It works for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
In the spit 9, this tour, I have 51 panzer kills (and 5 deaths from panzers). It typically takes me 1 to three passes to kill a tank in my spit. I have, a few times, taken 4, 5 and even 6 passes to kill them though. My overall hit % is about 22%, and against panzers I think it is a bit higher, so it takes quite a few whacks to knock out a panzer with a spit, but it can be done with practice. I agree that the 50's are worthless against armor. I try to save them for AC defence when I need to bug out.
Try the spit, use just the 20's, and be persistant.
eskimo
-
BotaBing, (Great name BTW) in fighters you have 22 kills and 10 assists. You have a total of 2319 hits. That's 72.5 hits per kill/assist. You probably only hit him a few hundred times.
eskimo
-
I killed a Panzer with just the nose guns from my B26. It took 5 or 6 passes. Each time I kept shooting at the side of the tank from almost 0 altitude. It finally was destroyed. Hopefully they have fixed this. A 20mm shouldnt be able to kill a tank. The only way I can think of that a 20mm could kill a tank would either kill the commander while he was exposed or maybe start an engine fire.
-
Originally posted by Spatula:
[B
Also it seems that Hispanos are something in the realm of 10 times more likely to kill a tank than mausers, havent tried SHVAKS or other types. I know the hispano round is heavier and has a higher muzzle velocity than the mausers, so it should do more damage. But i have never even damaged a tank with mausers, and i can kill a panzer in a single pass with hispanos (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
If ya wanna kill a tank, get a tiffie, or a hog-c - that'll do the trick.
Spat.[/B]
Those russian 20mms are same caterogy.
I had once La-5 taking off from nearby field all the time, he made it 4 times, emptied probably all his ammunition on 3 earlier times and then I thought 'thats enough' and shot him down with MG34.
Yes, Hispano has more power and stuff, but still it does not make that much difference that other cannons just tickles while hispano makes it like cannon, if not even better (when sees that it can kill tank by shooting its front plate)
-
Not to be arguementitive but there are documented cases of tanks being "knocked out" by .50 cal fire in WWII (now I suppose I will have to go find them again)
BigJim
-
As a tank driver, the thing that is most obnoxious to me is the f4u-1c.
As for bombs, a near miss by a 1000 lb'er will kill me every time.
I've had b-17's and b-26's drop strings of bombs on me and survived them.. (I watched from the external view, as a group of 6 bombs strung from in front of me to behind me as I was running full speed...and survived it. musta been smaller bombs because 1 hit directly in front of me and 1 hit directly behind me)
yet with the Hispano's, I've been killed with as few as 5 rds. (what I feel is really odd, is that what I hear, is a string of pings, perhaps as long as 20-30 seconds sometimes, and the pilot reports he only used 15-30 rds)
haven't noticed it much in current version, but in the last one a bomb hit in front of the tank would take my engine out almost every time, but a near miss to the rear wouldn't.. go figure..
As to 50 cal's???
For the most part,
hehehehehehhehehehehe hahahahahahahahahhaah
eventually you'll come in below my main gun level, and yer dead (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) nuthing like a 75mm Main Gun enema from 400 yds or less....
But on rare occassions, they can knock out a turret, (prolly turret ring damage), wound the driver, kill the engine. (the vented hood over the engine is highly susceptable to 50 cal penetration) only on rare occassion have they actually killed me.
------------------
GreyBeard, Squadron Leader
Commander, "E" Flight, Aces High
Senior Staff Council
"The Skeleton Crew"
"Fly with Honor"[/i]
"Keepin' the Faith"
[This message has been edited by SC-GreyBeard (edited 07-25-2000).]
-
Originally posted by BigJim:
Not to be arguementitive but there are documented cases of tanks being "knocked out" by .50 cal fire in WWII (now I suppose I will have to go find them again)
BigJim
If tank is on a solid ground, you might get .50 calibers bounced through bottom.. but soft ground, I doubt it.. I've heard they did such things, but I don't think that works off-road or soft road.
Also lighter tanks are possible to kill pretty easy.
Early panzers, tank destroyers (which often had open top or light armour.. unless it was those mammoth ones like Nashorn)
But mostly I think that stories about .50 caliber killing tanks, are more of propaganda made from light tank kills, because I hardly believe that late Pz-IV and later tanks would get killed by .50 caliber. (of course theres always lucky times, but we really can't include those as "this is how you kill tank on regular basis with...")
-
Originally posted by SC-GreyBeard:
and the pilot reports he only used 15-30 rds)
haven't noticed it much in current version, but in the last one a bomb hit in front of the tank would take my engine out almost every time, but a near miss to the rear wouldn't.. go figure..
Correction, 30-60 rounds..
I have noticed that bullets in the front of tank can cause more often damage than hits in the rear...
Usually hit in the rear counts as wounded driver, but hit in the front area counts as dead tank. (if luckily survives through it, you might have lost a turret.. of attack from ahead)
-
Have you tried vertical approaches? 4mm thick on top I believe.
-
Eskimo...thx i guess i was over-estimating how many pings it actually was.
I rarely fly, and I almost always get killed before i get to shoot much. But the other night, I unloaded 2 full 1700/1700 flights on this tank hehe. It flashed so many times I couldnt count.
-
"Does anyone else think that tanks are too vulnerable to these types of attacks?"
Yes
-
I've killed tanks in the TA with m16's . It takes ALOT of armor to stop a 50cal BMG . There are armored track vehicles in use in the US military today that are vulnerable to 7.62mm . Not very reassuring to know that an AK47 can ruin your day when you are riding in a track .
-
OK Fishu this is from my DIRECT experience, I fire .45 cal lead bullets at 1 and 1/2 inch lead plate all the time in my "cowboy action shooting" sport. These rounds are hand loaded to not be faster than 600 fps (to prevent too much splatter) after a few sessions the lead plate is so badly perforated that it must be replaced. Now I must assume that a .50 cal shell fired at something like 1200 fps with and AP tip will easily pentrate 4mm of top armour??? We fire at the target at 40 feet and an attacking plane would be farther away to be sure but I believe .50 cal ammo WILL penatrate from the top (the weakest part of the WWII tank)
BigJim
-
*Note to self.....Always be nice to BigJim!*
-
just whine, bypass
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Actually Bigjim 50cal BMG has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps . BTW a jarhead in the gulf war killed two iraqi apcs with a 50cal sniper rifle from over a kilometer away. A third apc surrendered .
-
I remember trying to kill Tiger IIs in AOE with my Spitfire MkXIV. Finally dove straight down on the thing and put some 20mm rounds through its deck, killing it. Unfortunately, as Fishu predicted above, the Tiger's hulk was quickly joined by a twisted pile of Griffon equipped aluminum that hit the ground at 400mph.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
just whine, bypass
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Suave1:
Actually Bigjim 50cal BMG has a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps . BTW a jarhead in the gulf war killed two iraqi apcs with a 50cal sniper rifle from over a kilometer away. A third apc surrendered .
Thats possible when those APCs didn't necessarily have even 8mm armour on those.
..and more probable fully wheeled.
-
Heheh well Fishu the lead plate "swings" on chain hangers so it is NOT always "zero" angle (since the game is based on time and hits). If you read my post alittle closer you would see that I did mention the distance thing (you also failed to notice that the load only allows 600 fps max) and I used the example because we use lead bullets which are not "hardcase" or "jacketed" ammo which I believe relates well to "jacketed ammo" and "steel" armour plate. As for the Iraq APC's well I guess most of their stuff was Russian so YOU must know what thickness the armour is??? As for your bash against American arms all I can say is *yawn*
BigJim
-
BTW can anyone convert mm to inchs??? I just figured out that 1 and 1/2 inchs is about 40mm it that right??? If so 12mm (which is the top armour on a PZ IV I just checked the web) is less than 1/2 inch (which seems awfully light)???
BigJim
-
Ok, let me start off by saying this is a true story (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I saw on the discovery channel a program about navy seals. They were showing the different weaponry that they used. One of them was a 50cal sniper rifle. Heres the interesting part. They showed an american sniper firing a 50cal AP round at a russian T72 tank and it penetrated the front of the turret armor. Wow. I believe the range was about 100m.
-
just whine, bypass
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
OK Fishu no sense talking to you anymore you just twist the facts to suit yourself, you refuse to face ANY possibility that YOU may be wrong, and then you sign with some snide remark inviting someone to "fly off the handle" it's a neat trick when you don't have a case or leg to stand on to try and ridicule to change the view away from the facts but IN FACT you are wrong plain and simple and the armour vehicle stats you quoted were also WRONG I went and looked and got the stats myself from the net without much trouble. Well I have had enough discussion with you on this to see that facts mean nothing to you unless they prove YOUR point otherwise just pretend they don't exist right???
BigJim
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
I just felt like crunching some numbers and heres what I found:
So far this tour (6):
2573 Panzers have killed each other.
Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !
Fighters have killed 1424 panzers.
Only 5 aircraft have K/D ratios beyond 0.43 ( the rest had K/D's of 0.36 to 0.06)
The tank killers and K/D ratios are:
F4U1-C 1.70
Typhoon 1.04
B-26B 0.81
B-17G 0.78
Spit-IX 0.74
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo:
I just felt like crunching some numbers and heres what I found:
So far this tour (6):
2573 Panzers have killed each other.
Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !
Fighters have killed 1424 panzers.
Only 5 aircraft have K/D ratios beyond 0.43 ( the rest had K/D's of 0.36 to 0.06)
The tank killers and K/D ratios are:
F4U1-C 1.70
Typhoon 1.04
B-26B 0.81
B-17G 0.78
Spit-IX 0.74
eskimo
Many of those fighters killed by panzers are fighters that has either rammed into the panzer or crashed while trying to strafe it..
When I we're driving a tank, every fourth time someone crashed...
hows the 190A vs. panzer? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Ouch.. I just checked 190A-5 and 190A-8 stats against Pz-IV..
190A-5 K/D: 45 / 135
190A-8 K/D: 13 / 92
must admit that those hispanos gives *bit* too much advantage.
Must say that those other than hispano equivelant armed planes have been strafing tanks just for nothing, while tank drivers been having fun fixing their MG34 aim with those drones.
for gods sake, I hope this hispano gets downgraded or few other cannons gets upgraded to more equal levels.. (yea yea, i know, hispano was more powerful, but still it was 20mm like MG151/20 and others, and still not that much difference)
-
Do the statistics available show _how_ a tank was killed?
I know I've been killed by F4U/Typhoon 20 mm guns in a Pzkw IV, but some pilots must get kills by bombs and rockets?
I do not even try to kill tanks by guns/cannons. It's a 500 kg bomb as close as possible or a salvo of rockets.
-
The armor at the rear of a tank isn't null and void its just at a flatter angle and slightly thinner, in WWII our sherman tanks main battle gun didn't punch through the armor of the panzers except at very close range and from very close range at the rear in many cases.
Like it or not .50cal and 20mm both should have less of an effect, the depleted uranium rounds of the 35mm fired by the A10 today are hyper velocity not hardly inline with the old steel core armor piercer of the 1940's.
The 25mm modern bushmaster cannon mounted on many US vehicles also uses high performance rounds and won't punch through more than just a couple inches of armor in other words light armor.
I would guess the russian IL's droped a whole lotta bombs on those exposed panzers and went after the lighter vehicles with cannons blazzing although I'm sure stray rounds and open hatches did a few in a 75mm main battle tank round glances off with only partial effect but a 20mm round does the trick? catch that white rabbit the next time yer in the hole man its the only way you can prove yer case.
-
C-47 K/D 5:85.... hmm ... 5 kills!
Some kills are certainly freebies, alot of them must be due to bombs. B-17, B-26, P-47, F4U-1D and the stang prolly got all kills with bombs. Also, if you ping a tank, and he then drives into the ack, or tips over, you get a kill.
The stats don't sort out much. They also don't tell you how often the A/C augers 1/2 second after being awarded the Panzer kill. (Been there, done that.)
eskimo
-
Pappy you make a point but the real fact is our tanks were not firing at the TOP of a panzer which according to the stats I read is less than a 1/2 inch thick on top. In any case just the spauling inside from 20mm hits would shake the crew up some, and I think the hispano's would penatrate (I think the old .50 cal rounds would too). How thick do you think the boiler on a steam engine is??? and we have PLENTY of footage of those going up from .50 cal fire.
BigJim
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
I dont know fishu at all, but I have derived from his posts--many are the number-- that he has an agenda to put forth. This agenda has nothing to with the truth (unless it is a VERY subjective truth). He is passionate about his Luftwaffe AC and their weapons, which is fine by me.
Fishu, I am sorry but you are wrong. Whatever you like to believe about the mauser cannon is wrong. It is nowhere in comparison to the Hispano cannon. It makes no difference to me either. I have nothing to prove. The hispano live round was a much bigger cartridge than the Mauser. the mauser fired at a low velocity in comparison to the hispano. This is not to say that the mauser was a weak weapon, it was great within its envelope, which is short range. Its trajectory would be much more arced than the hispano or the 50 cal browning machine gun.
I too reload my own mettalics and enjoy playing in ballistics. I reload more high powered small caliber rifle ammo than I do handgun ammo. Yes I have a pretty good grasp on ballistics, where you have just an unfounded opinion. You are quite entitled to that opinion, but please dont attemp to pass it off as fact without evidence.
(http://ww2.esn.net/~saved4sure/trainers_logo_ammo.jpg)
-
That footage of trains going up is also very cool I might add, the hatches would have been the thinnest armor but they look closer to an inch thick or so to me never the less hammering them from overhead might do them in I have never heard how effective the IL's guns were as opposed to them dropping bombs on the panzers I know they cratered the hell out of the eastern front though.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
I dont know fishu at all, but I have derived from his posts--many are the number-- that he has an agenda to put forth. This agenda has nothing to with the truth (unless it is a VERY subjective truth). He is passionate about his Luftwaffe AC and their weapons, which is fine by me.
Fishu, I am sorry but you are wrong. Whatever you like to believe about the mauser cannon is wrong. It is nowhere in comparison to the Hispano cannon. It makes no difference to me either. I have nothing to prove. The hispano live round was a much bigger cartridge than the Mauser. the mauser fired at a low velocity in comparison to the hispano. This is not to say that the mauser was a weak weapon, it was great within its envelope, which is short range. Its trajectory would be much more arced than the hispano or the 50 cal browning machine gun.
I too reload my own mettalics and enjoy playing in ballistics. I reload more high powered small caliber rifle ammo than I do handgun ammo. Yes I have a pretty good grasp on ballistics, where you have just an unfounded opinion. You are quite entitled to that opinion, but please dont attemp to pass it off as fact without evidence.
Well, the main thing here what I am trying to say that the fall between mausers and hispanos is too great in lethality against tanks..
No way would I believe that Hispano kills tank with 5 hits, definetly not from the side or front, which happens fairly alot compared to that what I could believe.
(and ranges like 400 yards? no..)
-
Hmm lets see .50 at 2800 fps fires at 70 degree angle from d2 = 2.14 sec to hit. At that velosity not much lost on impact, not sure of the hispano's muzzel velosity?? but must be fairly close to the .50 cal???? I don't understand the crash your plane bit, at a 70 degree dive I can pull out almost always??? Pappy the top plate on the PZ IV was 12mm which is about .48 inches I think the hatches might have been thicker.
BigJim
[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 07-27-2000).]
-
I probably have the lousiest tank record here.. and have little to add to the converstaion except one observation and two questions. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Obs: Upped a tank in a desperation field save attempt.. vhang folded a few moments later. I ran over to the map room and parked.
Got six kills against attacking aircraft.. never hit one with a shot. (tho i did try) 4 of the planes I 'killed' dove into me ala 'banzaiiiii!' *BOOM*.
Question one.. do most tank v a/c kills result from the pilot pancaking on or near the tank??
Question 2: All things considered; did tanks routinely survive encounters with airpanes impacting the turrents?
Just thought I'd ask.... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hang
-
Originally posted by BigJim:
Hmm lets see .50 at 2800 fps fires at 70 degree angle from d2 = 2.14 sec to hit. At that velosity not much lost on impact, not sure of the hispano's muzzel velosity?? but must be fairly close to the .50 cal???? I don't understand the crash your plane bit, at a 70 degree dive I can pull out almost always??? Pappy the top plate on the PZ IV was 12mm which is about .48 inches I think the hatches might have been thicker.
BigJim
[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 07-27-2000).]
In following this thread I'd like to point out the following...
While the .50 is very fast and the AP types are very capable, most, if not all of the tank kills made with them are from starting fires. As has already been pointed out the the engine sheilding is the weakest point on the Panzer IV and .50's were capable of penetration here. But, the energy required to pass through the armor would leave the round either to slow or deformed to do much damage to the block (Thats a BIG if getting through). However bullet strikes on the rear or engine sheild were known to ignite the gas vapors that accumulated within the engine compartment. (Which means fuel fire and ultimately ammuntion, a clear sign of KO)
As for both the Hispano's and .50's, remember these are pointed rounds, so the relative angle of the plane's attack greatly effects if there will be penetration.
The greater the angle, the more armor a round has to penetrate. This is the slope effect.
The effect of angles plays in even more for the Hispanos however, because if only partial or only a surface strike occurs the explosive (I wonder which type our Hispano's are) won't damage the tank, or if AP the larger surface area of the round decelerates it quickly (well more so, as if several hundred miles per hour to 0 ain't fast enough)
As for the Hispano's penetrating any portion of the tank other then the top, and perhaps very luckily the rear, is highly unlikely.
Since most tank battles were less then a kilometer apart (or a 1,000yds, whatever your flavor) that means shells weighing several kilograms and traviling (in the Panzer IV H for example) at around 2400 fps had problems with penetration. Why a Hispano does is anyone's guess.
To answer Hang's second question, due to the shape of the turrents on most tanks (rather rounded or flat but slope is at an angle) bullet strikes didn't have much chance of damaging anything other then jamming the turrent or jamming a hatch.
The big problem I see with tanks is there is no cover for them. Even when hiding in hangers or whatnot the planes can still shoot through and kill them. Which nullifies a historic tank tactic around airplanes...hiding! It's like fighting at Kursk but without the ditchs and gullies.
- Jig
------
"I read your book! Bah ha ha I read your book dammit!" -- George S. Patton, upon engaging Rommel in North Africa. Geroge C. Scott was born for that role.
-
Just a little question here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Isn't it true that HS and MG151 (and 30mm) exploded on impact? If so, they should be almost completely ineffective against armored vehicles. (No penetration) Only the Tiffie may have carried AP Hispano shells in WWII. As far as muzzle velocity (do not have figures in front of me, so complete memory recollection here) I think that the AP 50cal had a muzzle velocity almost twice that of the MG151 and Hispano. (Most definately over twice that of the 30mm MG 108? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif) )
From what I've read it sounds like p47s used to get kills against German tanks by bouncing shells off the ground into the engine compartment from a very shallow angle. (I.E. Low to ground.) This leads me to believe that the 50s would not penetrate the armored sections of the tank.
I'd be curious to see Armor Penetration values for the various cannon used in the game. I truely doubt WWII fighters would have carried AP cannon shells. (Exception is the Typhoon.)
------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by bloom25:
Just a little question here. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Isn't it true that HS and MG151 (and 30mm) exploded on impact? If so, they should be almost completely ineffective against armored vehicles. (No penetration) Only the Tiffie may have carried AP Hispano shells in WWII. As far as muzzle velocity (do not have figures in front of me, so complete memory recollection here) I think that the AP 50cal had a muzzle velocity almost twice that of the MG151 and Hispano. (Most definately over twice that of the 30mm MG 108? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/confused.gif) )
From what I've read it sounds like p47s used to get kills against German tanks by bouncing shells off the ground into the engine compartment from a very shallow angle. (I.E. Low to ground.) This leads me to believe that the 50s would not penetrate the armored sections of the tank.
I'd be curious to see Armor Penetration values for the various cannon used in the game. I truely doubt WWII fighters would have carried AP cannon shells. (Exception is the Typhoon.)
It's a very good question indeed. Even a tank's main gun has hardly any chance to knock another tank out with an HE shell. Until you get into monster guns, normally those on late-war Russian tanks, HE are useless for AT. In AH it is possible to kill a tank with a front aspect shot with HE, granted it can take a few shots but is very capable of doing so.
This might perhaps be part of the problem but I really have no grounds for saying so other then real-world use of normal HE rounds.
But yes, HE shells explode (normally) on impact and the only way it will get any penetration is by having an enormous amount of explosive within the shell. Because the charge is not shaped, there is no way directing the blast to the armor, and it will take the path of least resistence.
- Jig
-------
Burp guns are the weapons of champions.
-
I'm not as well versed as others in nazi equipment of the period but 12mm seems awfull thin for a tank, if thats true a fifty AP would dance right through it I just always thought the german tanks were built and armed for bear.
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
It's a very good question indeed. Even a tank's main gun has hardly any chance to knock another tank out with an HE shell. Until you get into monster guns, normally those on late-war Russian tanks, HE are useless for AT. In AH it is possible to kill a tank with a front aspect shot with HE, granted it can take a few shots but is very capable of doing so.
This might perhaps be part of the problem but I really have no grounds for saying so other then real-world use of normal HE rounds.
But yes, HE shells explode (normally) on impact and the only way it will get any penetration is by having an enormous amount of explosive within the shell. Because the charge is not shaped, there is no way directing the blast to the armor, and it will take the path of least resistence.
- Jig
-------
Burp guns are the weapons of champions.
In AH, its possible to have tank battle with HEs, with good success (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(talking of experience)
Only problem is HE shells trajectory that takes so long time to land on target.
Then another question, why would I take HE ammo in MG151/20 if I go for tank hunt...
Give me my AP option.
-
fishu, please provide a valid reference that the 151/20mm mauser gun system used armour piercing ammunition. I am not saying this isn't true, just would like to see it.
ammo
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
fishu, please provide a valid reference that the 151/20mm mauser gun system used armour piercing ammunition. I am not saying this isn't true, just would like to see it.
ammo
Black market (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
wont work fishu, gotta do better than that. Actually i think badger had some very in depth info that he sent me, but that was last year during WB's days.
Until then, you should be happy with your "get in close, very effective (although nowhere the match for hispano), low velocity, high explosive ammo". It works. It will never be the 2850 FPS hispano AP ammo, (yes to whoever it was that said was just plain old lead projectiles). Hispano, like 50 cal used a fully jacketed projectile, which gave it excellent terminal ballistics properties. ( exterior ballistics is the term used to describes projectiles performance while in flight, terminal ballistics is the term used to describe the projectiles performance at the point of impact and there after). If you have a copy of shaws book, turn to the table on page 6 for verification of the muzzle velocity. also not the velocity of M2 50 cal is 2810 fps also. Now consoder the weight difference between the 20 mm and the 50 cal projectiles and you really appreciate how devasting the hispano was. Dont have the reference in front of me, but the 151 muzzle velocity varied through the war years, but stayed around 2100 fps, if some one has a reference handy that either proves or disproves this, I would apprecaite it.
Gotta hit the road for 5 days, will be back on next friday to follow up, Have a nice day (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(http://ww2.esn.net/~saved4sure/trainers_logo_ammo.jpg)
-
It is hard to believe that if they didn't have other than some HE ammos for MG151/20, because if it was *only* one available, they must been completely idiots, even more than I could figure.
-
Long post, sorry but it just growed!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Heya,
Just a few comments from a very recently retired Tanker in U.S. Army (LTC).
50 Cals DID kill tanks in WW2.
50 cals DID kill modern armor in Desert Storm. Not main battle tanks but the ammo was definitely capable of penetrating even frontal amror of APC's (armored personell carriers) as well as lighter armored or fortified structures.
50 cals WILL cause considerable damage to such heavy vehicles such as an M60 tank. Our main battle tank prior to the M1 series. A 50 cal will DESTROY the main gun on a tank if hit repeatedly. The main gun is obviously a hard steel but so is the penetrator in a 50 cal AP round.
Artillery in WW2 was a main killer of tanks and not by direct hits either. Many tanks of the time had external oil and fuel storage on the vehicle. If you penetrate them and set them afire the crew typically unasses the vehicle to avoid the fire and susequent ammo cook off.
Here is some info.
Most a/c tank kills in WW2 were not catasrophic kills but a mobility kill. One a tank is immobile it becomes a fixed object removing one of it's primary assets notably the shock and speed. A fixed emplacement can be killed MUCH easier than a mobile one hence the crews interest in getting away from a stuck tank. The tracks and wheels of armored vehicles even today are capable of being damaged / destroyed by a 50 cal.
Spatula, 50 Cals are not just lead. They are a mix of ammo. 50 cal ball is a lead core in a very thick copper jacket. AP ammo is a hardened steel core (penetrator) inside a copper jacket. The reason for the jacket is to seperate the steel from the barrel so that barrels don't wear out in a few rounds. The other types of ammo in a typical combat mix were, ball, armor piercing, incendiery, tracer, ap-incendiery. This ammo is designed with a pointed tip not just to maintain velocity but as an aid to penetration. Rounded projectiles are much more prone to ricochet than are pointed bullets. Pointed bullets dig the tip in and penetrate. That is why the main anti tank ammunition in a tank is a very sharply pointed depleted uranium non explosive solid shot penetrator. What the round doesnt destroy by direct penetration is destroys by spraying white hot molten metal in the vehicle. This molten metal was formerly the armor of the vehicle. Sometimes this material is referred to as spall.
Armor design in vehicles is predicated on the environment they are expected to face. They are also based on real world considerations. You can make armor that cannot be penetrated by weapons up to 120mm ap rounds but you will not be moving it on the battlefield. It will be so heavy it won't move period. Armor is set up to be thickest on the front slopes. A curve of the slope gives protection equivalent to much thicker armor due to the oblique angle through the armor a shot would have to take to fully penetrate. Rounded armor is typically a casting of homogeneous armor grade steel such as the M60 turret and hull. WW2 armor was usually a stack of stel plates welded, bolted or riveted together. This often had sharp angles. Welded is stronger than bolted but look at WW2 armor. There was a lot still bolted on to the base armor plate. It was an easy way to add additional armor protection to the vehicle but the weight aften slowed it down. Patton was known to critcise the placement of sand bags on Sherman tanks. He did this as it was a way to slow the tank down due to the weight. High speed was the main advantage American armor had over German armor at the time. If you slow the tank down it becomes easer to hit. There were no gyrostabilized guns with laser rangefinder at that time. The heaviest armor of the WW2 era was the German Ferdinand. It was a 72+ ton monster and could take hits from the Russian 85 mm guns on their main battle tank, at least until it became immobilized. The infantry then swarmed it firing into vision slits and using molotove coctails to fry it.
In order to make a tank move it takes power and a compromise of weight and protection.M48's and M60's got the designation as that is the approximent weight, in tons, of that class of vehicle. They were refered to as 60 class vehicles. The top and rear of a tank are it's most vulnerable spots for HULL penetration.
Armor thickmess of a M60 was only about an inch on top of the turret. This is a more modern vehicle with better steel than WW2 armor. The rear grills that the engine exhaust and heat is vented through is a grill. This is NOT a solid peice of steel but looks more like overlapping angle iron bars. They cover the engine AND fuel tanks on a 48 and 60 series tank. 50 Cals can get through this stuff if allowed a bit of time to put repeated hits on it. There are also grills, albeit smaller ones, on the top side edges of the engine compartment that allow air into the engine compartment. The engine is air cooled and requires a lot of air. These grills are very close to the fuel tanks which are also in the engine compartment. These grills are a compromise in weight, protection and design to alolow the tank to function. Yes it is a vulnerable point as ANY burning liquid going into this area will be likely to start a fire. Yes diesel burns less easily than gasoline. Diesel forms vapor at 65 degrees F and it is much hotter than that in that compartment. Where you have fuel vapors you have a potential for fire. Sparks and flamable materials like incendiery material from incediery amunition can light off the fuel in a deisel tank.
All of this stuff I am talking about is still current for today's armor vehicle. It was more of a concern in WW2 as materials and design had not matured as much as today. In short, tanks were killed in WW2 by 50's but not as easily as by 20mm's or 30mm's. If you hurt the vehicle and took it out of a battle due to damage so that the crew abandoned it, it was a "kill". It didn't have to be destroyed to be a battle loss. If you left it on the field and the enemy captured it you kinda lost it just as much as if it blew to fragments.
The fact that you can't kill a tank in AH by 50 cals is not an overmodeling of the tank as much as it is an under modeling of 50 cals. The 50 cal is a serious weapon and capable of destroying equipment much heavier than you would think.
Mav
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
------------------
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
-
Good post Mav. I will disagree with you that you can't take out a tank in AH with a .50. It is possible, just not necessarily easy. The funny thing is, I receive complaints from both sides on this issue. Some say tanks can be taken out with .50s and that shouldn't happen and others say tanks can't be taken out with .50s when that should be possible. Just goes to show that one man's feature is another man's bug and the reality of a situation usually lies between two different observations. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
As I recall Pyro saying, .50 caliber in planes were shorter barreled than the one used on the ground.
I doubt that APCs has armour of +40mm like tanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (definetly not those ones used by Iraq)
Claiming the "shorter barrels" on plane 50's results in less performance is like tilting at windmills. The shorter barrel might MIGHT account for a hundred FPS velocity loss. That would more than be made up for the increase in velocity of the round due to the fact the gun and ammo are already traveling a couple hundred miles an hour just in the plane already. Using a little math shows that the velocity in FPS (feet per second) of just 100 MPH is 147 FPS. (Formula is, MPH x 1.47 = fps. I had to learn things like that as a traffic cop in accident investigation in my "civilian career".)The velocity of the round plus the velocity of the plane would cancel out ANY loss of velocity from the shorter barrel AC gun compared to a stationary M2 Browning MG with a 40+" barrel.
The minor velocity difference in the shorter barrels of 36" vs 40" or 42" is not real significant. The ammo was loaded to get the most out of the shorter barrel as it could. Most of the powder was consumed and the gasses peaked well inside of the shorter barrel.
Of course the APC's Iraq had, which were almost all Soviet equipment, didn't have the frontal armor of tanks. They were not designed to BE a tank. They were designed to move troops in a combat environment and give some protection from small arms and artilery fragments. That doesn't change the fact that those vehicles WERE killed by 50 cal's. It also doesn't change the fact that Soviet T72's were killed by the 25mm Bushmaster cannon using AP ammo. There was more than one kill documented by a Bradley on a T72 in desert storm. This happened when they met at close quarters and there was not enough range, in the vehicle commanders opinion, for the TOW missle to arm itself before hitting the tank. To hit a tank with a dud tow tends to piss off the tank and make very bad things happen to your Bradley. The Bradley crew would feel much more confident using the gun on an APC or truck but it did get the job done.
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Long post, sorry but it just growed!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Heya,
Just a few comments from a very recently retired Tanker in U.S. Army (LTC).
50 Cals DID kill tanks in WW2.
50 cals DID kill modern armor in Desert Storm. Not main battle tanks but the ammo was definitely capable of penetrating even frontal amror of APC's (armored personell carriers) as well as lighter armored or fortified structures.
50 cals WILL cause considerable damage to such heavy vehicles such as an M60 tank. Our main battle tank prior to the M1 series. A 50 cal will DESTROY the main gun on a tank if hit repeatedly. The main gun is obviously a hard steel but so is the penetrator in a 50 cal AP round.
Artillery in WW2 was a main killer of tanks and not by direct hits either. Many tanks of the time had external oil and fuel storage on the vehicle. If you penetrate them and set them afire the crew typically unasses the vehicle to avoid the fire and susequent ammo cook off.
Here is some info.
Most a/c tank kills in WW2 were not catasrophic kills but a mobility kill. One a tank is immobile it becomes a fixed object removing one of it's primary assets notably the shock and speed. A fixed emplacement can be killed MUCH easier than a mobile one hence the crews interest in getting away from a stuck tank. The tracks and wheels of armored vehicles even today are capable of being damaged / destroyed by a 50 cal.
Spatula, 50 Cals are not just lead. They are a mix of ammo. 50 cal ball is a lead core in a very thick copper jacket. AP ammo is a hardened steel core (penetrator) inside a copper jacket. The reason for the jacket is to seperate the steel from the barrel so that barrels don't wear out in a few rounds. The other types of ammo in a typical combat mix were, ball, armor piercing, incendiery, tracer, ap-incendiery. This ammo is designed with a pointed tip not just to maintain velocity but as an aid to penetration. Rounded projectiles are much more prone to ricochet than are pointed bullets. Pointed bullets dig the tip in and penetrate. That is why the main anti tank ammunition in a tank is a very sharply pointed depleted uranium non explosive solid shot penetrator. What the round doesnt destroy by direct penetration is destroys by spraying white hot molten metal in the vehicle. This molten metal was formerly the armor of the vehicle. Sometimes this material is referred to as spall.
Armor design in vehicles is predicated on the environment they are expected to face. They are also based on real world considerations. You can make armor that cannot be penetrated by weapons up to 120mm ap rounds but you will not be moving it on the battlefield. It will be so heavy it won't move period. Armor is set up to be thickest on the front slopes. A curve of the slope gives protection equivalent to much thicker armor due to the oblique angle through the armor a shot would have to take to fully penetrate. Rounded armor is typically a casting of homogeneous armor grade steel such as the M60 turret and hull. WW2 armor was usually a stack of stel plates welded, bolted or riveted together. This often had sharp angles. Welded is stronger than bolted but look at WW2 armor. There was a lot still bolted on to the base armor plate. It was an easy way to add additional armor protection to the vehicle but the weight aften slowed it down. Patton was known to critcise the placement of sand bags on Sherman tanks. He did this as it was a way to slow the tank down due to the weight. High speed was the main advantage American armor had over German armor at the time. If you slow the tank down it becomes easer to hit. There were no gyrostabilized guns with laser rangefinder at that time. The heaviest armor of the WW2 era was the German Ferdinand. It was a 72+ ton monster and could take hits from the Russian 85 mm guns on their main battle tank, at least until it became immobilized. The infantry then swarmed it firing into vision slits and using molotove coctails to fry it.
In order to make a tank move it takes power and a compromise of weight and protection.M48's and M60's got the designation as that is the approximent weight, in tons, of that class of vehicle. They were refered to as 60 class vehicles. The top and rear of a tank are it's most vulnerable spots for HULL penetration.
Armor thickmess of a M60 was only about an inch on top of the turret. This is a more modern vehicle with better steel than WW2 armor. The rear grills that the engine exhaust and heat is vented through is a grill. This is NOT a solid peice of steel but looks more like overlapping angle iron bars. They cover the engine AND fuel tanks on a 48 and 60 series tank. 50 Cals can get through this stuff if allowed a bit of time to put repeated hits on it. There are also grills, albeit smaller ones, on the top side edges of the engine compartment that allow air into the engine compartment. The engine is air cooled and requires a lot of air. These grills are very close to the fuel tanks which are also in the engine compartment. These grills are a compromise in weight, protection and design to alolow the tank to function. Yes it is a vulnerable point as ANY burning liquid going into this area will be likely to start a fire. Yes diesel burns less easily than gasoline. Diesel forms vapor at 65 degrees F and it is much hotter than that in that compartment. Where you have fuel vapors you have a potential for fire. Sparks and flamable materials like incendiery material from incediery amunition can light off the fuel in a deisel tank.
All of this stuff I am talking about is still current for today's armor vehicle. It was more of a concern in WW2 as materials and design had not matured as much as today. In short, tanks were killed in WW2 by 50's but not as easily as by 20mm's or 30mm's. If you hurt the vehicle and took it out of a battle due to damage so that the crew abandoned it, it was a "kill". It didn't have to be destroyed to be a battle loss. If you left it on the field and the enemy captured it you kinda lost it just as much as if it blew to fragments.
The fact that you can't kill a tank in AH by 50 cals is not an overmodeling of the tank as much as it is an under modeling of 50 cals. The 50 cal is a serious weapon and capable of destroying equipment much heavier than you would think.
Mav
Keep in mind angles and ammuntion types determines the round's effect.
I had always assumed that we are using ball type .50's rounds, and HE 20mm and 30mm rounds for plane load out.
While in the .50 this seems true, it does not on the cannons.
Yes the .50 AP was a great high velocity round and did it's job very well, as did the Hispano. But, a full load of this ammuntion type in either gun would make them less potent towards planes. (As long as they hit something hard like engine/armor/spars etc they would work quite well though)
I can't comment any on how the bullets in AH should penetrate armor because now I realize I don't know what they are, and each round's type gives it different characteristics so all I can do is speculate. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Heya,
Ammo selection could be dicey at times due to supply and logistices concerns. Any time you put a half inch hole in any critical part of a plane it would have an effect. An AP round in the engine would have a better chance of doing it in than plain ball.
From what I recall reading about ammo selection, WW2 ordinance loadout was a mix. It had ball, ap, ap incendiary and plain tracer rounds. Every 5th round was a tracer. To help the pilots know when they were about out of ammo the ammo would be all tracer at the ends of the belts. The increase in tracer would tell the pilot he was almost out of shells. the nice thing about the 50's was that it had higher muzzle velocity and shot "flatter" in trajectory than did 20mm. This is an aid in longer range shooting particularly in air to air.
After having seen some of the damage just plain ball ammo in 50 cal does to harder targets such as old tank and M113 hulks I have no doubts as to its efficacy on aircraft. Certainly the Soviets learned about it when their Hinds were being taken out by 50 cal's in Afganistan. (I recall this being a welcome surprise to others in my unit.) The Afganis were using some American MG's as well as captured Soviet 12.7mm (same stuff actually as far as effects on target.)
The stingers got the Soviets attention as well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
I never said if it really affects or not, but the fact is that its not as strong..
Sure.. and I am sure theres a case when someone with 7mm gun did get credited of tank kill with his gun.
I believe that 25mm on bradley is *bit* more stronger than 20mm used in WW2...
and remember, its nothing impossible to have couple documentented kills with alot of tries, but still the fact is that do you teach your bradley drivers to attack with their 25mm on T-72s like it would be 120mm gun.
Fishu,
Try to understand this. The velocity of the projectile coupled with its weight determines how "strong" it is. A shell fired from a 20' barrel at 2000 fps in a plane moving at 250 MPH has a muzzle velocity of 2367+ FPS. An identical shell (and there is NO difference between ammo for the aircraft 50 Cal BMG vs the M2 50 cal BMG, they use the same stock) fired in a M2 infantry mount 50 Cal with a 40" barrel and muzzle velocity of 2300 fps has the same energy on impact. (figures used for illustrative purposes) The claim that a "shorter" barrel in a fast moving plane has less energy than a stationary gun is bogus. Unless you have a MAJOR discrepancy in velocity there will be the same energy transfered to the target. PERIOD. The difference in velocity between the 36" barrel and the 40" barrel is negligable. The tank (M48 and M60) cupolo mounted 50 cal has a 36" barrel on it. It by no means is at any disadvantage over the infantry M2 BMG. I have used both and found them to have the same downrange results.
As for a kill with a 7mm weapon, that is in your imagination and wasn't even mentioned in my post. Try to stay on track here ok.
The difference of 20mm of WW2 vs 25mm of Desert Storm is no where as significant as the difference between WW2 armor and the more capable T72 armor.
Bradley GUNNERS and COMMANDERS fire the weapons. Drivers just DRIVE. The men are trained to use the best weapon available. The best weapon to kill a tank is a tank. Absent the tank, they will use the TOW mounted on the Bradley. If the range is too short that the TOW will not arm then they will use the bushmaster 25mm, the coax 30 cal and the LAW (shoulder fired infantry anti tank weapon)if they have to. Please note that the Bradley can fire only 2 TOW missles before reloading. Sometimes the enemy is SO rude as to bring more than two tanks to a battle. The Bradley crews were quite surprised, and gratified, to see that the bushmaster worked as well as it did. They did not have much choice as at the time it was on a meeting engagement that happened at close range. The TOW wouldn't have armed so they used what they had and it worked. What you think of it is immaterial. When faced with a combat situation, you use what you have on hand. If it meets doctrine, fine. If it doesn't meet doctrine but works, fine. You're alive and the other guy is dead and that is the way you want it. If it doesn't work then you're dead and don't give a damn about what anyone thinks.
Now if you don't have anything of substance to bring to this, please refrain from spouting nonsense.
Hell, I'd challenge you to a duel in AH but you don't play do you. You just criticize others. Come to think of it, a duel wouldn't make any differance as this is just a game. I did armor for real.
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Fishu;
Like I said:
"So far this tour (6):
2573 Panzers have killed each other.
Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !"
The tanks are doing just fine against aircraft and about 60% of tank kills are by other tanks.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by eskimo:
Fishu;
Like I said:
"So far this tour (6):
2573 Panzers have killed each other.
Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !"
The tanks are doing just fine against aircraft and about 60% of tank kills are by other tanks.
eskimo
..and mostly those kills are pilot errors (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Fishu,
Nothing that I or anyone can say will change your mind. That's your problem not mine.
I did armor for real. Did you? I am well aware of the capabilities of the weaponry from experiance. I used 50 cals for real. Same for 105's. I also had experiance with artillery and mortars. I am aware of what they can do as well. I am versed in the application of weapons systems by and in support of armored operations. I taught the subject for a while at Ft. Knox.
Please note I did not say that anything will work all the time. Even a 120mm from an Abrams doesn't work ALL the time.
I already told you in detail your argument about the longer barrel fixed gun shooting "harder" than the plane mount was tripe. It still is tripe. deal with it.
I didn't bring in anything about a 7mm being used to kill tanks. That was your invention into the thread I told you that too. You want to fantasize about it, then do so. Don't bore me with it.
50 cals can do severe damage to WW2 armor and did do so. Did it work all the time, nope, but I never claimed it would either. If it made the tank combat incapable it was a "kill".
It's very convenient for you to claim AH doesn't measure up enough for you to invest $30.00. That means you never have to worry about being defeated or proven wrong. That's comforting to an armchair general or quaterback. Since you don't play why do you have anything to say about it? Secondarily why should anyone care about what you have to say about a sim you don't participate in?
Anything further you have to say to me in this thread is a waste of time. I already have a real good idea of what type of expert you are. Your words are meaningless "noise".
Get a life.
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-31-2000).]
-
just whine, ignore
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
Heya,
Ammo selection could be dicey at times due to supply and logistices concerns. Any time you put a half inch hole in any critical part of a plane it would have an effect. An AP round in the engine would have a better chance of doing it in than plain ball.
From what I recall reading about ammo selection, WW2 ordinance loadout was a mix. It had ball, ap, ap incendiary and plain tracer rounds. Every 5th round was a tracer. To help the pilots know when they were about out of ammo the ammo would be all tracer at the ends of the belts. The increase in tracer would tell the pilot he was almost out of shells. the nice thing about the 50's was that it had higher muzzle velocity and shot "flatter" in trajectory than did 20mm. This is an aid in longer range shooting particularly in air to air.
After having seen some of the damage just plain ball ammo in 50 cal does to harder targets such as old tank and M113 hulks I have no doubts as to its efficacy on aircraft. Certainly the Soviets learned about it when their Hinds were being taken out by 50 cal's in Afganistan. (I recall this being a welcome surprise to others in my unit.) The Afganis were using some American MG's as well as captured Soviet 12.7mm (same stuff actually as far as effects on target.)
The stingers got the Soviets attention as well (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Surely you know what will happen when a string of AP M2 rounds hits then metal like a plane's skin...it punchs right through, sure it leaves a hole but it does not do nearly as much damage as a ball type round upon impact...granted enough of any shell can severly damage a plane.
I think maybe you got mixed up (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
My point was that, I am not aware of AH modeling any other round type then .50 ball. I could easily be wrong.
I may of perhaps found why killing tanks was so hard...
P-51 has 1880 rounds of .50, divide by 5 and you get the amount of rounds that aren't tracers. Thats 376 rounds. Divide it by 3 to get count of the ball, ap, and ind rounds,
125 rounds per type (Actually 125.3 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif))
No wonder pilots didn't like tracer rounds.
And that's not taking into account the last 2 or 3 feet of the belt is all tracer.
Anyway...the .50 model seems right to me if it's all ball ammo (I'm not sure but I think tracer is calculated in ballistics as a normal ball)
It seems to me though, that cannons act as normal HE rounds when in contact with planes, thus the tremendous damage. But the Hispanos, upon coming in contact with tanks, penetrate like AP rounds.
If someone would verify this as correct for .50 AP I'd like to do some calculations (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
projectile velocity 732 m/s
projectile mass 0.093 kg
caliber 12.7 mm
If someone would post the Hispano's AP stats I'd appreciate it too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
I used to think that Finland and it's people were cool.
eskimo
-
I would just like to say as a pretty mediocre pilot I really enjoy the tanks and the interaction between the tanks and the aircraft. I have had alot of fun driving a tank/m16 and am looking forward to further development of this aspect of the game. I just had two 5 sortie kills in a panzer tonight at a13 and it was really a blast. Shout out to my arch-nemesis RATSY!
-
I agree with jigster that .50 calibers are fine now (and I have said that already?)
Every gun is better than ever in air to air role.
Though, I haven't tried out 30mm for long time because I prefer single 20mm over 30mm. (accuracy & amount of bullets)
Eskimo, sorry to say, but you've posted that on wrong thread.
-
I used to think that Finland and it's people were cool.
Actually, We are cool! Don't judge all of us by one example.
Fishu, you must be doing something wrong in this board, otherwise you wont have such a cult after you. Maybe you could try see things outside of your own viewpoint and accept their reasoning when they are right? No one on this board has knowledge to be correct all the time.
------------------
jochen
Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) Warbirds
T-34/76 to Aces High!
Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes
-
Worthless try to make people understand, message edited & text erased.
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Back to the topic now folks, ok?
No more irrelevant out of topic discussion just because of couple handsomehunkes like me and eskimo.
I know, but keep it to yourself if its not about the topic, like I do from now on...
-
Could now someone who knows tell if AH is using ball or AP .50 caliber?
[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]
-
Well it seems like everyone totally blew off BLOOM25’s post. He made a very good point in his post about P47 pilots bouncing shells off of the ground and striking the underbelly of the German tanks and destroying them that way.
This statement is very very true. I have read numerous books, History Channel, A&E, and Wings videos were this was mentioned. There was a special on the History Channel a while back that was nothing but the P47 and a few pilots said the same thing.
Plus give me a B25 with 12 forward fireing 50s and I bet ya I can make a Panzer disappear real fast.
Gorf
-
Last night a squadmate of mine lost a track from an M-16 that was running circles around him. 50 cal. can definitely damage a panzers tracks.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Gorf:
Well it seems like everyone totally blew off BLOOM25’s post. He made a very good point in his post about P47 pilots bouncing shells off of the ground and striking the underbelly of the German tanks and destroying them that way.
This statement is very very true. I have read numerous books, History Channel, A&E, and Wings videos were this was mentioned. There was a special on the History Channel a while back that was nothing but the P47 and a few pilots said the same thing.
Plus give me a B25 with 12 forward fireing 50s and I bet ya I can make a Panzer disappear real fast.
Gorf
bouncing bullets only would work on a good hard road. We don't have those. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
In fields, woods, etc they just plop into the ground.
Note that while this was what they did, the actual number of tanks they killed by this method is very low.
150 yards and less a .50 AP round should be able to penetrate top armor if the angle is less then 30 degrees to the normal.
- Jig
-
yea, funny how a Hispano 20mm HE round will kill a tank but a 75mm HE round wont kill a tank :-)
think the problem is the damage modleing is just a numbers game in AH. .50 cal round would have higher effect on top armor or engine compartment of a tank that a 20mm He round ..............
-
Originally posted by coyote:
yea, funny how a Hispano 20mm HE round will kill a tank but a 75mm HE round wont kill a tank :-)
think the problem is the damage modleing is just a numbers game in AH. .50 cal round would have higher effect on top armor or engine compartment of a tank that a 20mm He round ..............
Good thought...
We have currently Hispano bullets with alot of explosives in it, so it can't be pure AP round, which would knock out a tank probably..
Did they have APHE sort of ammo for Hispanos during war? (before mid 44 - 45)
-
Originally posted by Fishu:
Good thought...
We have currently Hispano bullets with alot of explosives in it, so it can't be pure AP round, which would knock out a tank probably..
Did they have APHE sort of ammo for Hispanos during war? (before mid 44 - 45)
This is what I was getting at...HE rounds kill armor way to easy.
- Jig
-
Originally posted by Jigster:
This is what I was getting at...HE rounds kill armor way to easy.
- Jig
What comes to 75mm HE, about 7 will blow up a tank, thats the most I have got with some 10 blown up tanks.
I averaged HE tank kills to 2-3 hits per tank, either first or second caused some major damage for the tank and next hits either caused more damages per hit or blew it up.
Range from 500 to 2700 yards.
Feels too easy for HE to go through front plate for sure.
Though, I have no references about that how 75mm HE round will effect on Panzer IVH (but I doubt it will have that much effect?)
-
I already told you in detail your argument about the longer barrel fixed gun shooting "harder" than the plane mount was tripe. It still is tripe. deal with it.
------------------------
So I don't get quoted out of context, my answer on this subject in another thread had nothing to do with armor, it was an answer the question whether .50s on a half-track were the same as .50s on planes. My answer is that they were not. The vehicles use the M2HB and planes use the Aircraft M2. The difference I cited were that HB had a lower rate of fire and a 45" barrel vice a 36" barrel which gave it _slightly_ more muzzle velocity and therefore hitting power. The difference is about 100 fps as you mentioned.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
I already told you in detail your argument about the longer barrel fixed gun shooting "harder" than the plane mount was tripe. It still is tripe. deal with it.
HHmm the whole quote didn't come through, sorry Pyro. This wasn't that part I wanted to show up here. I tried to get the other paragraph but it wouldn't transfer over.
Pyro,
This part of the discussion was related to a comparison of the plane 50's vs ground mount 50's hitting power. The difference in muzzle velocity is a moot point as the forward motion of the plane / gun / round imparts additional velocity on firing. The speed of the plane added to the velocity of the round is a net increase in velocity over the stationary ground mount 50 cal. An airspeed of only 150 MPH adds an additional 220 FPS to the bullets. At any rate, the significance of the velocity added is NOT as large as the angle of impact for the round on the target in regards to armor. The airborne 50 will be able to strike the weakest armor on the tanks, namely the top. The design of the M-3 and M-16 is even more significant. They are open to the top and any round in there would be most unappreciated by the crew. Sometimes they have a tendency to just bounce around until they hit something soft. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 08-02-2000).]
-
Mav, I'm not arguing with you. I totally agree, which is why I made that post stating that I didn't want my other post to be taken out of context.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Originally posted by Pyro:
Mav, I'm not arguing with you. I totally agree, which is why I made that post stating that I didn't want my other post to be taken out of context.
Otay I shaddup! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
(http://www.geocities.com/tas13th/sqsig/mav13.jpg)
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo
[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 08-02-2000).]
-
Originally posted by eskimo:
Panzers have a K/D over all aircraft of 2:1 !
The tanks are doing just fine against aircraft and about 60% of tank kills are by other tanks.
eskimo
Tank vs. tank kills are OK. But I have to say that most of _my_ tank vs. air kills are because someone lawndarts near me. And that is probably included in the stats.
-
Originally posted by Maverick:
I did armor for real. Did you? I am well aware of the capabilities of the weaponry from experiance. I used 50 cals for real. Same for 105's. I also had experiance with artillery and mortars. I am aware of what they can do as well. I am versed in the application of weapons systems by and in support of armored operations. I taught the subject for a while at Ft. Knox.
50 cals can do severe damage to WW2 armor and did do so. Did it work all the time, nope, but I never claimed it would either. If it made the tank combat incapable it was a "kill".
Anything further you have to say to me in this thread is a waste of time. I already have a real good idea of what type of expert you are. Your words are meaningless "noise".
Get a life.
(Above was Mav's reply to fishu - I've snipped some parts from the reply - no intention to produce any 'out of context' effects)
As far as I know, this thread started from the fact that some aircraft guns kill tanks too easy. Thread has since deteriorated to almost pure noise, as Mav noted.
IMHO, dispite some glorious WWII memoirs most air-to-ground tank kills were done by bombs or rockets - not guns/cannons. Some lucky shots allowed.
Also, surprisingly, there are some people outside of USA who have actually 1) done tanks 2) used a 12,7 mm and seen the effect, 3) seen the effect of various artillery/mortar/missile rounds against soft and hard targets...
So, please kill tanks with bombs and rockets only (from air, that is). It is a way to avoid these long threads...
And no, I do not think LW guns&cannons should be able to kill tanks (easily), even though I'm from Finland (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway, from the historical point of view the whole thread is wrong - most kills ('tanks not capable of fighting') were because of mechanical problems - sometimes up to 60 % of the tank force.
Maybe we should introduce that into AH - drive a Pzkw IV for an hour and suddenly lose a track/have an engine problem/get stuck in mud...
-
Originally posted by spora:
Maybe we should introduce that into AH - drive a Pzkw IV for an hour and suddenly lose a track/have an engine problem/get stuck in mud...
Then we need utility trucks and other tanks to pull us off the mud (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)