Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Urchin on April 12, 2003, 10:56:15 PM
-
This'll be a copy & paste job from the multitude of other threads on how overpowered .50s and Hispanos are relative to the Panzer IV.
Apparently some people still believe that P47 and P51 "tank busters" strafed the road in front of tanks to get bullets to bounce up and through the bottom hull (which was armored, by the way), so I'll start off with that.
I'll then move to armor data and penetration tables if I can still find them.
Firstly, the 'I saw History Channel, it said P51s and P47s killed tanks by bouncing bullets off the road into the tank's belly!"
"Most tanks destroyed by strafing were the result of engine fire or damage....also have read about p-51's and jugs killing tiger tanks by firing into roadway (rear attack) and igniting fuel with ricochets off pavement." (sorry Humble, yours was the first one I saw)
(another good one) "I watched the P-47 show on the history channel. Watched several gun cams of p-47's blowing the living crap out of tanks with their 8 .50 cals. So, don't tell me its not possible. Unless you're claiming they faked the footage? When they learned to bounce their round from underneath, they were REALLY meat on a hook. "
Reply "Gaining better angles through ricochets defeats velocity and deforms rounds thereby reducing their effectiveness at perforating armour. The pilots note themselves that they could not be sure."
"I've often wondered about reports of "bouncing bullets off the road into the bellies of tanks to set them afire"-- as the bellies of these tanks are still too much for such light projectiles to handle, particularly after losing much energy by striking the road surface first, and then likely tumbling or yawing severely before strking the belly armor."
"During the 1944-5 NW Europe operations, an Operational Research team from the RAF trekked around the battlefields as soon as the enemy had departed, examining German equipment and assessing the reasons for its destruction.
Their conclusions were that very few tanks were destroyed by any form of air attack. On average, they found perhaps one-tenth the number that the fighter-bomber units were claiming. Those which were destroyed in this way were generally hit by rockets or bombs.
This is discussed at length in Ian Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1939-45" which is required reading for anyone interested in this subject.
Gun data
(Per Tony Williams unless otherwise noted)
First, the weapons and their ammunition. The standard British Hispano loadout from around 1942 onwards was an equal mix of SAP/I and HE/I. The SAP/I could penetrate no more than about 20mm armour, at short range given a favourable (ie head-on) hit. There was AP ammo (the USA made some) which pushed the performance up to over 30mm, and the British also developed a tungsten-cored shot capable of 45-65mm penetration, but this was never used.
Given proper AP rounds, the Hispano would be significantly better, but AFAIK the US M75 AP shot wasn't used in Europe. The RAF loaded only HEI and SAPI according to my info, and the SAPI was about the same as the .50 M8 in AP performance.
The .50 M2 AP or M8 API were also capable of penetrating around 20mm maximum, in the most favourable conditions at up to 200m.
""A .50 caliber API round is easily capable of penetrating armor up to at least 19mm of face hardened plate ... at 100 meters." (Per http://www.rovingguns.com/lunatic/wwII_gun_analysis/ )
Panzer IV Armor
Front Turret: 50/11
Front Upper Hull: 50 or 50+30/10
Front Lower Hull: 50 or 50+30/12
Side Turret: 30/26
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/10
Rear Upper Hull: 20/12
Rear Lower Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/85
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 50/0
Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II lists the H turret top armor as being 15mm at 84 - 90 degrees. Superstructure is 12mm at 85 - 90 degrees and the hull is 10mm at 90 degrees.
"The USAAF/RAF gun armour penetration figures I quoted before were generally measured at about 200m, and involved striking at 90 degrees (or 0 degrees, depending on which convention you favour). Penetration fell off increasingly rapidly as the striking angle became less direct, although the rate of fall-off depended on the design of the projectile; there is no formula which will give you this. Yaw was also a factor (ie the degree to which the bullet wasn't travelling point-first - particularly a problem at short range before the bullet stabilises in flight, and can also be caused by hitting anything en route to the target). The following extract about the .50" from my next book illustrates this:
"The official requirement for the M2 AP was to penetrate 22 mm steel at 183 m (the M8 API was expected to match this figure at 92 m). The striking angle is not specified but is assumed to be 90º. Official US tables for the M2 show penetration at 300 m as follows: 21 mm / 90º, 13 mm / 60º and 5 mm / 30º. These measurements were to the USN criterion which called for 50% of shots to penetrate. British tests at 183 m determined that the M2 would penetrate 21 mm at 0º angle of yaw (i.e. the bullet was flying perfectly straight) but this dropped to 15 mm with only 10º of yaw (such as might be caused by passing through an aircraft’s skin before hitting the armour). Taking the effects of striking angle and fuselage structures into account, it seems likely that the practical penetration of either the M2 or M8 was in the region of 10-15 mm in normal circumstances."
The important part here is
Taking the effects of striking angle and fuselage structures into account, it seems likely that the practical penetration of either the M2 or M8 was in the region of 10-15 mm in normal circumstances."
Another post
"Realistically, an attack on the roof or decking of a tank is not going to be made at better than 60 degrees, with 30 degrees being more likely. Furthermore, it's not going to be at very short range. So let's take 300m range and strikes at 60-30 degrees as typical.
As I posted before, the .50" M2 AP could penetrate between 13mm and 5mm in these circumstances (with the smaller figure being more likely). < My NOTE: Hispano has similar results>
The MG 131 AP could similarly manage between 7mm and 3mm
The MG 151 15mm AP (non-Hartkern) from 19mm to 12mm
The MG 151 15mm Hartkern 24mm to 12mm
The MG 151 20mm AP between 12mm and 8mm
The 20mm MG-FF AP between 9mm and 6mm "
All of these guns COULD (in theory) penetrate a tanks upper decking and turret. In practice? Well, the Mg151 isn't effective at all, and the MG-FF would be a complete waste of time. The Hispano can kill a Panzer IV with ease (and you don't have to be firing at 200 yards to do it, either), and the .50 can disable a Panzer IV easily (and from what I understand kill it as well). Furthermore, the "high" end of the scale is a 60 degree dive. At 300 yards. From 30 degrees, none of the guns could penetrate. I know for a fact that I don't strafe tanks at a 60 degree angle or at 300 yards... I typically break off before getting to 300 yards, but the rounds still go through and kill the tank.
It is easy to test, go to the DA with a friend, have him up a Panzer and strafe him. Make sure you film it, so you can look at exactly how shallow your approach really was. The Panzer IV has been broken for 2+ years, it would be very nice to have this looked into.
-
But why is are the 30 cal turret mg's so bloody good at nailing fighters at 1500 yards?
Wanna look at historical? How many tank crewmen killed fighters while standing up in the turret hatch and manning a light mg?
;)
-
The 7.92 cupola gun isn't going to shoot down a fighter in one pass. The Hispanos that shouldn't even be able to penetrate the armor on a Panzer IV will blow up the Panzer in one pass.
I'm not 100% positive, but perhaps the reason why .50s and Hispano's are so effective against the turret of the Panzer IV has to do with the pintle gun. Have you ever noticed you NEVER just lose the pintle gun? It is always the main gun and the coaxial gun AND the pintle gun. Perhaps the strafing aircraft are knocking out the pintle gun, and for some reason that knocks out the turret.
The M8 doesn't have that problem, the pintle gun can be damaged independant of the 'main' gun. Of course, since the .50 cal is more effective than the 37mm is, perhaps the pintle gun IS the main gun.
-
HT said a long time ago in thread that was about buff guns that the only guns that were tweaked for game play were the gv mgs.
But thats not the problem. No one can think that a 50 or 30 cal doesnt have the potential to down a plane if it hits it. The problem is the same with the bomber guns. They are such a stable platform that its easy to site and then hit what your aiming at.
Theres no recoil, gun shake etc...... The gun stays perfectly pointed at where you aimed it regardless of how long you hold the trigger down.
But gvs have no cover are their little black dots can be spotted from 10k. Most wouldnt have any problem seeing a game play concession that gives gvs a better chance to defend themselves against planes.
The problem with 50 cals and hizookas are that any plane armed with them is a "tank buster". The Brits didnt use ap hispano rounds (not sure if the US used ap in their 20mm).
50 cals in fighters can kill gvs at all ranges and angles.
When folks brought this up before folks cited HT chart (which proved the what these guys were saying). It turned out there was a huge gap in the turret that allowed rounds to slip in and kill them.
They maybe some "other" bug.
I dont do the gv thing so I really dont care 1 way or another. This is a "flight game" and gvs are just a distraction.
OTOH this is how its always been so getting upset over and over when it happens is pointless.
Its like upping over and over at a vulched field. Ya get whats coming to you, theres no point in squeaking about it.
-
I get 'upset' because it shouldn't happen. Period. There has been AMPLE evidence showing that the Panzer IV is significantly more vulnerable to strafing than it was in real life. I don't care if the GVs are some 'sideshow', it would be nice to have something else to do other than fly fighters all the time. As it stands now, I get pissed off for 3 reasons.
1. The Panzer IV still routinely gets strafed to death by Hizookas. If you choose to spend a few vehicle perks, then your Tiger gets detracked by same and you can't do a damn thing since it rocks like an autistic child on speed once it has been detracked.
2. If you choose to get there a little faster, you can up the completely worthless M8, which will be killed in 1 hit by a tank or Flakpansie, or in one pass by practically any plane in the game. Even the M16 and M3 are tougher than the M8 is.
3. Since I choose to remain as dweeb-free as possible, I tend to use the M-16 instead of the Flakpansie. This irritates me even more since the M-16 will be killed by anything with .50s or cannons in a strafing run, although you might get lucky and kill them too.
If the M8 wasn't a worthless piece of ****, I'd be happy with GVs. I'd have something fun to drive around in. If the Panzer IV was as invulnerable to .50s and Hispanos as it should be, I'd be happy. If the Tiger didn't go into an epileptic fit every time it got detracked, I'd be happy. If HTC would introduce some sort of anti-air GV that was armed like a M16 but armored like a Flakpansie, I'd be happy. Unfortunately, in the two years that I've been here, GVs have been completely and utterly broken, with the exception of the Flakpansie, which is still completely dominating (although it isnt as bad as it used to be, thanks for that HTC). Flying fighters for two years gets boring. There hasn't been THAT much change in the game since I started playing. It has been fairly stagnant for the past year- we haven't gotten any really 'cool' planes that would rekindle my interest in flying. So I choose to waste some time in GVs instead. And then I get frustrated with this game because the GVs are still, after two years, messed up. So yes, if someone keeps upping at a vulched field, it is stupid and they shouldn't ask that HTC fix human behaviour. However, I don't think it is wrong to ask them to take a look at the ground vehicles and fix them. I shouldn't 'expect' that one entire facet of the game is broken and buggy, and just leave it at that. That is unacceptable.
-
I hear ya Urchin :)
But after all the threads it hasnt changed much. Have you ever been on AHV with brady when he got killed in a similiar manner :)
Unfortunately being right isnt going make it any easier on ya the next time it happens.
With ah2 a new terrain type is coming and hopefully it will have cover for the gvs.
Now you wanna get pissed over a tank game. Try wwiiol. You will be in StuG and and friggen guy will climb under your tank, stick his pistol through he floor and kill everyone inside. Or they throw a hand grenade at you and kill everyone inside. Or the mgff are killing tanks, or the 1 hit he hispano round that kills everyone inside. This is in a game that where tanking is 80% of the game.
I agree that ah could use some improvement, big time, just dont hold your breath waiting.
-
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
A British OR team surveyed wrecked German tanks in one sector of Normandy but only found two that could conclusively be shown to have been destroyed by rockets and none by "strafing".
"Air Power At The Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45" by Ian Gooderson, published by Cass (Studies in Air Power No.6 - ISBN 9 780714 642116.
All around the gvs in particular the tanks are way to vulnerable to aircraft then they were in rl.
From Tony William's Book "Flying Guns World War II"
originally posted by Tony on the Luftwaffe Discussion Group:
http://disc.server.com/Indices/3051.html
From this thread
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=3051;article=65595;date_query=1048883385
Titled Tankbusters: Airborne Anti-Tank
"The Hurricane IID saw most of its use with No.6 Squadron in North Africa between May 1942 and May 1943, although it was also used by Nos. 5, 20 and 184 and by No.7 Squadron South African Air Force, and about three hundred were built. It proved both accurate and effective, attacking with devastating effect whenever tanks were caught in the open, away from FlaK cover. To give one example, on March 10th 1943, 19 aircraft were used to attack a strong German column of tanks, armoured cars and supply vehicles advancing on General Leclerc's position near Lake Chad. The column was effectively destroyed by the Hurricanes. Their effectiveness was also acknowledged by the Germans, who became demoralised by the sight of the planes. One prisoner reported the loss of six out of twelve tanks to 40 mm cannon fire in one attack, although it should be noted that the other six were also hit and penetrated but survived the experience (the crews had taken cover away from the tanks so were not injured by the steel fragments flying around inside).
The IIDs were eventually withdrawn because the aircraft were too vulnerable to ground fire (39 were lost to FlaK, including six on one mission) as there wasn't enough of a reserve of engine power to allow sufficient armour to be fitted; the IID was effectively defenceless against enemy fighter aircraft; and the gun was not powerful enough to penetrate the Tiger tank. Even so, the Squadron's Mediterranean theatre operations saw claims of 144 tanks hit, of which 47 were destroyed, plus 177 other vehicles."
Also posted by Tony in that thread
in practice sessions the Hs 129/MK 101 combination was claimed to have a phenomenal 60% hit rate against tank-sized targets. This is much better than the Hurri IID's (around 25%) or the Tsetse (33%), and of course an order of magnitude better than RPs.
RPs = Rockets
Theres alot more to it then just making tanks unkillable with 50s and 20mm.
With the way things are currently theres no need for specialized tank busters.
Even if we had the ju87g model with 3.7cm tungsten core rounds it would still be more effective to kill gvs with 50s and hizookas.
The ground war (inparticular air vrs gvs) has a long way to go.
About your m8 I saw brady run up 50+ kills in it one time. I got 12 once but a hard wind will kill it.
-
Some might argue the ability of 20mm cannons disabling Panzers, is also there for the sake of game play. However, as long as there are attack planes which were designed specifically for killing tanks are included in the long AH roster of planes, I support Urchin and Batz's conclusion.
20mm cannons, should not be able to harm a heavily armoured tank. There's no reason 'historically', and there's no reason for 'sake of gameplay'. I am an enthusiastic IL-2 supporter, and exclusively use the Sturmovik for special situations which require the lethal tank busters. If every plane with 20mm cannons can just do the same thing - why bother modelling in the Hurri2D or IL-2 in the first place?
......
However, I must question..
Since the GV armour 'buff up', I've never been actually blown up by a conventional fighter due to strafing. Does that still happen? I've noticed in some cases the turrets are disabled, but it is pretty much(up to a certain satisfactory level for the GV driver) rare thing to happen. Tracks being clipped, happens more often, but definately not as much as it used to.
Would 20mms be able to kill the tank's engines from the rear? How about the tracks?
Should the 20mms be able to knock off tracks, but unable to harm engine components?
ps) Oh.. while we're at it, please please please fix the firing sequence of the VickerS 40mm cannon on the Hurri2D!!
-
Agree 100% with ya Urchin.
They really should look at the PT boat as well. It blows up to easy. Those buggers really could take a punch and they sertainly didnt blow up that easy if they where strafed with gunfire.
-
the pt was made of wood; while it should not explode like it does (nothing in ah should) any amount of moderate strafing would be enough to kill it.
The pt boat needs its smoke generated to work. Its modeled its just not "working".
-
There was a time when 50cals could not hurt a tank . The "hispano 20mm is porked" lobby changed that .
-
Permit me to add some things please .
I feel that the airguard mg on a tank should have a seperate damage model than the turret . As it is now the mg34 on the tiger can withstand bomb blasts and being straffed with ns37mm .
I also think that the dispersion of pintle mounted machine guns in AH is too tight . There are several in the community besides me who have RL experience here .
I say this with the intent of being constructive . I trust the judgment of the game designers of AH and I admire their work ethic, their distance ahead of any potential competition speaks for itself .
-
Originally posted by Batz
the pt was made of wood; while it should explode like it does (nothing in ah should) any amount of moderate strafing would be enough to kill it.
It is not necessary to strafe a PT boat to kill it.
Throw a handful of sand at it. As I observed in another thread, contact between the wooden hull and sand (at any speed) produces spectacular explosions.
My apologies for the off-topic comment, Urchin. Your information is well-researched and well-presented.
-
Urchin, agree 100%.
-
No Batz
Dunno about the american PT boats but the british built once that Norway used up and down the norwegian coast sertainly did not blow up that easy. The German FW and ME109's tended to stay away from em the last few years of the war and called in heavyer ground attack ac to deal with em.
They had alot of AA guns on em and the fact that they where made of wood made em easyer to repair underway.
-
No what?
Thats a US pt boat, its made of wood and yes moderate strafing would sink it.
I dont care what "other" nations pts did or were made of. The one in AH is made of wood.
-
"any amount of moderate strafing would be enough to kill it"
define that if you will Batz
-
remember, in AH if your pilot gets killed, your ride (plane, GV or PT) will instantly explode.
I think almost every PT boat "explosion" is the result of a pilot kill as the people in the boat are completely unprotected. Same thing with the M-16. They are basically out in the open.
One issue is that with GVs and PTs, if the pilot/driver dies, you shouldn't lose the vehicle. The rest of the crew can still fight with the pilot being dead. The vehicle just isn't going anywhere.
-
Sounds like some of the MANY gv bugs in this game that WONT be fixed.
-
Its about time a campaign was launched against the .50cal/20mm air cannon strafing death of Panzers! I've been in silent protest of it - since I don't really know enough about armour to put forth any sort of coherent, logical argument against the current lethality/damage modeling.
I say give the tanks the testicles they deserve!
-
Hmmm. Since the last tank armor change I've found that straffing PnZ IVs is a complete waste of time in anything short of an Il-2, even then it takes me multiple passes.
In my nominal ride, the quad Hispano armed Mosquito, I have had no effect unless I come right at the tank's rear with my props practically mowing the grass, eg, as low as I can so that I have as close to a 90 degree striking angle with my rounds on the rear hull armor as I can get. Even then it takes about 600 rounds (almost all of the Mosquito's load) to destroy a single Panzer IV H.
I have't seen a single pass gun kill on a Panzer since the changes introduced with the Tiger.
On the other hand I have had Panzer's one ping my Mossie with the 7.92mm, despite the pilot armor.
-
very easy to do.....
mosquito WILL disable a tank....1 or 2 passes...3rd or 4th will destroy it....do it all the time now.
the 1 that is harder then a tank to kill(more like explode not just disable) would be the Flak....
1 ex: I put 2 500 pounders right down its turret.....got em to smoke.....made 5 passes with mossie guns...and still that %$@^%# was shootin his main gun.....other times I just looked at the Flak...and it explodes :D
but like HT said....its NOT a GV game...but a Flight SIM
-
Originally posted by Batz
the pt was made of wood; while it should not explode like it does (nothing in ah should) any amount of moderate strafing would be enough to kill it.
The pt boat needs its smoke generated to work. Its modeled its just not "working".
What smoke?
And how do you know its modeled?
-
...from a strafing run try this...
When you're under attack and the enemy hasn't any bombs, drop down to 4th gear so you can turn quickly for the snapshot after he passes, always point the front of the tank at the attacker. This will both present your thickest armor to him as well as protecting you're tracks.
Aim the pintle gun at one wingtip and hit that spot on all his passes...shooting the prop disk can smoke his engine but it won't make the plane unflyable.....most times. You can rip off a wing tip on his first pass...then listen for the
If the plane has bombs drive the tank directly 180 degrees at him then turn perpindicular to his flight path when he's at D1800 or so...a green pilot will use his rudder to compensate then miss.
If the plane is on a rocket run, once again present your most heavely armored part of the tank at him...the front.
If a plane makes either a bomb, rocket or strafing run at you from 12 o'clock high or close to it, kiss your bellybutton goodbye 'cause 75% of the time you'll die if the pilot is any kind of a good shot or egg/rock tosser.
I believe that the GV damage model is cumulitive and it's no suprise to me that there are some claims of kills by a single strafing pass...I've killed a Tiger with a single rocket near miss.....but he was pounded first by bombs...I got the assist.
-
but like HT said....its NOT a GV game...but a Flight SIM
My thoughts exactly the gvs need to be for base defense and not for aggressive play. In the past few months this game has gotten to where it looks like it is trying to compete with WWII online. I thought HT made the above statement several times in the past but it is beginning to be where the gvs are taking control of the game play.
-
bump
-
Urchin
I agree. It's simple really. Bouncing bullets off the road and penatratring tank armor is impossible. Why?
1. Angle of inflection = angle of defelction, simple physics. If the bullet hit the road at a shallow enough angle to bounce, it would hit the tank armor at roughly the same angle.. thus bounce off the armor.
2. Paved roads would be softer than tank armor, most likely causing an API round from a .50 to penatrate the road slightly before ricochet (if at all) and loose velocity.
3. Packed sand / dirt roads might be hard enough to deflect a round or two, but see #1.
Anyway, it is my experience that a P-51 with 6x .50s cannot kill a Panzer on it's own. The panzer is either previously hit by bomb or rocket or cannon, and the then I might throw a few rounds at it to get an assist.
-
That would be untrue Midnight. I dont know whether it is a game concession or not but 50 cals can kill a panzer. Just last night I strafed four out of four panzers until they exploded. The first one I killed in one pass and he exploded within three or four hits. Having said that I will add that I would think it should be possible for a P51 to knock out a panzer. Otherwise the game might not be as fun. Realism sometimes has to take a backseat.
-
Why should realism take a backseat when it comes to this?
If you want to kill a tank, you should have to do it with bombs, rockets, or the right types of cannon.
A .50 should not be able to get you awarded kills on Panzers or Tigers.
Armor is armor, and if it can stop a bullet, it should be able to without some gameplay consession work around for the gamer masses.
-
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
According to the above even bombs and rockets weren't that effective in killing armor.
-
Originally posted by Batz
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
According to the above even bombs and rockets weren't that effective in killing armor.
That's only because in real life, pilots probably didn't drop bombs or shoot rockets on tanks from 1500 feet in a power dive becuase they would have to be worried about hitting trees or power lines or slamming into the ground.
In AH MA, pilots have no fear of death and can drop bombs all day long to get very practiced at it. Some virtual pilots have been dive bombing for more years and sorties than any real WWII pilot ever had.
A direct hit of a 500lb bomb on a Panzer would certainly cause catastrophic damage to the upper armor, turret and treads.
A direct hit of a HVAR on a Panzer would certainly be enough to damage tracks or disable an engine or damage the drive mechanisms for the main turret / gun making it inoperable.
These threads on aerial weapons used on ground vehicles don't take the above into account. Even in your link, it is stated that tanks were damaged / disabled by aerial weapons.
-
Urchin ... everything you say is TRUE, but it still doesn't stop me from jumping in a GV to add a little variety to my gameplay.
I am reserving any and all complaints about GVs until AH II is released. I am hoping that HT and crew have read the numerous posts about the GV damage model and are applying the appropriate fixes to that set of code. I don't believe that we will see any changes to the GVs in this current set of code.
-
It should be that way because my chums and I cant run out and setup tank mines. If you want to be 50 cal proof you can try a Tiger although I hear someone has learned how to detrack even them.
-
easiest way to kill a tiger is to let him drive to the town, when he drives over a window frame he blows up, hate to lose perks to window frames
wipass
-
Originally posted by Midnight
That's only because in real life, pilots probably didn't drop bombs or shoot rockets on tanks from 1500 feet in a power dive becuase they would have to be worried about hitting trees or power lines or slamming into the ground..
Rhubarb, Interdiction, and S&D sorties are fiction okay? I see. I always thought pilots obeyed orders and even seized an occasional oppurtunity but maybe I got that wrong.
I desire the code reflect a gunners use of the pintle position and allow a pilot wound for a kill even on a Tiger or at least knock out the commander and gunner so the gun is worthless.
-
wait a minute
if 1 20mm shot from 200 m can penetrate 20mm of armour annd your firing several shots at the tank wont you eventually penetrate the armour completly because your hitting in approximatly the same spot (some in different spots but after the first 10 bullets you'll have your main hit radius penetrated)
probably didnt happen in real life...but just a thought
-
hmmm, missed the part where you quoted an old post of mine...but I'm sure I've put my share of junk up anyway:eek:
Urchin I couldn't agree with you more overall...regardless of what I may or may not have posted before. For me the problem goes a bit deeper. I want to fly the best flight sim available...the game is Aces High...not tank warrior. Why they're wasting their time and resources on this garbage is beyond me when they dont even have a Ki-84 (among many others). I still don't see why they bother with the grossly incorrect GV models at all.