skip bombing/rounds bouncing off more then armor.

[4Prop]

-used by fighter/bombers, light bombers and some heavy bombers in WW2 for numerous reasons.

-uses in AH

1)tanks (GVs)
2)CV's ( so u dont have to climb and risk being shot at by more ack.plus u can stay a little more stealth)
3)hangars. ( stay NOE all the way and skip bombs into the sides of hangars)
4)town buildings( idk why u would want to, but why not if you can do the above)

-rounds bouncing off hard surfaces.+ was a usefull resource in WW2

-uses in AH

1) if a tank is on concrete, if you shoot at the ground in front/behind the rounds bounce up underneath and penetrate the under armor.thus disabling/killing the tank if you do not have bombs.

some evidence this could work ( as it did in WW2)heres the sexiest bird ever made doing the job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj3Usgfhdls

[MK-84]

Few thoughts here:

The video doesnt show any skip bombing.  Yes I get the idea of bouncing rounds from what the narrator says, but I'm very very suspicious of that working on a tank.

Bombs do not skip on ground so much, so thats pretty much out.

From everything you posted it seems super clear to me that you want some new way to roll a base with out taking risks.

As for skip bombing as a whole, it was used against boats, ships, dams, etc. but I dont see how this would make the game more fun.  Seems to me like an even more suicidal way to attack a cv than a torp.  Considering that our cartoon pilots dont feel pain and dont mind dying, I do not think this is a very good idea.

[Butcher]

Skip bombs are one thing, but think about trying to attack a tank on concrete - what's he more likely to do - Land or get killed?

/btw your video is funny - its not a Tiger tank in first 2 shots - third was a Halftrack but ill let you research it a little more.

[Butcher]

As for skip bombing as a whole, it was used against boats, ships, dams, etc. but I dont see how this would make the game more fun.  Seems to me like an even more suicidal way to attack a cv than a torp.  Considering that our cartoon pilots dont feel pain and dont mind dying, I do not think this is a very good idea.

Conventional bombing did not work in the Pacific - during the Coral Sea a flight of B-17's tried to drop on the CVL Shoho and missed, afterwards it became clear that trying to bomb ships from Altitude wasn't working - a new idea came to mind which was low alt strafing and skip bombing.

Flying low enough so the bomb doesn't bounce up and hit the aircraft, most ships below a Light Cruiser were poorly armored - anti aircraft batteries frankly had no protection what so ever. Japanese Barges were a major use of transportation in the Pacific - this is where strafing and skip bombing became a major player.

I don't think we need ways to sink ships any faster, as it is a single formation of B-26s below 10k have a fairly easy chance to sink it.

What other ships do we need to skip bomb? None - unless transports are added.

/Beaufighter gets added before then.

[USAF2010]

Hmmmm the skip bombing I see probably not working too well just because of all the ack put up by the cv group, at least in anti-shipping raids. as for hangars, well, by the time you get there more than likely fighters will be waiting to chew you up.


Now the bouncing rounds under a tank I like. I've always wondered why they make it so dang hard to kill tanks with a/c guns. Now im not talking about .50's and below, I mean the 20 mm and up. Read quite a few stories of typhoon pilots making tigers look like like paper mache (pardon my french).

Can anyone explain this? It appears to me that in real life it was a fair bit easier to disable a tank with guns than in the game, granted of course this is a game...

-INCOMING

[4Prop]

Few thoughts here:

The video doesnt show any skip bombing.  Yes I get the idea of bouncing rounds from what the narrator says, but I'm very very suspicious of that working on a tank.

Bombs do not skip on ground so much, so thats pretty much out.

From everything you posted it seems super clear to me that you want some new way to roll a base with out taking risks.

As for skip bombing as a whole, it was used against boats, ships, dams, etc. but I dont see how this would make the game more fun.  Seems to me like an even more suicidal way to attack a cv than a torp.  Considering that our cartoon pilots dont feel pain and dont mind dying, I do not think this is a very good idea.

the video wasnt for the skip bombing part of the wish. I dont roll bases for one so thats not the reason I'd like it.
Yes I know it was a half track, but the pilot himself said that was what they accualy did. in the words of someone who was there and did it.

[MK-84]

the video wasnt for the skip bombing part of the wish. I dont roll bases for one so thats not the reason I'd like it.
Yes I know it was a half track, but the pilot himself said that was what they accualy did. in the words of someone who was there and did it.

I mentioned the part about bouncing rounds, and i didnt mention a half track, that was butcher.

As for the words from someone who was there, thats great, but it has nothing to do if its accurate or correct.  a tank is armored on the underside for one, certainly not as well, but after a bullet hits the ground, ricochets, deforms or shatters and has lost a ton of its kinetic energy, I have trouble seeing it go through all but the thinnest armor plate. 

[Pigslilspaz]

The video doesnt show any skip bombing.  Yes I get the idea of bouncing rounds from what the narrator says, but I'm very very suspicious of that working on a tank.

I've read accounts of it working against Panzer IV's taking out the engine using P-47's. It's also mentioned in the book Hell Hawks.

[FLOTSOM]

1) if a tank is on concrete, if you shoot at the ground in front/behind the rounds bounce up underneath and penetrate the under armor.thus disabling/killing the tank if you do not have bombs.

i would rank this myth right up there with russians intentionally ramming their T-34's into tigers and destroying the tiger.......

the armor on the belly of a tank is thinner than the top, but it was also built with the understanding that tanks were prone to running over many many types of potential dangers. the tank was given enough armor (panzer 10mm tiger 25mm) on the bottom to ensure it would likely survive most of the potential dangers it was likely to encounter.

now a .50 is rated to penetrate 22mm of armor plate at 100yards..(i think that is correct) now this is a direct fire, no ricochet into a flat plate of steel no angles. none of those circumstances are going to exist in the scenario laid out in the OP.

you have to first find a tank sitting on concrete or cobblestone, tar would be too soft, then get that close when firing, you have to be at the perfect angle to cause the bullet to bounce (how much energy the bullet loses impacting the ground and then bouncing is on i will leave to those that have phd's) at just the right angle to allow it to hit the plate flat (the bullet must remain intact and undeformed or these imperfections would further decrease the likelihood of any penetration), no angle (remember each degree of angle thickens the armor the bullet must pass through) then, only after all of these circumstances are met perfectly can it be said that you obtained penetration of the armor. then would come the final question.......after all that would the bullet have even enough energy left to penetrate the boots of the man standing inside?

as far as damaging the engine, well every photo i have seen shows the armor plate covering the tank belly running from front to back, no opening left to access the motor.

(oh and i use the american .50 cause its either the only round with enough energy to impact concrete and possibly bounce and maybe have some penetration potential left or the only round weak enough that it may bounce off of instead of penetrating the concrete 100% of the time)

now on armored vehicles, well i could believe that they are accessible through the bottom.....but the armor covering the entire vehicle is so thin to begin with why would you try to play a bank shot when you could just pound rounds through the top of the hull.

well those are my thoughts on the matter....

[guncrasher]

1) if a tank is on concrete, if you shoot at the ground in front/behind the rounds bounce up underneath and penetrate the under armor.thus disabling/killing the tank if you do not have bombs.

i would rank this myth right up there with russians intentionally ramming their T-34's into tigers and destroying the tiger.......

they did ram the tiger to hold in place while the infantry or other tanks would go around and pound it from behind or the  sides.



semp

[FLOTSOM]

they did ram the tiger to hold in place while the infantry or other tanks would go around and pound it from behind or the  sides.



semp

there is a video somewhere of a T34 ramming something, a panzer or stugg i think, but there is no german historical account to support this was ever a common practice of the russian military.

im not saying it "never" happened, im saying its a myth that anyone would make this a strategic practice. ramming would be at best a last ditch desperation move.

once you ram something that weighs almost 2x your weight you are out of action, and there is no guarantee that you will hit in a manner that will disable or even slow down your much bigger much heavier opponent. go ram a full sized ford f550 with a taurus station wagon, the truck may on occasion take a hard hit and suffer some damage from the dead taurus....but for the most part it will shrug of the demolished corpse of the taurus with out pause. look at the height and shape of the tiger and then compare it with the height and shape of the T34.....its not gunna be a good day for the T34.





sorry pictures arent to scale, this is what i could find quickly...

this is one of the rammings/accidents i saw the proof of......

and you can tell by the po'ed germans prying open the top hatch of the T34 that this is probably not how the russians were hoping their day would end..... 

[guncrasher]

there is a video somewhere of a T34 ramming something, a panzer or stugg i think, but there is no german historical account to support this was ever a common practice of the russian military.

im not saying it "never" happened, im saying its a myth that anyone would make this a strategic practice. ramming would be at best a last ditch desperation move.

once you ram something that weighs almost 2x your weight you are out of action, and there is no guarantee that you will hit in a manner that will disable or even slow down your much bigger much heavier opponent. go ram a full sized ford f550 with a taurus station wagon, the truck may on occasion take a hard hit and suffer some damage from the dead taurus....but for the most part it will shrug of the demolished corpse of the taurus with out pause. look at the height and shape of the tiger and then compare it with the height and shape of the T34.....its not gunna be a good day for the T34.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

sorry pictures arent to scale, this is what i could find quickly...

this is one of the rammings/accidents i saw the proof of......(Image removed from quote.)

and you can tell by the po'ed germans prying open the top hatch of the T34 that this is probably not how the russians were hoping their day would end..... 

towards the end of the war when the russians had more tanks that's when it was done. I remember seeing movies in the history channel of burned out t34's right in front of  tigers, they were head to head.   I saw a couple of them.

please notice that the t34's did not actually rammed them to knock them out  but to hold them in place while other tanks moved to the side and rear.  of course that's what they said in the documentary.






semp

[Shuffler]

Know of stories in nam where they skipped rockets in the rice patties to get them into the small tunnels built into the mounds. The tunnels were dug at an upwards angle so you could not shoot into one. They would pop out and MG a chopper then move up into safety.

[Ack-Ack]

Only verifiable instance of a tank intentionally ramming another that I know of, is Lt. Gorman's Sherman tank when he rammed a Tiger.



Just do a search for Lieutenant John Gorman of the Irish Guards to get the complete story.

artis illustration of the incident as Gorman's tank rushes to ram the Tiger.



ack-ack

[Butcher]

The T-34 ramming in my opinion wasn't common practice, I do know one instance at Kurst where a T-34 came over a hill the same time a Tiger came out from a wooded area, the T-34 was hit by a round that killed the gunner / commander - the Driver then rammed the Tiger head on, however was unable to bail out in the collision.

The same tiger tank - was out of action due to another mishap - in a previous engagement its driver was shot by a bolt action anti tank rifle, from what I understood the range was extremely close, maybe 10-12 meters, killing him, when it was abandoned artillery attempted to destroy the tank and it was out of action for a few weeks.

I don't recall the number on the tank and this possibly could be a myth as well - the book was "Panzer Aces" by Franz Kurowski - has some..questionable items written in the book that many claim are full of hoax's.