tank main gun shooting planes down.

[bustr]

Sorry grizz that we aren't talking about the MK108.

But, it's useless against T-34 even if Hitech modeled a Type E or X AP. 500m\sec would do nothing but scratch the paint on a tank. The program was dropped because any chance of penetration against aircraft armor would require being inside of 100m with a perfect angle of impact. 20mm AP worked better air to air. Even good for up to light tanks in Russia and why the Hs129 had 2, and used those for strafing ack positions, truck columns, and other light ground targets.

Guys you need a 1500yd run from 1000ft, dive at 800 as you approach on "Full Zoom". Use a small dot reticle. Hold it center of the side 60 degree sloped armor. If you are not careful your nose will dip lower. You want full throttle.

This was not any easier for the WW2 pilots either. But, it was the only way to do the job with what they had. If the Hs129 B3 BK 7.5  gets introduced, you can stand off at 1000yds and blow holes in everything but the tigers. Until then, inside of 100yds is how you get a single pass kill on tanks except for the panther and tigers in the side with the BK 3.7. Even the Fw pilots from the groups assigned to the same command as the Ju87 and Hs129 tank destroyers. Attacked using rockets in about the same way from 300m and closing to kill tanks on the eastern front. As for moving in areas with too many trees. Then the Fw and regular Ju87 bombed them like we do.

[hlbly]

don't fly straight at a tank's main gun and you won't get shot down by it.  But to answer your question, yes there have been recorded incidents in which a tank shot down a plane with its main gun.

This is an account from Otto Carious' book (page 43).
Dmitriy Loza in an interview was asked a Sherman's AA defenses.  Interview source: I Remember - Dmitriy Loza interview

In his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union, Loza also briefly mentions a Sherman tank in his unit shooting down a German attack plane.

ack-ack

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence is it ?

[FLOOB]

It's testimonial evidence.

[hlbly]

I have been the 'victim' of been shot down by tanks while in a plane. However, it was my own stupidity that got me killed, not what the other player did or the tool he used.  Just because it didn't happen on a daily basis doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible in the game.  It wouldn't happen "so often" if players would fly and attack tanks correctly and attack from high angles, rather than rush in and wonder why they died.  Don't blame the mechanics, blame the player! 

We as the players get multiple tries to attack the same target. If we fail one way we can try another way until we succeed.  It isn't HTC's fault that players decided to go around the same mountain and get bored or annoyed, it is the player's fault for not broadening their scope and trying out new methods and ways of gameplay.

Not one single instance of verified main gun kill of AC in WWII. Did not happen. I eagerly await any confirmation. Otto Carius Tiger in the mud is one possible instance that does not pan out with research. Far more likely Russian AC was destroyed by conventional AAA. Simply a case of a man claiming a kill that he did not make. Frequent occurrence in WWII. Until there is Tanker Wounds. Optics are more realistic. A buttoned up view. It will simply be too easy to acquire attacking AC for a main gun shot to succeed. All of these are mechanics not player issues. Does not matter how many people that have been in period armor and KNOW it is impossible. The round hitting an AC is not the big part of the problem. The ease of acquisition and tracking is. I have played inM-26's and an M4A3E8. What we do here can not be done. ROK Army reserve units still had the old Pershing in inventory when I was in. My last name being Lee and my obvious attempt to learn and speak their language opened many doors to satisfy my curiosity of WWII related equipment.

[hlbly]

It's testimonial evidence.

Testimonial evidence is not accepted in AH2 to my knowledge. Brew would fly entirely different if that was the case.

[hlbly]

...The difference is, our lives don't depend on the limited ammunition we're carrying to defend us from other tanks/complete our mission.  We have unlimited ammunition and nothing at stake, so we can afford to take the low percentage shot at the aircraft.  They couldn't.  Couple that with the limited traverse things Saxman mentioned, and that's the reason.

I hadn't realized there were limitations IRL on how the turret could move.  I'm guessing it's not in the game for the same reason engine management isn't in the planes, it's not fun.

Wiley.

Turret speed is accurate in game. Gun elevation and depression is as well. Field of view is not, ability to adjust accurately and easily elevation and traverse simultaneously  is not. Complete coordination between Commanders unbuttoned view and gunner is not.

[WWhiskey]

HLBLY,,,

Not one single instance of a main gun kill verses far more likely?  Apples to oranges,, if your gonna go by (far more likely) you've got to leave out the ( not one single instance)
There are accounts of tanks shooting down planes, they have been posted here many times, you not believing them, then deciding on your own, A FAR MORE LIKELY THEORY,  is ludicrous
 
I've never had a tanker tell me he couldn't kill something,
As long as the commander and gunner have a good ability to comunicate,  anything is possible

[save]

Probability is so low IRL you would not waste ammo on it.

our cartoon view make it much much higher probability than RL

in Real life you would shoot with top mg. we trained on that during my tank service in the early 80's.


btw the mk103 in the me410 is excellent to kill tanks with.

[bozon]

I've never had a tanker tell me he couldn't kill something,
As long as the commander and gunner have a good ability to comunicate,  anything is possible

A classic case of overconfidence. Also, I consider it very likely that most claims of tank shooting down a plane are "last action is the cause" effect. This is why buff gunners were claiming huge number of kills. When 20 gunners are shooting at a plane, every one of them is certain that his bullets are the ones that connected. Why wouldn't they? "I pulled the trigger and the FW190 burst into flames, ergo I am the one to hit it" each of them will claim. Same thing with a plane attacking a ground division with hundred of people shooting at it with anything from hand guns, through proper AA guns, to tank main guns: "I pulled out my 45, pointed it in the general direction the sound was coming from, closed my eyes, pulled the trigger, and that IL2 crashed right behind me". They are not lying, this is just human psychology.

The main problem is not communication. The gunner can't see anything. The commander has to rotate the turret and set elevation accurately enough to bring the plane into the gunners quite narrow-field optics. Unless the plane is diving down the barrel and therefore stationary from the tanker POV, this is no easy task. More over, in combat conditions when things are exploding around the tank the commander will be inside with a closed hatch, unless he is very brave or plain stupid. In that case, none of them can see the plane coming. If the commander is exposed, large caliber AP rounds are not required in order to kill him.

In AH our "lives" mean nothing. An AA field-gunner, or a gunner in an open ostie/wirble will keep shooting at the plane coming right at him spewing 20mm from two to four cannons at the gunner. A real live person will hit the ground and seek cover. This is why flak ships were as good as suppressed if a plane managed to rake it with 20mm. From that moment, the people on board were more busy with self preservation, putting out fires, and dragging the wounded below decks then they cared about shooting at the planes. Bullets bounce right off the AH tank commanders and they cannot be killed unless the tank explodes beneath them.

[ARSNishi]

Reading this and having shot my share of planes out of the sky with a tank has me curious who the games most prolific tank to air shooters are...... Lusche??   Would that be difficult o master statistician? I suppose it would only be fair for the Rudel wannabe's to be recognized while at it.  .    We can leave the bomb****s unrecognized.....since what they do doesn't represent much of a challenge at all.  .  

  I'll concede that the practice that I have become fairly adept at may be a tad gamey, but not any more than the bomb****s using the ever-so-gamey F3 view to do their dastardly deeds or any other of the numerous examples of gamesmanship decried ad naseum on these boards. This is after all a game is it not?  Should we have every tedious detail of the true WW2 experience modeled for us in our "game"?   I think not.

 Besides who's to say that actual ww2 tank crews were they given unlimited lives, tanks and munitions, wouldn't become as good or better at the practice as us reenactors?  Seems Ive read somewhere of a successful tank crew having devised a system of communication between a tank commander and his gunner whereby the commander would guide the gunner given his limited FOV to the target using the commanders knee on the gunners back and foot on the gunners backside to relay traverse and elevation approximations to his gunner....  I imagine were they able to get as much practice as we get in game.... they too couldve in time easily acquired at the very least...  tanks flying right down their barrel.  I also tend to believe that our hypothetical tank commander would get pretty good at "buttoning up" pretty quick once he saw the lumbering G stuka commiting to his gun run.  

I have tried my hand at tank plicking in a G stuka and have managed to get kills and avoid being main-gunned in the process so I fail to see what all the fuss is about.  

~S~  Nish

[Wiley]

Turret speed is accurate in game. Gun elevation and depression is as well. Field of view is not, ability to adjust accurately and easily elevation and traverse simultaneously  is not. Complete coordination between Commanders unbuttoned view and gunner is not.

Thank you.  I had understood and agreed with the coordination, but was wondering what the issues with the rest were.

One other question, referring to the field of view do you mean looking through the main gun sight?

Wiley.

[WWhiskey]

Thank you.  I had understood and agreed with the coordination, but was wondering what the issues with the rest were.

One other question, referring to the field of view do you mean looking through the main gun sight?

Wiley.

I think he is and I'd bet ,,he's wrong,,HTC modeled,, or remodeled the main gun sights to more accurately represent the actual tanks a few years back,,  HLBLY's complaint is that the TC and gunner couldn't have a good enough communication ability to facilitate the turret following the commanders instruction to the letter as it is in game,,
There is no way to model the ability or inability of different tank crews,, some were good,, some were great, some just made it to the fight,,    I posted a picture of an external sight for the m4 a long time ago , it was for the commander to fire the main gun when the gunner couldn't see the target, so the commander could aim and fire the weapon ,
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!

[Wiley]

I think he is and I'd bet ,,he's wrong,,HTC modeled,, or remodeled the main gun sights to more accurately represent the actual tanks a few years back,,  HLBLY's complaint is that the TC and gunner couldn't have a good enough communication ability to facilitate the turret following the commanders instruction to the letter as it is in game,,
There is no way to model the ability or inability of different tank crews,, some were good,, some were great, some just made it to the fight,,    I posted a picture of an external sight for the m4 a long time ago , it was for the commander to fire the main gun when the gunner couldn't see the target, so the commander could aim and fire the weapon ,
This debate has gone on for years, look at some past threads for more info!

I've read quite a few of them as they occurred.  Never seen the simultaneous traverse/elevation being difficult to do together point before.  To me that would probably be the single biggest departure from reality if so.  I had thought the gunner position's FOV was designed to be accurate.  Clarity might be much better than RL if the actual FOV is indeed right, and that could be a significant advantage.

I am just deeply against gamily making things impossible in game.  If you can put a bullet where it should be, it should do damage.  To me making planes immune to tank rounds is roughly equivalent to making aircraft MG rounds disappear at 600 yards because people pretty much didn't shoot that far successfully in the war.

[WWhiskey]

another thing you have to realize is, not everyone has large flat screen monitors,, or at least they didn't when i started, some players can't see nearly as much as others so some concessions must be made to keep player from getting totally frustrated with only seeing little blips on screen,,, while other have 42 inch led's and thousands of dollars in equipment! and can clearly see the blender hidden behind the seat of the P-38's
 It is not a perfect game,, best bet is to fight planes with planes and leave the tanks alone,, or accept the consequence of dieing every now and then and learning new tactics to keep from doing so,, the game is not like real life, things happen here that never happened in the real world or at least not on a common basis,, yet you get to try again here,, in real life, you die and that's all! no whining about getting ho'ed, no complaining about tanks firing main gun rounds at your AC

[Hoplite]

I really have to get into a tank one day. I feel like I'm missing out on all the fun! 

FYI - I've never been shot out of the air by a tank main gun...but I've sure been killed by one while on a rearm pad or taking off.  Maybe there are no recorded instances of that happening during WWII...but I think a shot from a Panther would ruin any pilots day if it did occur