Gunnery Question

[funked]

I should clarify this - I am talking about the .50 on the M3 and the M16.

I don't know if these are modelled like the aircraft .50's or if they have the boost that the Panzer and bomber MG's seem to have.

*Edit*  Just realize I used "aircraft" when I meant "fighters".  I guess that kind of sums up my opinions on how the bombers are modelled.    

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-26-2001).]

[illo]

 

I think the p47 used to kill tanks with their machine guns in real life.

I guess thats not quite possible. Maybe some recon vehicles..but no tanks. .50cal was also used by ground forces and it could kill some german light TDs(which were basicly just tracked at-guns). .50cal didnt have enough penetration to kill tanks.

[darling]

Wow, the ignorance displayed here is immense.

1. The best AT-weapon in WW2 was an airplane. Tank armor thickness made normal all-purpose tank guns (75mm/16-32in in general) innefective in tank-killing. Special tank-destroyers, armed with longer and therefore higher-velocity guns were needed, e.g. the M10 Wolverine, with a 76mm/48in and the Pgz-IV, with the 88mm/56in mounted. Special mounts were needed to house these guns. The Panzerzerstörer (spelling?) had the turret removed, and the gun mounted directly in the hull. The M10 Wolverine was an M4 Sherman with the turret cover removed, and the rear panel of the turret moved back to accomodate the greater recoil.
On the other hand a near hit by a 250lbs GP bomb would overturn a normal tank, and a direct hit (uncommon) would instantly kill it (130lbs of octol is bad).

2. Panzer IVs were indeed often killed with .50cals. Sustained hits to the rear deck would produce ricochets through the lower rear mantle of the turret, where the armor is only 12mm thick. A .50cal from 150-200 yards will punch through some 15-20mm of steel plate armor.
These hits would kill or incapacitate the turret crew (gunner, commander and loader if present), making the vehicle uncombatworthy.

3. The bomb damage/burst radius was upgraded in some patch of 1.05. It made the structures hardier, and therefore harder to kill with guns, but vehicles stayed the same and bombs had an easier time killing them. At least I have no problems killing vehicles with a 500lbs bomb, if I get enuf time to set up the run.

Lets all be friends
Darling

[This message has been edited by darling (edited 04-27-2001).]

[juzz]

Is this "richocet kill" stuff all theoretical - or is it an actual, proven technique used with some success during WW2?

I imagine the US Army would have written something about this subject, considering all their fighters had .50in guns.

[Jochen]

Utter roadkille darling.

Wehrmach tank losses in Normandy were recorded and studied by British army and they were classified by cause. By far most numerous losses were caused by AP round fired by AT gun or tank. I think next were HEAT rounds fired by tanks or infantry antitank weapons.

Rockets and bombs accounted only few percent ot total tank losses. They might have killed more halftracks and soft skinned vehicles but not tanks.

First of all tanks can operate by night unlike fighter bombers. Secondly hitting tanks with bomb or rockets is very hard. Cannons or MG's in allied planes didnt kill tanks lmaost at all.

------------------
jochen / Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolschevismus!

[Jochen]

Darling, here's the proof from  http://www.vvaf.org/about/dupuy.pdf :

Enemy tank casualties between JUne 6 and 31 august 1944 (total of 110 tanks from 6 June to 7 august and total of 223 tanks from 8 August to 31 August, all left on battlefield)

AP shot 48% / 11%
HEAT shot 7% / 0.4%
HE artillery 8% / 2%
Mines 1% / 0%
Rocket projectiles from aircraft 6% / 3%
Air cannon 3% / 0.4%
Bombs 0% / 1%
Destroyed by crew 6% /48%
Abandoned 4% / 28%
Unknown 17% / 6%

Quite clearly air power was not the most effective way to kill tanks. What makes these numbers even more significant is that in Normany allies had overwhelming air superiority. In more usual circumstances percentage of tanks killed by air power would be even smaller.

------------------
jochen / Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolschevismus!

[Toad]

 

Originally posted by Jochen:
Quite clearly air power was not the most effective way to kill tanks

Now think what that means for "ACES" High if they revamp the GV armor modeling.

"Panzers on the Prowl" anyone?  

Play "Osties Overwhelm" tonite?  

Some decisions are going to have to be made. Either you introduce more capable anti-armor elements or you remove the (dare I say it   ) uber-armor if you intend to maintain this as primarily a flight sim.

Choices, choices, always choices.