PDA

View Full Version : This is B.S.! A 30mm can't penetrate a tank?



x__CRASH__x
12-16-2006, 03:34 AM
I was flying a DF server with ground objectives recently. One of the ground objectives was a number of tanks that needed to be destroyed. So I flew a bf-109K-4 carrying an SC-500. Dropped it on some tanks and destroyed 3. Went around and shot at several with my 30mm cannon... NOTHING! That's BS! So I took a 110 with 2x mk-108 30mm cannons and shot at those tanks! NOTHING!! Give me a break!
The A-10 Thunderbolt II has a 30mm cannon, and it's a proven tank buster with that gun! It shreds modern tank armor!! And this game is supposed to tell me that a 30mm can't even get through the armor of a medium tank?

This game is screwed up beyond fixing. BoB better be right, or else we are all just wasting our money again!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Ghost Skies! The Premier IL2FB+AEP+PF Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.ghostskies.com/images/crashgrey.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

cmirko
12-16-2006, 03:42 AM
lmao http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif crash for the king! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG52Karaya-X
12-16-2006, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I was flying a DF server with ground objectives recently. One of the ground objectives was a number of tanks that needed to be destroyed. So I flew a bf-109K-4 carrying an SC-500. Dropped it on some tanks and destroyed 3. Went around and shot at several with my 30mm cannon... NOTHING! That's BS! So I took a 110 with 2x mk-108 30mm cannons and shot at those tanks! NOTHING!! Give me a break!
The A-10 Thunderbolt II has a 30mm cannon, and it's a proven tank buster with that gun! It shreds modern tank armor!! And this game is supposed to tell me that a 30mm can't even get through the armor of a medium tank?

This game is screwed up beyond fixing. BoB better be right, or else we are all just wasting our money again!

Comparing apples with oranges? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

For all serious people:
The Mk108 only had 2 types of ammo, namely HE shells and minerounds, both high explosive with not penetration effect whatsoever. On the other hand the (much heavier) Mk103 found on the FW190A8/9 (optional), Go229, He162C/D, Do335, etc. did employ AP shells and was used in the anti-armour role - just take the

CaptAce
12-16-2006, 03:47 AM
I don't know much about 30mm's and their effectiveness in reality compared to in game. All I do know is that you probably shouldn't compare the capabilities of the modern 30mm to the ones used in WWII. The 30mm on the A-10 uses special armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds which are heavy and accurate. Mix that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 04:15 AM
The reason is obvious, only the Browning .50 BFG can penetrate tank armor,

The GAU-8 is exactly the same as the Browning, except that it's completey different, that's why it is so effective against, well, everything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

DuxCorvan
12-16-2006, 05:14 AM
Comparing WW2 30mm cannons with the uranium ammo uber GAU in the A-10 is like comparing a bread knife with a chainsaw.

Man, an A-10 is a chaingun cannon with wings. There's never been a mightier fire weapon in a plane.

SeaFireLIV
12-16-2006, 05:16 AM
Crash is fishing.

You can`t begin to compare the power of a modern A-10`s high velocity Mini-gun to a WWII vintage gun.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

x6BL_Brando
12-16-2006, 05:26 AM
I agree with the poster who explained the load-out situation. Just because a round comes from a 30mm gun doesn't mean it can penetrate armour. Even AP rounds needed to strike armour within a quadrant of effectiveness - I.e. too shallow an angle will only cause a ricochet.

Citing the effectiveness of a plane & weapon from 50-odd years in the future is a bit strange - anachronistic is the word I'd use.

B.

Kurfurst__
12-16-2006, 05:30 AM
Originally poste by CaptAce:
I don't know much about 30mm's and their effectiveness in reality compared to in game. All I do know is that you probably shouldn't compare the capabilities of the modern 30mm to the ones used in WWII. The 30mm on the A-10 uses special armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds which are heavy and accurate. Mix that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.


There's not much of a difference between oldie 30mm cannons and the modern ones. Ballistically, there's practically no improvement. Penetration wise, the old 30mm MK 103 with it's tungsten cored ammunition is as good as the Apache helo's 30mm cannon and better than the 25mm autocannon on the Bradley AFV. All of these fire very similiar rounds and very similiar velocities. If I recall correctly with tungsten cored subcaliber penetrators the 30mm long MK 108 could punch through up to 90-100mm armor.

Where the modern guns are better designed are secondary properties, selectable, 'smart' ammos, better FC systems and such.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

F19_Ob
12-16-2006, 05:32 AM
Anyway because newcomers might not know........

The MK 108 infact could destroy light ground vehicles quite well.
Tanks however seem out of the question since it likely couldn't penetrate even at short range and would explode on the surface.
It is however possible that some damage to the tracks or some other more sensitive part could be done.

The 103 cannon on the other hand was hard hitting and should be able to take out atleast light tanks.

I have never read about pilots using the MK108 for tanks but that il-2's even could sometimes take a couple of hits and still fly.
One german pilot said that fighters usually were done with one hit and although the plane still flew it was so damaged that the pilotusually bailed (if still alive )rather than risk getting shot at another time and die for sure.


Anyone tested the 103 cannon against light tanks?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v382/f19_ob/ob_ver2.jpg

jasonbirder
12-16-2006, 05:38 AM
Tanks were notoriously difficult to destroy from the air...very few actual Tanks, as opposed to SP artillery and soft skinned vehicles were ever destroyed by ground attack aircraft...
The optimistic claims by airmen about their effectiveness against tanks were shown to be false even at the time (look at the .50 calibre vs Tank thread we had a month or two ago!)
So you destroyed three in one mission...and still moan about ordanance being undermodelled???
Besides...what were you doing going back again...have you never heard of one pass...haul a**
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
12-16-2006, 05:54 AM
Good spot you found here Crash.
You always seem to find the right bait.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

DomJScott
12-16-2006, 05:57 AM
In fact as I understand it a mine shell can't even penitrate the armour on, for example, the back of a pilot's seat. It explodes on impact and the armour absorbs the explosion.

RCAF_Irish_403
12-16-2006, 06:20 AM
two words: Depleted Uranium http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Originally posted by marc_hawkins:
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. A 108:0 kill ratio is insignificant next to the power of the Force

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

M2morris
12-16-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by CaptAce:
that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.
I beleive it(A-10) fires about 50 rounds/second. Powerful enough that it slows the plane down as it is fired, and it sounds like a roaring draggon or something as it fires short 1 or 2 second bursts,it is intimidating.

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I was flying a DF server with ground objectives recently. One of the ground objectives was a number of tanks that needed to be destroyed. So I flew a bf-109K-4 carrying an SC-500. Dropped it on some tanks and destroyed 3. Went around and shot at several with my 30mm cannon... NOTHING! That's BS! So I took a 110 with 2x mk-108 30mm cannons and shot at those tanks! NOTHING!! Give me a break!
The A-10 Thunderbolt II has a 30mm cannon, and it's a proven tank buster with that gun! It shreds modern tank armor!! And this game is supposed to tell me that a 30mm can't even get through the armor of a medium tank?

This game is screwed up beyond fixing. BoB better be right, or else we are all just wasting our money again!
Try the .50cals<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Mr_CobraStyle
12-16-2006, 07:16 AM
I liked the one with the Germen veteran better. Every time he's used it. Still, +1 for the effort.

JG52Karaya-X
12-16-2006, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by F19_Ob:
Anyone tested the 103 cannon against light tanks?

You can kill almost any tank with the Mk103... I tried out the new Coop missions with Do335V13 and Me262HGIIs against I250s and Yak15s with a squadmate and had no trouble taking out 6 or 7 tanks (I think they were IS2s or the new T44) with the 30mms.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

majnos64
12-16-2006, 07:20 AM
The main difference in Gau-8 and MK-108 ammo is cartrigde energy and core. MK-108 is basicly made for efficient short distance big explosion shooting it doesnt have much kinetic energy. Personally I don't know about mass usage of MK-108 against tanks. I know only about some 20 mm and 37mm stuka cannons which were filled with tungsten core and massively used against armored targets. Using MK-108 AA ammo you must hit cannon shell inside gun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As americans did in their 8 barreled beasts.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

JG52Karaya-X
12-16-2006, 07:24 AM
The Mk108 NEVER was used against tanks - that would be just downright stupid as its ammo simply is ineffective against any kind of armour

The Mk103 on the other hand did see use as an anti armour weapon because of its ability to fire tungsten cored AP shells as already mentioned and at a far higher muzzle velocity than the 108.

Don't mix them up!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Crash is fishing.

You can`t begin to compare the power of a modern A-10`s high velocity Mini-gun to a WWII vintage gun.

For the record, the GAU-8 is NOT a "mini-gun" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-gun)

Mini-guns use 7.62mm Rifle ammo, the caliber of the GAU-8 is, shall we say, a little larger.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

MEGILE
12-16-2006, 07:59 AM
Crash's fishing threads are like Saturday night tv... canned laughter, and plenty of back slapping.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/7683/starostauc4.jpg
If you see this man.... it's probably too late
Oleg - I was dreaming to make Meteor, but third party didn't make it finally (left unfinished)

LEBillfish
12-16-2006, 08:04 AM
How rediculous, it's npt like a 30mm cannon is a .50 caliber...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/lures.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/popup-tagflag.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/TLI/trollbust.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

Vidar_1
12-16-2006, 08:10 AM
What kind of tank did U shoot at Crash? Was it a Sherman? If it was U cannot make a dent in it since U are shooting with inferior stuff make in Europe. The Sherman was built with superior grade US steel!

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 08:15 AM
true dat<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Vidar_1
12-16-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/TLI/trollbust.jpg

LeBillfish, I always wondered what U looked like with no makeup. Thanks for sharing!

SeaFireLIV
12-16-2006, 08:44 AM
His 109-Z captured by Americans and flew over Berlin was better.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

LEBillfish
12-16-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Vidar_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/TLI/trollbust.jpg

LeBillfish, I always wondered what U looked like with no makeup. Thanks for sharing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look pretty good with my teeth and glass eye in and wig on huh?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLACK">"Does this make my Hien look big?"
"I love my Ha-40's"
"She loves teh Swallow"
"Don't call me cho-cho san"
</span>

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2006, 09:11 AM
Id hit it<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

************************************************** **
IF WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER.. THAN WHAT THE H IS YOUR QUESTION?
************************************************** **

Clan_Graham
12-16-2006, 09:35 AM
Maybe you're just not hitting the tanks.
Aim better.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

----------------------------
"Aye, I know. I know you can fight. But it's our wits that make us men."
----------------------------
I don't like peanut butter. It sticks to the bottom of my feet.
----------------------------

leitmotiv
12-16-2006, 09:40 AM
Like comparing the 16" guns on the 1890's HMS VICTORIA to the 16" guns on the IOWA. Bore means nothing by itself. Bore plus barrel length determines velocity of shell. Longer the barrel in relation to bore equals greater shell velocity. The MK108 was a low-velocity weapon (had to be used at near point-blank range---much to the detriment of Rammjagers attacking American heavies). The modern American 30mm has extremely high velocity. The barrel is approximately half the length of the A-10! The idea behind the MK108 was to lob thin-skinned explosive rounds against bombers to blast huge holes in their skins---not to penetrate armor. The MK103 was originally used as an aerial anti-tank gun by the Hs 129. It was a high-velocity weapon which fired armor-piercing ammunition. As an anti-bomber weapon, its great advantage was that it gave the using airplane a stand-off capability. It could tear a bomber to pieces outside of the range of its .50 cal. machine guns, unlike the point-blank range of the MK108. Big armor-piercing shells are a waste against airplanes---the best way to bring down an airplane is to tear the structure up with high explosive. I would imagine the MK103 was firing primarily HE against aircraft.

Thanatos833
12-16-2006, 10:14 AM
The Mk 108 had a horrible muzzle velocity, especially compared to the modern cannons. Sometimes muzzle velocity is more important than explosive power, which is why earlier on an anti-tank rifle was more effective than a grenade against a tank. A high velocity bullet can go through armor intact and kill the driver of the tank, a low velocity explosive shell will just explode outside.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Copperhead310th
12-16-2006, 10:24 AM
BACK! BACK in the cage crashy!
Sorry folks, he doesn't bite. really.
Aristo forgets to lock his cage now and again.

Down boy. *cracks wip* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/ubisig.jpg
Former CO of 310thVFS, (Retired) now part time
190 jock & full time target drone for JG27
Flying on line as JG27_Copperhead

|^^^^^^^^^^^^|
| JG27_Copperhead | '|""";.., ___.
|_..._...______===|= _|__|..., ] |
"(@ )'(@ )""""*|(@ )(@ )*****(@
"Keep on Truck'n!"

x__CRASH__x
12-16-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Vidar_1:
What kind of tank did U shoot at Crash? Was it a Sherman? If it was U cannot make a dent in it since U are shooting with inferior stuff make in Europe. The Sherman was built with superior grade US steel!
oooooooo! No wonder!

ok, thanks. Now I understand.

But what about those P.O.S. Russian tanks?? AH HA!!! Caught ya there!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Ghost Skies! The Premier IL2FB+AEP+PF Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.ghostskies.com/images/crashgrey.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

MarkSynthesis
12-16-2006, 10:56 AM
In all seriousness, what kind of tank were you shooting at?

If you're shooting at a T-60 or an American Sherman, yes, I could see why you'd be upset that the MK-108 couldn't penetrate. Those were not exactly unstoppable masses, if you know what I mean.

But if you're shooting at an IS-2 or an updated T-34, I'm guessing you're not going to penetrate it very well. The tank itself makes a bit difference.

fordfan25
12-16-2006, 11:43 AM
-S- crash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong.

-----------------------------
http://www.magnum-pc.com/
"your order will ship in under 2 weeks, be sure"

Low_Flyer_MkVb
12-16-2006, 11:45 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWDa88K53D4<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Viking-S
12-16-2006, 01:38 PM
It is better to remain silent and let everyone think that you are an idiot then to open your mouth and prove that you are one!

Vidar_1
12-16-2006, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vidar_1:
What kind of tank did U shoot at Crash? Was it a Sherman? If it was U cannot make a dent in it since U are shooting with inferior stuff make in Europe. The Sherman was built with superior grade US steel!
oooooooo! No wonder!

ok, thanks. Now I understand.

But what about those P.O.S. Russian tanks?? AH HA!!! Caught ya there!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK: But since the T-34 was such a good tank it HAS to be a US design. There is no other plausible explanation. Probably the design was just stolen by the Soviets along with the secret of how to make the good steel.

Mayby it was Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who gave them the secret along with the recipy for the Plutonium thingy?

FritzGryphon
12-16-2006, 02:57 PM
http://www.military-page.de/waffen/mk/gau8/bild_gau8_03.jpg

http://www.lietadla.com/vyzbroj/flak-37-bk-37/bk-37-02.jpg

http://www.luft46.com/armament/mk108-7.jpg


One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell me which thing is not an anti-tank gun by the time I finish this song.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

----------
http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/planepork.jpg

Vidar_1
12-16-2006, 03:12 PM
Easy: It's the one at the bottom cos it has no wheels!

Philipscdrw
12-16-2006, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
http://www.military-page.de/waffen/mk/gau8/bild_gau8_03.jpg
A useful addition to any articulated lorry (or 'truck' or whatever you'd call them in the USA) - a 30mm cannon to 'discourage' tailgaters.

And to boost your acceleration when joining the motorway.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

------------------------------------------------------------
PhilipsCDRw

PF_Tini's Simple Guide to Switching 4.04m, 4.05m, and 4.07m. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7351046415)
Flying on Hyperlobby as EAF_T_Dozer

The-Pizza-Man
12-16-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally poste by CaptAce:
I don't know much about 30mm's and their effectiveness in reality compared to in game. All I do know is that you probably shouldn't compare the capabilities of the modern 30mm to the ones used in WWII. The 30mm on the A-10 uses special armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds which are heavy and accurate. Mix that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.


There's not much of a difference between oldie 30mm cannons and the modern ones. Ballistically, there's practically no improvement. Penetration wise, the old 30mm MK 103 with it's tungsten cored ammunition is as good as the Apache helo's 30mm cannon and better than the 25mm autocannon on the Bradley AFV. All of these fire very similiar rounds and very similiar velocities. If I recall correctly with tungsten cored subcaliber penetrators the 30mm long MK 108 could punch through up to 90-100mm armor.

Where the modern guns are better designed are secondary properties, selectable, 'smart' ammos, better FC systems and such. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The improvements in RoF and weight are not a major difference?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 06:09 PM
I think it's Safe to say that not all 30mm cannons are created equal.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

FritzGryphon
12-16-2006, 07:14 PM
Modern saboted and shaped charge ammunition seems to have improved anti-armor capabilities of existing weapons.

Like SLAP rounds for the M2. Greater penetration by using a smaller calibre, but faster projectile.

LStarosta
12-16-2006, 07:19 PM
LOL! Kurfurst. Please don't try comparing the GAU-8 to the lousy POS known as the MK-103.

Thx.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg

Choctaw111
12-16-2006, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by CaptAce:
I don't know much about 30mm's and their effectiveness in reality compared to in game. All I do know is that you probably shouldn't compare the capabilities of the modern 30mm to the ones used in WWII. The 30mm on the A-10 uses special armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds which are heavy and accurate. Mix that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.

The A10 Thunderbolt has a GAU8a gatling type cannon that fires not 10 but 70 shots per second or 7200 per minute. I used to watch them dive in for strafing runs on the range. Anyway, those projectiles are much heavier and travel about twice as fast for a much greater hitting force than the MK108. You cannot possibly get upset that the MK108 seems to be much weaker than the GAU8a because it really is but far. Don't judge the power of a cannon merely by its caliber. Not all 30mm cannon are equally powerful just because their projectiles have the same diameter.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

Akronnick
12-16-2006, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
http://www.military-page.de/waffen/mk/gau8/bild_gau8_03.jpg
A useful addition to any articulated lorry (or 'truck' or whatever you'd call them in the USA) - a 30mm cannon to 'discourage' tailgaters.

And to boost your acceleration when joining the motorway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder what that Bug would look like after being on the business end of a GAU-8, would there be anything left?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

Ken_Det
12-16-2006, 11:52 PM
What he said.
My dad made GAU 8 projectiles for the A-10, and they had more propellant in the caseing than the German Luftwafa round's had.
I know this for a fact because the Smithsonion in D.C. had a section of ammunition from WWII.
German 20mm, and 30mm round's are a lot shorter in length than what they use today.
It was to save on space, and waight.
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
two words: Depleted Uranium http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

FritzGryphon
12-17-2006, 12:00 AM
Note the very long and wide casing, with lots of propellant. Compare to the short and narrow casing on the MK108.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu_14b.jpg

Ken_Det
12-17-2006, 12:09 AM
Cool, glad you have a photo of this.
The projectile part is what my dad made in a cold exstruding machine.
Started out as a spool of large wire 1, and 1/8th inch in diamiter, and wond up looking like that.
The outer shell of it that is.

Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Note the very long and wide casing, with lots of propellant. Compare to the short and narrow casing on the MK108.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/pgu_14b.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

Akronnick
12-17-2006, 12:43 AM
Right, are we still trolling or are ther actually people in this thread who think that Mk108==GAU-8?

Sometimes, I can't tell the difference.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

FritzGryphon
12-17-2006, 12:55 AM
But MK108 does equal GAU-8. We just went over that.

In fact, MK108 is a little better. You can clearly see the explosions in PF are bigger than the GAU-8 explosions in LOMAC. More explosion means more power, and kills more hit points. Case closed.

I'm not just spamming with useless drivel because I'm drunk, either.

Ken_Det
12-17-2006, 01:10 AM
GAU 8 is not an explosive round.
It has a armor penatrating core.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

FritzGryphon
12-17-2006, 01:28 AM
But isn't it half and half?

I don't think it's all DU.

JG52Karaya-X
12-17-2006, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
LOL! Kurfurst. Please don't try comparing the GAU-8 to the lousy POS known as the MK-103.

Thx.

One condition though, pls stop comparing the FW190 to the lousy POS known as the P38. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

Akronnick
12-17-2006, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
LOL! Kurfurst. Please don't try comparing the GAU-8 to the lousy POS known as the MK-103.

Thx.

One condition though, pls stop comparing the FW190 to the lousy POS known as the P38. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh-Snap!

It is ON now, IT IS ON!!!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

fighter_966
12-17-2006, 03:54 AM
Thats why germans moved to 75mm gun ,,30mm can do maybe some minor damage but wont stop the tank

Krizz1972
12-17-2006, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by M2morris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptAce:
that in with percision aiming devices and a gun that fires at 10 rounds/second and it's far more effective than any 30mm cannon fielded in WWII.
I beleive it(A-10) fires about 50 rounds/second. Powerful enough that it slows the plane down as it is fired, and it sounds like a roaring draggon or something as it fires short 1 or 2 second bursts,it is intimidating. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"A persistent urban legend is that the recoil force of the Avenger matches that of the A-10's engines and as such the plane would slow down, stall and subsequently crash if the gun was to be fired for long periods of time. Some even add the fanciful notion of the plane beginning to fly backwards. These claims hold little truth."



Originally posted by Ken_Det:
GAU 8 is not an explosive round.
It has a armor penatrating core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

x__CRASH__x
12-17-2006, 11:40 PM
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Ghost Skies! The Premier IL2FB+AEP+PF Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.ghostskies.com/images/crashgrey.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

The-Pizza-Man
12-18-2006, 12:10 AM
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
12-18-2006, 12:20 AM
Mk108 has thinwall HE (Mine shell) and incendiary only.

Both are delay fused. Incendiary round in reality required fuse being immersed in liquid.
So mine shell ricochets and then explodes not in contact with armor thick enough to turn
the lighter shell and incendiary turned maybe finds a puddle?

GAU-8 through rate of fire equals a much bigger gun. 7200 rpm... compare to MG42 please.
Every round that hits makes heat in that place. Every succeeding hit there or close has a
greater and greater chance of penetrating. Hold a 50 cal stream on one spot of a tank long
time and it will get through which is the province of brave or foolish ground pounders only.
There's a 70's video of that on light armor, the spot glowed and then the shots went through.

The-Pizza-Man
12-18-2006, 12:35 AM
I think (hoped) he was joking, of course HE shells will not penetrate armour, especially low velocity mine shells.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

WWMaxGunz
12-18-2006, 12:48 AM
Light armor, maybe they could. Hate to be inside if that happened, even if the shell got
dented on the way in and the blast didn't much develop.

badatflyski
12-18-2006, 07:24 AM
MK108 was never build with tank destruction in mind, it only could fire Me and incandiary shells, The mk103 on the other hand could fire AP shells and could (even if not really designed for) destroy tanks:
From the fw190 book editions Atlas n??ISBN2-7312-0071-5 pg44:
MK103 30mm Rheinmetall
caliber : 30mm
weight: 145kg
weight fixed gun(with gondola): 198.9kg
length (with fire-nozzle)2.335m
Initial speed: tracers/AP: 940m/s
ME:860m/s
FireRate:tracers/AP :380/min
ME-shells :420/min
Weight of 100 shels: Tracers/AP 94KG
ME 90.5kg
Penetration ability AP shell: 110mm armoredsteel at 300meter

So, Yes, A MK103 <span class="ev_code_RED">"could"</span> kill any tank (standard tank), a t34 or the sherman if the shell penetrated from behind.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Once I saw a smoking hurricane over the French making it's way back towards England and gave it an escort over the channel. Three weeks later I was escorted by three spitfires towards France.
This would never happen in Russia...never."(Me109 pilot)

"I noticed, that you were doing high Gs for 6 minutes now, and in real life it was no more than 3 Gs for most turns, and in 2 minutes you were not able to see what gauges showed!???
Viktor Alexeevich Tikhomirov

Slap (addicted il2 player) on SimHq Forums:
I built up enough courage to go out to the local shop this morning and on my way I saw a squadron of FW 190's flying low and fast; my immediate reaction was to rugby tackle an old lady who was close by as I shouted "BANDITS! INCOMING! 1 O'CLOCK LOW!"...How was I to know they were pigeons?! They had the sun to there backs!

Support WhiteOneFoundation!:
http://www.white1foundation.org/

reisen52
12-18-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
But isn't it half and half?

I don't think it's all DU.

There is no explosive in a discarding sabot DU anti tank round. Its just a metal dart.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38972000/gif/_38972561_du_missile4_416inf.gif

The A-10's 30mm is similar but without the discarding sabot.

PFflyer
12-18-2006, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
Tanks were notoriously difficult to destroy from the air...very few actual Tanks, as opposed to SP artillery and soft skinned vehicles were ever destroyed by ground attack aircraft...
The optimistic claims by airmen about their effectiveness against tanks were shown to be false even at the time (look at the .50 calibre vs Tank thread we had a month or two ago!)
So you destroyed three in one mission...and still moan about ordanance being undermodelled???
Besides...what were you doing going back again...have you never heard of one pass...haul a**
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Ummmmmm...So the over five hundred tanks destroyed by Ulrich Rudel alone with a Stuka counts as "very few actual tanks"?

And he was not the only one in his unit either.

How many is very few?

jasonbirder
12-18-2006, 08:41 AM
Gross overclaiming i'm sure...
I can't comment on the Eastern Front claims as I don't have references but will refer you to some information I posted on allied claims of tanks destroyed from the air during the Normandy Battles...


Air attacks on tanks have always been grossly exaggerated. A good example is the Mortain counterattack. The RAF pilots claimed 84 tank kills, plus another 35 probably destroyed and 21 damaged. The US IX Tac Air claimed 69 killed, 8 probable and 35 damaged. Take away the probables and damaged and you have 153 tanks the pilots are positive they destroyed.

The total actually killed by aircraft? 11.


British Analysis of Panther Wrecks recovered in Normandy give the following breakdown as to cause of losses:

6/6/44 - 7/8/44

AP Shot 36
Hollow Charge 7
HE Shells 7
Aircraft Rockets 6
Aircraft Cannon 2
Destroyed by crew 6
Abandoned 3
Unknown 13

Aircraft Cannon 2 from 80...thats from a British source and from actual analysis of wrecks...

I'm really not getting the feeling that Aircraft cannon were a major killer of Tanks here...

Sorry its second hand stuff (as in me quoting my own posts) but i'm at work and don't have any more data to hand...

Kurfurst__
12-18-2006, 09:11 AM
30mm rounds from Tony Williams site.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30-1.jpg

First round on the left is the MK 108's (30x90mm),
2nd round from the left is the MK 103's (30x184mm),
5th round from the left is the Apache's Chain Gun's (30x113mm),

and

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/30-2.jpg

4th and 5th are the A-10's GAU-8/A cannon rounds (30x173mm).

The second number gives the lenght of the cartridge.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42333000/jpg/_42333631_puskasbudapest_ap203b.jpg
In memoriam Pusk??s Ferenc,2 April 1927 - 17 November 2006.
Nyugodjon B??k??ben - May he rest in Peace.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
Kurf??rst - Your Resource for Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance!

"The Me 109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be the Messer! Speedy, maneuverable (especially in the vertical) and extremely dynamic."
- Major Kozhemyako, Soviet fighter pilot of the VVS

Ignored Posters : AKA_Tagert, Wurkeri, Gibbage, LStarosta, Sergio_101.

Blutarski2004
12-18-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
But isn't it half and half?

I don't think it's all DU.

There is no explosive in a discarding sabot DU anti tank round. Its just a metal dart.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38972000/gif/_38972561_du_missile4_416inf.gif

The A-10's 30mm is similar but without the discarding sabot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If I'm not mistaken, a depleted uranium AP shot does produce at an incendiary effect as a side effect of its penetration. Has to do with the nature of depleted uranium itself.

Perhaps we have an ex-armorer or ordnance guy on the forum who can correct or confirm.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Choctaw111
12-18-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

JG52Karaya-X
12-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
30mm rounds from Tony Williams site.

The second number gives the lenght of the cartridge.

Hoowow, that Mk103 shell is MONSTROUS! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

When it hits, it's gonna hurt... big time! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

Blutarski2004
12-18-2006, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you.


..... For what it's worth, David K Brown wrote i his book "The Grand Fleet" that 4-inches of armor plate was adequate to defend against the effects of a 13.5-inch HE naval projectile. He went on to say that the destructive effects of a WW1 era 13.5-inch HE were approximately equivalent to the warhead of an Exocet missile.

Worth considering.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

ImpStarDuece
12-18-2006, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reisen52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
But isn't it half and half?

I don't think it's all DU.

There is no explosive in a discarding sabot DU anti tank round. Its just a metal dart.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38972000/gif/_38972561_du_missile4_416inf.gif

The A-10's 30mm is similar but without the discarding sabot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If I'm not mistaken, a depleted uranium AP shot does produce at an incendiary effect as a side effect of its penetration. Has to do with the nature of depleted uranium itself.

Perhaps we have an ex-armorer or ordnance guy on the forum who can correct or confirm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depleted Uranium is has pyrophyric qualities, meaning that it burns when it is exposed to the air.

The DU dart from a sabot/AP round will burn and flake as it passes through the targets armour. This means that you don't just get the standard behind armour effect of continued movement of the penetrator and spalling, but you also get flakes of mildly radioactive metal coming off the penetrator, burning at around 1100 degrees celcius.

NASTY STUFF for anyone inside a tank basically.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"Every form of addiction is bad, no matter whether the narcotic be alcohol, morphine or idealism."
-Carl Jung

Blutarski2004
12-18-2006, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Depleted Uranium is has pyrophyric qualities, meaning that it burns when it is exposed to the air.

The DU dart from a sabot/AP round will burn and flake as it passes through the targets armour. This means that you don't just get the standard behind armour effect of continued movement of the penetrator and spalling, but you also get flakes of mildly radioactive metal coming off the penetrator, burning at around 1100 degrees celcius.

NASTY STUFF for anyone inside a tank basically.


..... Thank you, Imp. "Pyrophoric" was the term that was eluding me.

I was told once by an ex- Army Ordnance fellow some time back that the behavior of the DU penetrating rod of a modern APDSFS projectile was more akin to melting a way through armor than it was punching through.

Is this correct?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

StellarRat
12-18-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

I was told once by an ex- Army Ordnance fellow some time back that the behavior of the DU penetrating rod of a modern APDSFS projectile was more akin to melting a way through armor than it was punching through.

Is this correct? As the velocities increase the physics of solid penetration start to become more like liquids and less like solids. For modern AP the velocities are very high. Faster than any standard rifle round. You can think of the DU as a "denser/thicker blob" going through a lighter liquid. I can't think of a better way to describe it. Anyway, the end the result is a cloud of super hot burning metal and fragments on the inside of the vehicle (if penetrated).

Recent studies also show that the crew MAY receive a burst of radiation if DU is used. Apparently, it may emit neutrons when it slams into something hard enough, even though it is not radioactive normally. Some say that the radiation is high enough to be fatal eventually (days later) even if the crew member survives the other effects. I haven't followed up on this line of research though.

scootertgm
12-18-2006, 02:49 PM
WOW, 4 pages on a total troll....

Nice stringer Crash!

You always did know how to bait the hook!

Grendel-B
12-18-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Went around and shot at several with my 30mm cannon... NOTHING! That's BS! The A-10 Thunderbolt II has a 30mm cannon, and it's a proven tank buster with that gun!


Perhaps you should do some reading and try to learn about the subject. You cannot compare a low-velocity, WW2 era aerial cannon to a modern high velocity anti-tank cannon. Start with round velocity and rate of fire, then work up to the specifics of the different weapons.

Besides, there's whole world of difference on ammuniation too.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

VirtuaaliLentoLaivue 32
http://www.llv32.org/

Finnish Virtual Pilots Association aviation history articles:
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/

III-JG27_DV8
12-18-2006, 04:34 PM
no offense to anyone, but...

hahahahahahahahaha<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

S!
DV8
_________________
"We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done." - Romans 3:22 NLT

Low_Flyer_MkVb
12-18-2006, 04:36 PM
Watch and learn kids. This is a masterclass.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/1822.jpg

Akronnick
12-18-2006, 04:53 PM
X__CRASH__X is new best, be sure!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

LStarosta
12-18-2006, 05:08 PM
God, I'm sure Crash is laughing his *** off.

5 Pages.

What a bunch of tools.

+1 fer Crash.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4967/rockytf9.jpg

BillyTheKid_22
12-18-2006, 05:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Howdy!! LStarosta , http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

LStarosta
12-18-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Vidar_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/TLI/trollbust.jpg

LeBillfish, I always wondered what U looked like with no makeup. Thanks for sharing! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post of the day!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4967/rockytf9.jpg

LStarosta
12-18-2006, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Howdy!! LStarosta , http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.zeigermann.com/cartoonist/images/2003/10/25/Hats-Off.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Hats off to you Billy!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/4967/rockytf9.jpg

BillyTheKid_22
12-18-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillyTheKid_22:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Howdy!! LStarosta , http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.zeigermann.com/cartoonist/images/2003/10/25/Hats-Off.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Hats off to you Billy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am laugh!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://members.cox.net/bkid/pacificfighters/p39.jpg

.................................................. ..............

"All I got was a bellyful of English Channel."

TAW_Oilburner
12-18-2006, 08:41 PM
Man this is like the episode of the Simpson's where Homer was fishing with crack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

cmirko
12-19-2006, 12:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif crash should run for president http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif you have my vote m8 ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG52Karaya-X
12-19-2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
God, I'm sure Crash is laughing his *** off.

5 Pages.

What a bunch of tools.

+1 fer Crash.

Why? It started out as pure trolling and has developed into a serious and interesting discussion.

BTW FW190 for the win because it has a Kommandoger??t and outruns, outrolls, outguns and outturns the P38 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

Badsight-
12-19-2006, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Why? It started out as pure trolling and has developed into a serious and interesting discussion. & it has too , but Crash is awesome at this nonetheless<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/1741/shindendrawflight66os.jpg

x__CRASH__x
12-21-2006, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Ghost Skies! The Premier IL2FB+AEP+PF Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.ghostskies.com/images/crashgrey.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

Hoarmurath
12-21-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i'm sorry but you are mistaken about this pic....

This isn't a russian tank straffed by a Bf109 using a 30mm gun.

This is a US tank straffed by a Hs123 7.62mm guns. it's easy to determine from the spacing of the impacts.

tools4foolsA
12-21-2006, 04:56 AM
Oh boy...
It's a bloody Jagdpanther....very German.
And those holes are way bigger than 30mm.
Blind buggers.
*****

JG52Karaya-X
12-21-2006, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Oh boy...
It's a bloody Jagdpanther....very German.
And those holes are way bigger than 30mm.
Blind buggers.
*****

No it is cleary an IS-2 tank penetrated by 3 rounds of 7,92mm from a German Kar98K rifle! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/Karaya/Black_Devil.gif (http://www.geocities.com/jg52thebutcherbirds/index1.html)
The tiger leaves no smell and doesn't make a sound, but you know he is there.
There is something in the shadows - it's the tiger waiting for you.

tools4foolsA
12-21-2006, 05:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tools4foolsA:
Oh boy...
It's a bloody Jagdpanther....very German.
And those holes are way bigger than 30mm.
Blind buggers.
*****



No it is cleary an IS-2 tank penetrated by 3 rounds of 7,92mm from a German Kar98K rifle! Wink2 Veryhappy


Sorry my mistake.
In that case the guy on the pic has a head of less than 30mm...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


*****

luftluuver
12-21-2006, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x: Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this! Someone needs to take a refresher course on AFV regognition. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The AFV he claims is Russian is a German Jagdpanther. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Choctaw111
12-21-2006, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i'm sorry but you are mistaken about this pic....

This isn't a russian tank straffed by a Bf109 using a 30mm gun.

This is a US tank straffed by a Hs123 7.62mm guns. it's easy to determine from the spacing of the impacts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should change the way I worded my statement. The Mk108 was never DESIGNED for the antiarmor role. If the armor is thin enough any round could penetrate it. Looking at the armor on the side of that tank you could use it to wrap sandwiches with. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Anyway, I was looking and if those were in fact Mk108 HE rounds where are the powder burns around the holes? And those holes are HUGE! Those must be at least 75mm in diameter! Was this tank repainted and all forensic evidence destroyed that would prove your case? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif I am not exactly sure what kind of "proof" we have here other than someone in a museum saying they were made by a strafing 109 with an Mk108 over 60 years ago. One more thing. Did the rounds only penetrate the tank or did they disable it?
Oh, and one last thing... I do not have any MySpace girlfriends. I do however have a lovely wife and three sons. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

Viking-S
12-21-2006, 09:26 AM
Mr Crash I guess that disinformation and plain lies are regarded as fun in the discussions with your friends. Probably comes with the territory and upbringing.
But this is an international game site where many comes for information, many of them as ignorant and juvenile as yourself, so I think we better bring some light and substance to your allegations and lies!

First of all when you link to a picture the viewer can backtrack and see for him self where the pictures originate from. In this case some Professor in history that in the summer of 2003 went to Britain, Belgium and France. As far as I know no Russian tanks took part in the WW2 battle of those countries. And the picture you refer to have the text ???Armour-Piercing???!!!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey.htm

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/summer2003trip.html

For reference I provide a picture of both the Mk 108 and the Mk103 ammunitions. The Mk 108 is a air to air mine shell never intended, used or suitable for anything else.


Originally posted by Viking-S:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/PC210005.jpg

Control_Damage
12-21-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:

quote:
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:

quote:
Originally posted by Choctaw111:

quote:
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!


I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you.

Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!




Ah, i'm sorry but you are mistaken about this pic....

This isn't a russian tank straffed by a Bf109 using a 30mm gun.

This is a US tank straffed by a Hs123 7.62mm guns. it's easy to determine from the spacing of the impacts.


I should change the way I worded my statement. The Mk108 was never DESIGNED for the antiarmor role. If the armor is thin enough any round could penetrate it. Looking at the armor on the side of that tank you could use it to wrap sandwiches with. Anyway, I was looking and if those were in fact Mk108 HE rounds where are the powder burns around the holes? And those holes are HUGE! Those must be at least 75mm in diameter! Was this tank repainted and all forensic evidence destroyed that would prove your case? I am not exactly sure what kind of "proof" we have here other than someone in a museum saying they were made by a strafing 109 with an Mk108 over 60 years ago. One more thing. Did the rounds only penetrate the tank or did they disable it?
Oh, and one last thing... I do not have any MySpace girlfriends. I do however have a lovely wife and three sons.

No way was that 30mm fire.

I have it on good authority that the Jagdpanther pictured was actually a prop used in the popular late 70's skinflick 'Reich On Target' starring John Holmes. Holmes played the role of an heroic Fallschirmjager, Colonel Rammin, who was wounded in the bitter fighting for Crete. After a period of convalescence on the Baltic coast recovering from his injuries, he was seconded to the Fuhrer's elite body guard stationed in the 'Eagles Nest' at Berchtesgaden. In a classic scene from the closing stages of the film, Holmes was made to prove his physical prowess and above all, loyalty, in front of Hitler and other high ranking officials by vaulting over a prostrate Goering and nailing a pretty Austrian Madchen lying atop the tank hunters fighting compartment. As is plainly visible from the damage to the armour, the first three attempts were a little off the mark until the fluffer girl suggested raising the angle of the springboard a little. There was no mistake on the fourth take as the legendary 'woodsman' cleared the Reichsmarchall effortlessly and with barely any resistance, penetrated the strength through joy girls alpine redoubt..........

boxmike
12-21-2006, 01:10 PM
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

Here starts the next round http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Either Crash's flamethrower runs out of gasoline or I will just die having bleedin fun reading this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Rgds,
- box<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Walter Mitty from Hell.

Saturnalia
12-21-2006, 01:37 PM
Why doesn't my Brewster kill Tigers with its 0.50 cal machinegun?

slipBall
12-21-2006, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i'm sorry but you are mistaken about this

Vidar_1
12-21-2006, 02:03 PM
Crash, you are clearly once again trying to pull a fast one!

Those holes can not have been made by a Mk 108!

Everyone knows that the Mk 108 does not shoot that straight! Look at the holes! They are too close together. Everyone who has flown this sim know that it is a fact that the Mk 108 lobbed shells all over the place. No hits should come within 1 m of the others be sure!

There are some devious luftwhiners in this forum that outrageously claim that since the Mk 108 was bolted to a heavy engine that it does not spread that much. Do not believe their vile propaganda!

Sensible people in this forum all know that the Mk 108 is modelled just right. Anyone who claims anything else is just another luftwhiner complaining about their porked Mk 108! I'm so fed up with it!

slipBall
12-21-2006, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, i'm sorry but you are mistaken about this pic....

This isn't a russian tank straffed by a Bf109 using a 30mm gun.

This is a US tank straffed by a Hs123 7.62mm guns. it's easy to determine from the spacing of the impacts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe x_crash_x may be correct, those holes are possible, for the simply reason that the armour was of a "cast" origin. Combined with cold weather, cast was not very strong...relyed on slopes to deflect hits. I have hit cast steel with a hammer...punched a hole right through

Castings, though, have certain inherent disadvantages. No
matter how metallurgically sophisticated a nation is, the physics
dictates that grain orientation cannot be controlled, and grain growth
is mostly uncontrollable, in large castings. Thus even the most
elegant tool steel alloys are not particularly strong as raw castings,
without work hardening to make a fine grain structure. Casting's main
advantages, once the tooling is built, are production rate and lower
(not higher!) technological requirements. A casting
facility--especially one that works with simple alloys--can be not
much more than a big building, an overhead crane and a furnace </div></BLOCKQUOTE><div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

slipBall
12-21-2006, 02:19 PM
ooops!...wrong button http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

The-Pizza-Man
12-21-2006, 04:07 PM
Casting isn't quite that simple. A lot can be done to control the microstructure of castings right down to having columnar grain or single crystal castings. There are also a lot of post casting treatments that can be done to change the properties of a casting.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

Abbeville-Boy
12-22-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Casting isn't quite that simple. A lot can be done to control the microstructure of castings right down to having columnar grain or single crystal castings. There are also a lot of post casting treatments that can be done to change the properties of a casting.



in 1942? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Drucat-Jagdgeschwader 26 "Schlageter"

BadA1m
12-22-2006, 08:48 AM
You guy's are all crazy, every one knows that multiple hits with a MK 108 will give any tank crew a nasty headache and cause them to deplete the National supply of asprin, thereby winning the war! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
- General George Patton Jr

x__CRASH__x
12-28-2006, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Casting isn't quite that simple...
You ain't kiddin! Even in a stocked fishery like this, casting in here can take a lot out of you!

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/art2001/bigcatchside540.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Ghost Skies! The Premier IL2FB+AEP+PF Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.ghostskies.com/images/crashgrey.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)

TAW_Oilburner
12-28-2006, 11:23 AM
1st of all it's a German tank (sp artillery). And second, the spacing shows you without a doubt that German piece of armor got some luv from the right wing of a Mustang.

heywooood
12-28-2006, 11:36 AM
lol - you could drop a bent nail on a string in here and get yer limit in a hurry.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

jasonbirder
12-28-2006, 11:44 AM
the spacing shows you without a doubt that German piece of armor got some luv from the right wing of a Mustang


Surely if it had been hit by a P51, P47 or similar there would be more damage and deformation to the roof, cupola and upper superstructure...

From where it had been flipped over by the impact!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MarkSynthesis
12-28-2006, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the spacing shows you without a doubt that German piece of armor got some luv from the right wing of a Mustang


Surely if it had been hit by a P51, P47 or similar there would be more damage and deformation to the roof, cupola and upper superstructure...

From where it had been flipped over by the impact!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement confuses me a little too. I'm goign to assume that, unless what we're looking at is a very thin-skinned vehicle shaped like a tank, and not an actual tank, the .50 Browning on a P-51 would more or less just bounce off. Also, isn't there a bit more dispersal in an air attack...and more impact points? That looks more like someone who was a good shot on the ground with some sort of anti-tank weapon--three shots, all placed very close together. Hard to imagine plane doing that.

Granted, if the P-51 had crashed into the tank, yes, that probably would have damaged the tank. Otherwise, I think the Mustang is out of luck (unless they're very good with a bomb).

That, and the thing looks like a giant, hollow prop. Not sure though.

Vidar_1
12-28-2006, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Casting isn't quite that simple...
You ain't kiddin! Even in a stocked fishery like this, casting in here can take a lot out of you!

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/art2001/bigcatchside540.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, casting is a fine art and has nothing to do with tanks although the holes might have been done by someone in the distance class using a spinner (a salmon fly would not make such a large hole).
http://www.2006worldcastingchampionships.ie/result.html

slipBall
12-28-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
Casting isn't quite that simple...
You ain't kiddin! Even in a stocked fishery like this, casting in here can take a lot out of you!

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/art2001/bigcatchside540.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have had a few of those full cod end's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/orders.jpg

SeaFireLIV
12-28-2006, 01:58 PM
I can`t believe this thread has gone on so long. But I noticed the tank picture and just wanted to point out (if it hasn`t been already) that those holes are clearly photoshopped. And if they weren`t (which they are) those holes are weirdly spaced and way too big to be anything other than purple slug bullets from a giant miniature space hamster`s pistol!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"If it burns, it is confirmed."

Ivan Lukich Zvyagin

fighter_966
12-28-2006, 02:08 PM
And that tank is jadgpanther or tiger...so Noooooo Wayyyyy!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Krizz1972
12-28-2006, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
Your "proof" is hogwash. If the mk108 exploded, it would obviously create more damage than a round that passed through the armor. Therefore, the mk108 should be superior in destroying tanks compared to the GAU-8! But not in IL-2!

And that is BOGUS!

I am sorry to say but you are wrong about this. That is why very hard steel, tungsten or depleted uranium is used to penetrate armor instead of HE because very heavy and strong metals hitting armor at very high speed will do much more damage than a soft shelled high explosive ever could. Why do you think that the most technologically advanced militaries in the world have been doing it this way for so long? The MK108 was NEVER used for tank busting! Any pilot that would have tried it would have found out just what you did, that the MK108s are useless against armor. If they were effective why didn't they just mount two of those under the Stuka or any other tank busting plane? It would have saved a LOT of weight and could have carried a lot more ammo but the Germans knew that something more powerful was needed to effectively deal with tanks. Just stop your whining and get over it. Or maybe if you keep whining Oleg might change it just for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you just make that stuff up, or did you read it from a children's fairy tale?

An explosion from a mk108 will pentrate armor! Look at this picture from a Russian military museum. This Russian tank was hit by 3 Mk108 rounds from a straffing bf-109.

I rest my case. I win, and all you school book fairy's can go back to your slide rulers and MySpace girlfriends. You can't argue with proof like this!

http://www.alvernia.edu/academics/history/silbey/silbey-Images/28.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a german Jagdpanther, not a russian tank. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

http://www.3dcenter.ru/blueprints/tanks/tank-destroyer-jagdpanther-late-version.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ _________________________



http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Messerschmitt-spc--spc-BF109,red,yellow.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

VF-17_Jolly
12-28-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
And that tank is jadgpanther or tiger...so Noooooo Wayyyyy!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Yep Jadgpather
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Jagdpanther_IWM.jpg/800px-Jagdpanther_IWM.jpg

Imperial War Museum London no reference on the cause of the holes

fighter_966
12-28-2006, 03:30 PM
My guess of the hole maker ;P.I.A.T or something similar or 25pdr antitankgun...

Ken_Det
12-28-2006, 03:52 PM
Thought I would point out that the holes in the Jadgpanther are in the fuel tank.
Thats why the armor is so thin http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Not a MK108 hole, or holes, but at least 76mm high volocity or bigger.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

Blutarski2004
12-28-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
My guess of the hole maker ;P.I.A.T or something similar or 25pdr antitankgun...


..... 50cal.


;>]<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Sergio_101
12-28-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by fighter_966:
My guess of the hole maker ;P.I.A.T or something similar or 25pdr antitankgun...

Looks like a gun in the 50-75mm class judging
by the size of the holes.
Also the tearing and "keyholeing" hints
that it was at a nearly level trajectory.

Three hits that close suggests some sort of rapid firing gun.

Bet is was aweful nasty inside.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

CD_kp84yb
12-29-2006, 06:47 AM
The Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum was knocked out by a Cromwell in belgium 1944.

The first round entered the vehicle in the enginebay and disabled it, the next three rounds, where as you can see, in the crew compartment. The Jagdpanther didnt explode or burned as you can see in the picture. I don't know the fate of the crew,the hatches are closed and the MG34 is missing.
The closed hatches could indicate that they died, but the missing MG can indicate that they abonded the vehicle before it got hit. Maybe they ran out of fuel,and left the vehicle as a roadblock, but that brings up the next question why didnt they blow up the vehicle. Never mind.

As you can see the Jagdpanther is shoved aside to clear the road.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PantherJagd-16.jpg


cheers

http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdpantheriwm.html
http://www.jagdpanther.co.uk/ goto the IWM link

CD_kp84yb
12-29-2006, 09:24 AM
BTW Pump up the volume realy loud http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSmgMzFdv4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf1KrH1ZelY&
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov9UdRHoaAc&

run it twice it gets smoother

fighter_966
12-29-2006, 09:32 AM
Hear ME roar Id say WAU http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

MarkSynthesis
12-29-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
The Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum was knocked out by a Cromwell in belgium 1944.

The first round entered the vehicle in the enginebay and disabled it, the next three rounds, where as you can see, in the crew compartment. The Jagdpanther didnt explode or burned as you can see in the picture. I don't know the fate of the crew,the hatches are closed and the MG34 is missing.
The closed hatches could indicate that they died, but the missing MG can indicate that they abonded the vehicle before it got hit. Maybe they ran out of fuel,and left the vehicle as a roadblock, but that brings up the next question why didnt they blow up the vehicle. Never mind.

As you can see the Jagdpanther is shoved aside to clear the road.


Not something you'd like to see if you were an Allied tanker in...well, really any tank put in service during the war.

Of course, with a cannon like that, you probably wouldn't have seen it before it fired a shot.

Choctaw111
12-29-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
The Jagdpanther in the Imperial War Museum was knocked out by a Cromwell in belgium 1944.

The first round entered the vehicle in the enginebay and disabled it, the next three rounds, where as you can see, in the crew compartment. The Jagdpanther didnt explode or burned as you can see in the picture. I don't know the fate of the crew,the hatches are closed and the MG34 is missing.
The closed hatches could indicate that they died, but the missing MG can indicate that they abonded the vehicle before it got hit. Maybe they ran out of fuel,and left the vehicle as a roadblock, but that brings up the next question why didnt they blow up the vehicle. Never mind.

As you can see the Jagdpanther is shoved aside to clear the road.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PantherJagd-16.jpg


cheers

http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdpantheriwm.html
http://www.jagdpanther.co.uk/ goto the IWM link

YAY!!!!! Thank you for this historical photo. I guess that this puts the MK108 debate to rest. At least for this paricular piece armor. I have said from the very beginning that the holes were way too big for be from MK108 hits.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Alienware P4 3.2 EE
2 Gigs RAM
Intel D875PBZ MoBo
GeForce 7800 GS
CH Fighterstick, ProThrottle, ProPedals
TrackIR3 w/ 6DOF

Krizz1972
12-29-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
I don't know the fate of the crew,the hatches are closed and the MG34 is missing.
The closed hatches could indicate that they died, but the missing MG can indicate that they abonded the vehicle before it got hit. Maybe they ran out of fuel,and left the vehicle as a roadblock, but that brings up the next question why didnt they blow up the vehicle. Never mind.

As you can see the Jagdpanther is shoved aside to clear the road.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PantherJagd-16.jpg


cheers

http://www.panzerworld.net/jagdpantheriwm.html
http://www.jagdpanther.co.uk/ goto the IWM link

There is another hatch on the back side of the turret, this hatch is missing on the photo at the museum, maybe the crew threw some hand grenades in the tank, to destroy the interior.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________________________ _________________________



http://www.sloganizer.net/en/image,Messerschmitt-spc--spc-BF109,red,yellow.png (http://www.sloganizer.net/en/)

jjtasker
12-29-2006, 07:30 PM
I'm sure you already got lambasted by the crowd, but "30mm" is just a diameter.. there are MANY flavors.. the Mk108 is a very low velocity rounded nose metal shell (thin) filled with explosive filler.. Its a bit longer than your index finger and 30mm in diameter. Its main effect was a large gaseous explosion hopefully within an enclosed space inside its enemy.. thats why it tore things apart..

The 30mm used by the GAU in the A10 is a depleted uranium pointed penetrator..the entire unit is about as long as your forearm and its a super high velocity round that kills by focusing enormous Kinetic energy on a very small spot and burning through...

jjtasker
12-29-2006, 07:33 PM
Very good chance the crew abandoned the vehicle.. thats IF they were inside to begin with. Once immobile, that type of vehicle cannot defend itself unless the enemy is within a very narrow arc to the front. The closeness of the holes speaks more to the CLOSE range of the attacker and the aim point being the same.. I'd bet there is a good chance the vehicle was emptied once it was immobilized

Ken_Det
12-29-2006, 07:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
The next one above that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/a9.jpg
http://sc.groups.msn.com/tn/8E/70/HotWheelFamily/2/55.jpg

Greb
12-29-2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Comparing WW2 30mm cannons with the uranium ammo uber GAU in the A-10 is like comparing a bread knife with a chainsaw.

Man, an A-10 is a chaingun cannon with wings. There's never been a mightier fire weapon in a plane.

Hehehe!! I think that covers it! The A-10 was designed around the Gun! Ah! Nothing like shooting Uranium Flavored Beer Cans!

tools4foolsA
12-30-2006, 03:18 AM
Looking at the museum picture is the hole in the rear same gun? To me it looks a bit smaller?

The 3 hits close together sure indicate that the Jagd wasn't moving anymore by then.

Knocked out or abandoned and then 'knocked out' or target practice on abandoned/destroyed tank are all possibilities.

*****