PDA

View Full Version : Spitfires,Tempests,Rockets,20mm&Tanks...!?



ytareh
06-24-2006, 07:48 PM
First of all I was pleasantly surprised to see that Spits and 60lb-er rockets arent mutually incompatible when I accidentally pressed load out for the Seafire-try it!
I had great fun 'tankbusting' in the Tempest with those rockets also on the QMB Moscow map...most potent anti tank rockets in game?
I was surprised at my lack of impact using the 4xHispano 20mms on the Panzer IVs though,I couldnt get a single kill even at 1000m convergence...Considering that 0.50s can kill Tigers according to some(!!!)

ytareh
06-24-2006, 07:48 PM
First of all I was pleasantly surprised to see that Spits and 60lb-er rockets arent mutually incompatible when I accidentally pressed load out for the Seafire-try it!
I had great fun 'tankbusting' in the Tempest with those rockets also on the QMB Moscow map...most potent anti tank rockets in game?
I was surprised at my lack of impact using the 4xHispano 20mms on the Panzer IVs though,I couldnt get a single kill even at 1000m convergence...Considering that 0.50s can kill Tigers according to some(!!!)

FritzGryphon
06-24-2006, 07:51 PM
Debunked. You ought not even bring that up in here.

The cannons are quite effective against Pv.IIIs, and would probably kill tigers too if you attacked from the right angle, and at very close range.

Otherwise, use the rockets. It's what they're for.

ytareh
06-24-2006, 08:30 PM
I think I remember someone recently giving virtual armour thicknesses for the tanks in this game ...eg values for front/ side/rear etc.Would like to know where to look for those in program files....

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 08:49 PM
I killed a Panzer 4 just th other day with a Hurricane IIc.

Dive down almost vertical and keep hitting the top.

It will die eventually, but you will probably use up half your ammo in the Hurricane, even if most of your shots hit.

luftluuver
06-24-2006, 09:32 PM
In real life it was lucky if 1% of the rockets fired hit the intended target.

Rockets are over modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
In real life it was lucky if 1% of the rockets fired hit the intended target.

Rockets are over modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this Luftluvver?

I have seen film of some Typhoons attacking a railway track, and every pair of rockets hits dead on the track.

Each plane fires off all their rockets at the track, Ill see if I can find it.

VW-IceFire
06-24-2006, 10:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
In real life it was lucky if 1% of the rockets fired hit the intended target.

Rockets are over modelled. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure...but rockets would also chew up the ground and flip stuff around and cause all sorts of havoc that you can't in the game so its a fair tradeoff.

Hispano does work against some of the lesser armored Panzers...but you need to have a rear aspect 40 degree dive on target with a full burst of guns on target to ensure a kill.

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 11:02 PM
Here ya go

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/typhoons_attack.wmv

See every one of his rockets hits the railroad track in the clip where you actually see them hit??

Another interesting clip I thought is how this Macchi 205 rips up the Thunderbolt :

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/mc205_vs_p47.wmv

Just shows what cannon can do to even a heavily armoured plane.

Xiolablu3
06-24-2006, 11:34 PM
I have just been reading and I htink I see where the '1%' figure comes from. 1% of rockets fired at TANKS were effective, becasue you needed a diret hit to kill them.

But in the Failaise pocket the Rocket Typhoons caused morale to fall so far in the German army that almost all abandoned their vehicles and in this way the rockets had the desired effect. WW2 Rockets were devastating against soft targets, but not so great against tanks.

It took 12 planes each with 6 rockets almost all their ammo load to destroy a captured Panther, becasue any close hits didnt really affect the tank other than blowing a track off, which could possibly be fixed in less than an hour.

Although it seemed like rockets were responsible for the destruction of armour in the failaise pocket, a study revealed that very few tanks were actually destroyed by rockets, most were armoured cars/trucks/anti tank guns. The tabnks had been put out of action , but that was the result of the crews abandoning most of them under the constant bombardment of rockets from the Typhoons.

German Generals interviewed afterwards were convinced that the whole enemy airforce was raining ordanance down on them and were very shaken up by the experience. This showed the terrifying effect on human morale of a sustained rocket/air attack.

Some interesting snippets from the page I have been reading, concerning rocket attacks in France and the resulting reports and findings....



'At about midday the first Typhoons took off for the American sector
from their advanced landing grounds, and went into action just before
1 p.m. against a concentration of some 60 tanks and 200 vehicles
observed along a hedge-lined road near Mortain. The tanks, some
heavily camouflaged, were grouped closely together as if unprepared
for the rapid lifting of the fog. After overflying at low level to
confirm them as German, the Typhoons commenced dive attacks upon the
front and rear of the column, which was immediately brought to a halt.
The pilots observed that their attacks caused great confusion, and saw
German tank crews bailing out and running for cover regardless of
whether or not their tanks were left blocking the road.'

'The weather remained clear and between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. flights of
five or six Typhoons were taking off roughly every 20 minutes to
attack, returning to refuel and rearm before setting off again for
Mortain. As the afternoon wore on the pilots found the task of
locating the German tanks increasingly difficult due to their
dispersion and to clouds of dust and smoke in the battle area, but the
forward movement of the German attack had been halted. By the end of
the day No.83 Group had flown 294 sorties and IX Tactical Air Command
200 sorties in the Mortain area. Three Typhoons and pilots had been
lost. Though the level of flak had initially been light, it had
increased during the day with box-like patterns being put up over the
tanks, and many of the Typhoons were found to have suffered damage
from this and small-arms fire.

German accounts clearly attribute the failure of their attack on 7
August to the fighter-bombers. The commander of 2nd Panzer Division,
von Luttwitz, later recalled that his tanks had made a swift advance
of about ten miles when suddenly the fighter-bombers appeared,

They came in hundreds, firing their rockets at the
concentrated tanks and vehicles. We could do nothing
against them and we could make no further progress.

Hans Speidel, then the Chief of Staff of the German Army Group B,
later wrote of Mortain that

it was possible for the Allied air forces alone to wreck
this Panzer operation with the help of a well co-ordinated
ground-to-air communication system.'



'Interrogation of prisoners has shown without question
that German tank crews are extremely frightened of
attacks by RP...Crews are very aware that if an RP
does hit a tank, their chance of survival is small.
It is admitted that the chances of a direct hit are
slight; nevertheless, this would hardly be appreciated
by a crew whose first thought would be of the disastrous
results if a hit was obtained.'

'Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, the majority of the
others being abandoned by their crew'

The effect of rockets seems akin to the Stuka from the early war, the terror and effect on morale is a weapon in itself.

JG52Karaya-X
06-25-2006, 01:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Another interesting clip I thought is how this Macchi 205 rips up the Thunderbolt :

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/mc205_vs_p47.wmv </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, that's not a P47... it's a P40 of some sort as you can easily make out by looking at the wheel wells under each wing!

JG53Frankyboy
06-25-2006, 01:36 AM
about soviet rockets:

"Like most unguided rockets, RS suffered from poor accuracy. Early testing demonstrated that, when fired from 500 m (1,640 ft), a mere 1.1% of 186 fired RS-82 hit a single tank and only 3.7% hit a column of tanks. RS-132 accuracy was even worse with no hits scored in 134 firings during one test. Combat accuracy was even worse since the rockets were typically fired from even greater distances. To further complicate the matters, RS-82 required a direct hit to disable light German armor with near-misses causing no damage. RS-132 could defeat medium German armor with a direct hit but caused almost no damage to light or medium armor with a near-miss. Best results were usually attained when firing in salvos against large ground targets."

OD_79
06-25-2006, 04:12 AM
It's definately a P-40 and not a P-47, the whole shape is wrong.
As for the rockets, if you watch the Typhoon video it shows that they did not actually aim the rockets at a specific target, and I read about this in a book with loads of accounts from Typhoon pilots (Typhoon Attack - Norman Franks), they would either fire of all 8 in one salvo or they would fire them, as you saw there, in pairs along a line to cover an area to bombard it. That was because most of the time they could not actually see the tanks themselves and had been told to attack an area.
As you have kind of hinted you don't need to destroy the tank to make it combat ineffective, if youblow it's track off it is a sitting duck, one of the keys to a tanks success is its mobility. If it is stationary, even for an hour it is an easy target, it can't get away. If the crew bale out and run for it then it's not going anywhere, and if you do actually hit it with a rocket then it is unlikely it's going to be repaired, those things could blow battleships out of the water!
I was using them on War Clouds last night, in a Tempest, loved every minute of it, until enemy aircraft turned up and you can't see anything behind you...plus 4 Fw190's and a 109 against a lone Tempest is kind of predictable!
The rockets might be 'over moddeled' but I think that is down to not being able to ranomdly plot rockets going off course differently everytime they are fired, in game they fly straight but I doubt that the damage that they do is over moddelled. I just wish we had more aircraft that could fire them, at least until the Tempest rear view gets fixed...probably never!

OD.

zunzun
06-25-2006, 04:43 AM
RAF doctrine about rockets was to fire all of them from 1700 (1500m aprox) yards on heavily defended targets. On lightly defended targets this distance fall to 1000 yards (900m).
That is a big distance if you compare it with the typical distance at which we fire in the sim (less than 400m).
I would like to see wich accuracy would have anyone firing at 1000m from the tank (when you can hardly see it).
Overmodelled? Maybe not.

HellToupee
06-25-2006, 05:10 AM
most people close almost point blank with rockets, i usually fire quite a bit under 500 meters.

Dtools4fools
06-25-2006, 05:20 AM
Top armor of IV is some 12mm, should be possible to penetrate under 500m if you dive in on steep angle.

Rear armor is 20mm for that you would have to close in awfully close and fly very low and alomst level me thinks...
****

VW-IceFire
06-25-2006, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Here ya go

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/typhoons_attack.wmv

See every one of his rockets hits the railroad track in the clip where you actually see them hit??

Another interesting clip I thought is how this Macchi 205 rips up the Thunderbolt :

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/mc205_vs_p47.wmv

Just shows what cannon can do to even a heavily armoured plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gah! Now I want a Typhoon! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thats definately a P-40...its too small and not the right shape to be a P-47. Still a neat clip!

Brain32
06-25-2006, 06:51 AM
EDIT: hmmmmmmmm

slipBall
06-25-2006, 07:39 AM
It was said by Hans Rudel the best way to take out a tank is to attack from the rear. Armour being not so thick on rear of t-34

tigertalon
06-25-2006, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ytareh:
most potent anti tank rockets in game?
I was surprised at my lack of impact using the 4xHispano 20mms on the Panzer IVs though,I couldnt get a single kill even at 1000m convergence...Considering that 0.50s can kill Tigers according to some(!!!) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Best antitank rocket in game is BRS-132.

Huh, and it's advisable to avoid using phrases ".50 cals" and "tiger" in the same post just as much as smoking on a gas station. Consequences can be quite comparable.

VW-IceFire
06-25-2006, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
It was said by Hans Rudel the best way to take out a tank is to attack from the rear. Armour being not so thick on rear of t-34 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True for virtually all tanks and this works extremely well in the sim. If your a real daredevil, a 2000m dive on a tank can also yeild some effective hits from directly above.

Xiolablu3
06-25-2006, 11:19 AM
Sorry, I just found that clip as I was looking for that Typhoon clip, I didnt know the title was wrong, I just took it as a P47. I did actually wonder if there were P47's fighting in the desert tho!

I made a track of the best way to take out Tanks with cannon a while back :-

http://rapidshare.de/files/22566612/Me110_BK37_demo.ntrk.html

p1ngu666
06-25-2006, 02:11 PM
the thing about distance to target, irl u hadto fire from further out, because u maybe doing past 500mph when u pull out of your dive, so the distance u cover at that speed per second is huge isnt it?

in one of my books, theres abit about a unnamed pilot, who came in, and said that the squadron didnt press home there attacks enuff etc in the debrief..

few missions later he learned why. flew into a chiney stack, and quiet low down too...

i guess the tank crews would be worried about getting trapped in a damaged tank thats on fire too, plus typhoons look like they want to kill u, in the face, and they sound nasty, and rockets and cannons fireing at u, u just dont wanna be there..

Xiolablu3
06-25-2006, 03:02 PM
I agree Pingu, there is no real defence against a Typhoon from a Tank, and the Typhoon isnt going to fire his rockets at a single infantry man. Therefore they would conclude that they would be safer out of the tank.

tigertalon
06-25-2006, 03:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I agree Pingu, there is no real defence against a Typhoon from a Tank, and the Typhoon isnt going to fire his rockets at a single infantry man. Therefore they would conclude that they would be safer out of the tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this would be true in an isolated battlefield, where ONLY tanks and typhoons would be fighting. On a real battlefield, enemy machinegunners, snipers, mines etc etc were a constant threat, much more constant than a Typhoon. That's why at the end they were safer in a tank.

Xiolablu3
06-25-2006, 03:24 PM
I was trying to understand why so many German crews abandoned their vehicles at the sight of Typhoons ro other fighter bombers, tigertalon. I was not saying they all would.

It is easy to say with hindsight they should have stayed in their tank, but they didnt know that at the time.

tigertalon
06-25-2006, 04:10 PM
Yes, if they had the luxury of being alarmed about or saw approaching fighter bombers, it was IMO safer to get the hell out of that can full of explosives and fuel! At least I would.

With proper infantry/aerial/artillery support and aircraft defence, tanks can be unstoppable. Otherwise, they can be defeated in a humiliating way.

RCAF_Irish_403
06-25-2006, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was trying to understand why so many German crews abandoned their vehicles at the sight of Typhoons ro other fighter bombers, tigertalon. I was not saying they all would.

It is easy to say with hindsight they should have stayed in their tank, but they didnt know that at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would jump out of the AFV once the jabo's came over (if nothing else was going on at the moment)...then climb back in after the air to ground attack....not sure if this would be very popular with the superiors, tho

NagaSadow84
06-25-2006, 04:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was trying to understand why so many German crews abandoned their vehicles at the sight of Typhoons ro other fighter bombers, tigertalon. I was not saying they all would.

It is easy to say with hindsight they should have stayed in their tank, but they didnt know that at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because most crews were young und inexperienced. The few veteran crews already knew that the chance of being hit by a rocket fired from a fighter-bomber was next to zero. They had already made that experience with countless attacks from Il-2s.

Dtools4fools
06-26-2006, 09:30 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">It was said by Hans Rudel the best way to take out a tank is to attack from the rear. Armour being not so thick on rear of t-34 </pre>

While true for most of WWII tanks T-34 is an exception...
Rear armour is as thick as front armour (albeit a bit less sloped) on T-34.
But most other tanks indeed had less armour in the rear. Tiger for example, only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif 82mm of steel istead of 102mm on the front...

As for 20mm guns killing real tanks I think you would have to use tactics as described in post above... dive almost straight down and hit the upper armour; at very close distance; you might want to ask veteran kamikaze pilots for advice on how to do it as you might not be able to pull up anymore...

There was a reason why most nations made dedicated tank busters... their guns being bigger than 20mm...
****

p1ngu666
06-26-2006, 03:45 PM
i think the first lot of typhoons blew up the leading and tail end vechiles, the road was hedge lined, probably got a ditch either side, pretty much trapped.

so, if u was sat in a tank in the middle, ud hear all this going on, ull see it. ud hear soldiers shout the road was blocked.

personaly i wouldnt want to be there, with the typhoons and other aircraft putting on a maxium effect to destroy me.

slipBall
06-26-2006, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">It was said by Hans Rudel the best way to take out a tank is to attack from the rear. Armour being not so thick on rear of t-34 </pre>

While true for most of WWII tanks T-34 is an exception...
Rear armour is as thick as front armour (albeit a bit less sloped) on T-34.
But most other tanks indeed had less armour in the rear. Tiger for example, only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif 82mm of steel istead of 102mm on the front...

As for 20mm guns killing real tanks I think you would have to use tactics as described in post above... dive almost straight down and hit the upper armour; at very close distance; you might want to ask veteran kamikaze pilots for advice on how to do it as you might not be able to pull up anymore...

There was a reason why most nations made dedicated tank busters... their guns being bigger than 20mm...
**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Most tanks armour was of different mm, heavier armour normaly up front

Soviet medium tank models of World War Two T-34
Model 1940 T-34
Model 1941 T-34
Model 1942 T-34
Model 1943 T-34-85 T-44
Weight 26 t 26.5 t 28.5 t 30.9 t 32 t 31.9 t
Gun 76.2 mm L-11 76.2 mm F-34 76.2 mm F-34 76.2 mm F-34 85mm ZiS-S-53 85mm ZiS-S-53
Ammunition 76 rounds 77 rounds 77 rounds 100 rounds 60 rounds 58 rounds
Fuel 460 L 460 L 610 L 790 L 810 L 642 L
Road range 300 km 400 km 400 km 465 km 360 km 300 km
Armour 15€"45 mm 20€"52 mm 20€"65 mm 20€"70 mm 20€"90 mm 15€"120 mm
Cost 270,000 rubles 193,000 rubles 135,000 rubles 164,000 rubles

Choctaw111
06-26-2006, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Here ya go

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/typhoons_attack.wmv

See every one of his rockets hits the railroad track in the clip where you actually see them hit??

Another interesting clip I thought is how this Macchi 205 rips up the Thunderbolt :

http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/movies/mc205_vs_p47.wmv

Just shows what cannon can do to even a heavily armoured plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see a lot of 20mm rounds hitting and a lot of pieces coming off the T-bolt but it is still flying fine, just like it is known to do. I would like to see what happened after that though.

Xiolablu3
06-26-2006, 06:08 PM
Its a P40 and it totally rips it up and it falls off to the left.

Dtools4fools
06-27-2006, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most tanks armour was of different mm, heavier armour normaly up front </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I agree with this, however the T-34 is an exception!

Its hull armor is all around 45mm; that is lower front hull 45mm/53?, upper front hull 45mm/60?, lower rear hull 45mm/45?, upper rear hull 45mm/48?.
Only the curved turrent front armour was subsequnetly incresed from 45mm to 65 and 70 in later T-34/76 models and to 90mm in T-34/85 model.

The 20mm low in your numbers is the top armour btw.
*****

OD_79
06-27-2006, 08:18 AM
Idea for you...how about they take the supposed "wobble" from the US planes and apply it to the rockets! Then we might get something that recreates the effects seen in the clip! Must admit I've still not encountered it though!
A Spit with Rockets would be fantastic! Failing that though Hurricane would be nice too!

As for the T-34 you don't find Tempests blowing many of them up! lol, the Soviets might have been a bit miffed if they had!

OD.

Xiolablu3
06-27-2006, 11:15 AM
Its a big advatage for the ALlies that they have rockets for online historical dogfight scenarios.

Often a fleet of bombrers taking the main bulk of the ground targets out and then fighters with rockets mopping up afterwards is enough to win any map.

The P38 and Tempest are fantastic for this, and they have the added bonus of being able to fight their way back out , OR stick around and give cover to the other bombers coming in to the target area.

If there are just a few tanks left to destroy which are widely disperesed, it can take a long time in comparison for the Axis team to finish them off, without rockets. Unless there is a Me110 with BK37 and someone who can use it well.

NagaSadow84
06-27-2006, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Idea for you...how about they take the supposed "wobble" from the US planes and apply it to the rockets! Then we might get something that recreates the effects seen in the clip! Must admit I've still not encountered it though!
A Spit with Rockets would be fantastic! Failing that though Hurricane would be nice too!

As for the T-34 you don't find Tempests blowing many of them up! lol, the Soviets might have been a bit miffed if they had!

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, 15%~ of all Tigers knocked out by air-attacks were killed by German planes...

OD_79
06-27-2006, 12:57 PM
Might explain the end result! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
As for Germans not having enough rockets...don't blame the game blame the aircraft designers. It's not as if it is inaccurate, life's a bi*ch. Just have to work on your bombing accuracy.
as for fighting out in the Tempest, you'd better have someone watching you six as you certainly can't do it yourself!

berg417448
06-27-2006, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NagaSadow84:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OD_79:
Idea for you...how about they take the supposed "wobble" from the US planes and apply it to the rockets! Then we might get something that recreates the effects seen in the clip! Must admit I've still not encountered it though!
A Spit with Rockets would be fantastic! Failing that though Hurricane would be nice too!

As for the T-34 you don't find Tempests blowing many of them up! lol, the Soviets might have been a bit miffed if they had!

OD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, 15%~ of all Tigers knocked out by air-attacks were killed by German planes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no problem believing that. So called "Friendly fire" was a problem for everyone. If you don't mind...what's the source for that particular info. I'd like to read about it.

NagaSadow84
06-27-2006, 02:29 PM
"Trail Of The Tigers" by Ron Klages

Basically traces the fate of every(!) single produced Tiger I and Tiger II. It's a self published booklet and im not sure if it's still available.

WWMaxGunz
06-27-2006, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
'Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 out of 4. Last time I saw a 'hard core' assessment of the air to ground results of the same
event it was sworn that NO tanks had been destroyed by aerial action and left at that, that
planes vs tanks are ineffective. And then someone posted a link to Russian film from Kursk
where tanks were flipped into the air by near strikes from bombs....
You can find reports of abandonded by unharmed German tank(s) close to bomb craters but that
doesn't say the tank was where it was found when the bomb hit nor does it say squat about the
condition of the crew which is integral to any operating tank. You don't have to defeat the
armor. You can defeat the crew. Broken track does not fix from inside either. Nor the gun
sights nor many other weaker than armor parts. Even infantry know this, tank is not solid
metal. They have reason to fear many things.

WWMaxGunz
06-27-2006, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the thing about distance to target, irl u hadto fire from further out, because u maybe doing past 500mph when u pull out of your dive, so the distance u cover at that speed per second is huge isnt it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop and consider for a minute. Convergence set to 200m and you fire from 200m on a target
going same speed as you, you hit right? Right.

The target is moving away at same speed as you, your shots have muzzle velocity plus your
speed, the drop by the time they get to the target is just right. Right? Oh yeah.

So apply this to shots made when your speed differs from target. When the delta-V is large
then you should always shoot at greater range or offset the pipper to compensate.

Here's another one. Convergence is set for horizontal firing and takes into account the
effect of gravity on a mostly horizontally fired round. When you are firing upwards or
downwards the effect of gravity is by the cosine of the aiming angle which is 71% at 45
degrees and zero at straight up or straight down. If you fly straight down at a tank
and put the pipper on that tank then only at one range will the bullets hit where the
pipper is. What range depends on convergence, gun type and gun location on the plane.
Nose guns will fire closest to the sight line at other ranges in those cases regardless
of all else. At least that is how RL ballistics works with fixed sight lines.

When firing automatic weapons you go by the strikes and tracers once you can see them.

p1ngu666
06-27-2006, 03:42 PM
no what i ment was, u can only fire from a certain distance and pull out.., because if u are going 500mph and pointing down, u will hit the ground in a short amount of time :P

Bellator_1
06-27-2006, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1 out of 4. Last time I saw a 'hard core' assessment of the air to ground results of the same event it was sworn that NO tanks had been destroyed by aerial action and left at that, that planes vs tanks are ineffective. And then someone posted a link to Russian film from Kursk
where tanks were flipped into the air by near strikes from bombs....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen that film I think, its a "lend-lease" tank that gets blown up and sideways, but it definitely wasn't by a bomb dropped from an a/c. (Although that would've undoubtedly been equally destructive I'm sure)

I'm pretty sure it was a German 105mm artillery piece which sent that tank airborne. (Could have been a heavy-mine though as-well)

Anyways a/c were and are efficient at killing tanks, however anything less than a 2cm gun and you might as-well forget it.

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif