PDA

View Full Version : tank busting with Stuka G1



fighter1976
03-13-2008, 02:29 AM
Hi everyone!
I have a problem: I can't destroy a KV 1 or a IS 2 tank using the Stuka G1 armed with 37 mm guns.I tried every possible distance, angle of impact or direction and nothing.I just read the memories of H.U.Rudel, the best tank buster of WWII and in reality was no problem for a Stuka equipped with 37 mm guns to destroy such heavy tanks.Is there a problem of the game, or is some trick I don't know?
Thank you

fighter1976
03-13-2008, 02:29 AM
Hi everyone!
I have a problem: I can't destroy a KV 1 or a IS 2 tank using the Stuka G1 armed with 37 mm guns.I tried every possible distance, angle of impact or direction and nothing.I just read the memories of H.U.Rudel, the best tank buster of WWII and in reality was no problem for a Stuka equipped with 37 mm guns to destroy such heavy tanks.Is there a problem of the game, or is some trick I don't know?
Thank you

tagTaken2
03-13-2008, 04:03 AM
Have you tried with the Il-2M3? I always had problems with the Stuka, maybe different projectile modelling for the cannon, maybe it's the massive recoil and lower rate of fire, but I have no issues with Il_2, so I knew it wasn't my shooting.
Once you figure that you can hit properly, go back to the Stuka and practice.

GIAP.Shura
03-13-2008, 04:08 AM
I haven't read Rudel's book, does he really talk about popping the KV1 with ease? I know the basic figures of approximately 500 tank kills but I have no idea of how that is split up by type. From what I have read the heavy soviet tanks had no real problems with land based 37mm cannons. Here is a link you might find interesting.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8941039935

Anyway, in game I don't think it is possible to destroy the heavy Soviet tanks with the G1. Certainly in my limited experimentation with the plane, I have never managed it. If it makes you feel any better, the Soviet 37mm can't destroy heavy German tanks (the .50 cal can't either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif).

HuninMunin
03-13-2008, 04:16 AM
I think we can safely assume that a man with 100 + tank kills knows exactly where to aim and can do it in his sleep.

Of course a land based 37mm cannon will do nothing against any heavy tank, but they are not shooting at the top armor either.

I think whatever the way was Rudel got the big heavys; the ingame dm is not refined enough to allow us to hit fueltanks and or hatches.

In addition a tank kill does not mean "bloody thing exploded" but means "taken out of combat".

There are just too many things "wrong" in the sim concerning tanks its just not usefull to compare it to real life imho.

Hkuusela
03-13-2008, 05:16 AM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

"The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees."

So piercing tank armor should not be a problem.

Airmail109
03-13-2008, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

"The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees."

So piercing tank armor should not be a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

140mm at 100m sounds like BS, thats more than the 8.8 cm KwK 36 at 100m

tragentsmith
03-13-2008, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BS, thats more than the 8.8 cm KwK 36 at 100m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, the 88 mm gun was able to go through 200 mm at 1000 m. Depending of the angle of the impact of course.

By the way, the best score by a german tank ace during 1945 was recorded when a Koenigstiger destroyed a T34-85 at 4500 m. I forgot the name of the guy, I have to find the book in which I read this again.

So 100 mm armor with tungsten at 100 m shouldn't be a problem, not like in IL2. Try the BK37 for the 110, it's nearly impossible to get a way less heavier armored tank like the sherman.

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 06:26 AM
Who is firing from Ju-87 directly down on a tank at 100m? Next thing to hit the tank is the
Ju-87! Distance and angle matter strongly but as has been noted --

There are just too many things "wrong" in the sim concerning tanks its just not usefull to compare it to real life imho.

It's almost an understatement.

StG2_Schlachter
03-13-2008, 06:26 AM
No BS here. 100m is very close, is it not?

The cannon fired Hartkernmunition which is a tungsten core AP round. I think APCR (Armour Piercing, Composite Rigid) is the correct english term. So 140mm is not only possible but somewhat weak since at angles of 60? degrees the penetration was only 50% of that.

In general there were also rifle rounds which could archieve similar penetration, e.g. the
SmK(H) round with a caliber of 7,92x57 was capable of penetrating 150mm steel armour at 100m.

M_Gunz
03-13-2008, 06:34 AM
100m is one second flight at 360kph. You can hit but not pull out.
Top armor on KV1 and IS2 are heavy but nowhere like 140mm.
From air the shots will be more like 400-500-1000m and angle less than 90, more like 60 degrees.
But IL2 tanks... different show, go shoot a Tiger and see.

It might be good to set arcade=1 and see where the hits happen.

DKoor
03-13-2008, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Who is firing from Ju-87 directly down on a tank at 100m? Next thing to hit the tank is the
Ju-87! Distance and angle matter strongly but as has been noted --

There are just too many things "wrong" in the sim concerning tanks its just not usefull to compare it to real life imho.

It's almost an understatement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1

Diving at 90?angle on target at lower altitudes is just... not smart.

cpt-rusty
03-13-2008, 11:22 AM
i own a copy of rudels book, and it says in there that the shots usualy created fires by entering through the back into the engine... he also stated that sometimes more then 2 shots were required to do so, resulting in the explosion of the tank as the fire spread... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

there is also a line from which i quote"...to destroy a tank, you would need to hit it either in its ammo mags (not a quote, fuel tanks included) either in a way to create an explosion..."quote

ps: i love that book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (french version)

kameron1974
03-13-2008, 12:09 PM
Yes I find it impossible too.
The gas tanks on the back(sides) of russian tanks aren't really modelled.
I've seen what I think was his gun cam footage and rudel does get pretty damn close diving almost vertically on the tank then pulling up.
Other 87 G footage shows them coming in like Sturmoviks from a less harrowing angle.

fighter1976
03-14-2008, 01:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cpt-rusty:
i own a copy of rudels book, and it says in there that the shots usualy created fires by entering through the back into the engine... he also stated that sometimes more then 2 shots were required to do so, resulting in the explosion of the tank as the fire spread... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

there is also a line from which i quote"...to destroy a tank, you would need to hit it either in its ammo mags (not a quote, fuel tanks included) either in a way to create an explosion..."quote

ps: i love that book http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (french version) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>-I have the french version too! an old one printed somwhere in the '60!

fighter1976
03-14-2008, 01:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kameron1974:
Yes I find it impossible too.
The gas tanks on the back(sides) of russian tanks aren't really modelled.Yes, I thought so.Probably it's the game, because I scored several hits right in the rear of the same tank from almost point blank(sometimes I lost one of my undercarriage wheel on top of the tank),see the projectiles hitting the armor and nothing happened...
I've seen what I think was his gun cam footage and rudel does get pretty damn close diving almost vertically on the tank then pulling up.
Other 87 G footage shows them coming in like Sturmoviks from a less harrowing angle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tipo_Man
03-14-2008, 03:20 AM
Actually tank modelling is very well done in the game. I've done some missions simulating land battles and can claim that tanks have different armour and their guns penetration capabilities are very accurate.
When it comes to Stuka and Rudel.
These 500 tanks are pure propaganda...
Let me be more clear. He might have hit 500 tanks, which is a remarkable achievement.
But destroying a 50 tons of steel vehicle is not so easy.
Generally, one AP round of the 50-76 mm calibre was not enough to destroy a tank in WW2. Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. And still several hits were sometimes not enough to destroy a tank!
The shell of the 37mm gun is 10 times lighter, and has no explosive filling inside. Furthermore, to achieve better penetration, germans used expensive subcaliber tungsten shell, which means that the projectile which actually penetrated the steel was some 8-12mm thick.
Furthermore these shells were much more prone to ricochets and their performance degraded very quicly with range.
I have somewhere the tests of Polish AT rifles against a T-26. The tank was penetrated 26 times and still no vital damage was done to it!
So even if the tank is hit and penetrated, that does not mean it is destroyed!
Even if the shell kills the crew, the tank is intact, the crew can be replaced and it can fight the next day. During their offensive in 1941 the germans repaired up to 80% of their "destroyed" tanks, because they were advancing and the battlefield was their after battles.

Rudel had no way to tell the damage he inflicted to tanks he shot at. And believe me, to have a tank explode after a hit was something very rare in WW2. I've read numerous stories of IL-2 veterans and they all said that they hardly new the effect they'd inflicted on the tanks they shot at.

So actually tank busting was not so easy job in WW2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
03-14-2008, 04:04 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Well said Tipo.

Aaron_GT
03-14-2008, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from handheld munitions (PIAT, Bazooka, Panzerfaust, etc) almost all anti tank rounds in WW2 used a metal core, not explosive. Explosive rounds tended to be used against soft targets, not tanks.

Aaron_GT
03-14-2008, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even if the shell kills the crew, the tank is intact, the crew can be replaced and it can fight the next day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This presumes

1. The availability of tank recovery gear to get the tank back to a repair facility. It has been holed, it will probably need some level of repair.

2. That the tactical situation allows this to be done.

For example, in North Africa the Afrika Korps had recovery vehicles and systems in place and so were able to recover damaged tanks (which might only have shed a track on rough ground - enough to make the tank to vulnerable as to have the crew abandon it) and put them back into service. Rommel needed this as he had few tanks. The Commonwealth forces generally did not have this before the end of 1942. However with a much greater supply of tanks it mattered less.

Hkuusela
03-14-2008, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Generally, one AP round of the 50-76 mm calibre was not enough to destroy a tank in WW2. Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. And still several hits were sometimes not enough to destroy a tank! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This would also have to do with the ammo used. The characteristics of a tungsten ammo would suggest, that it was not at its best in ground use. It was only effective in relatively short ranges, or at least it was not more effective than other ammo at long range. The Germans also had troubles supplying the AT crews with tungsten ammo. So perhaps we should not compare the ground AT guns with the ones used in the Stukas.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
The shell of the 37mm gun is 10 times lighter, and has no explosive filling inside. Furthermore, to achieve better penetration, germans used expensive subcaliber tungsten shell, which means that the projectile which actually penetrated the steel was some 8-12mm thick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was why the tank buster pilots studied the weak spots in the enemy tanks, ie. where the ammo and fuel was stored. And two 8-12mm holes in an engine are bound to cause problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Furthermore these shells were much more prone to ricochets and their performance degraded very quicly with range. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is why the attacking dive angle was shallow, so that it was possible to shoot from a short distance and pull up without a risk of stalling through the pull up.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
I have somewhere the tests of Polish AT rifles against a T-26. The tank was penetrated 26 times and still no vital damage was done to it!
So even if the tank is hit and penetrated, that does not mean it is destroyed! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps we should not pay too much attention to the word destroyed. You are right that 500+ destroyed is probably off. I think the important thing for Rudel and the ground forces he was supporting, was the fact that the tank was taken out of the battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Rudel had no way to tell the damage he inflicted to tanks he shot at. And believe me, to have a tank explode after a hit was something very rare in WW2. I've read numerous stories of IL-2 veterans and they all said that they hardly new the effect they'd inflicted on the tanks they shot at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rudel tells that during the first couple of days of his tank busting "career" he had a tank explode from his shots and he flew straight through the flames. So maybe the explosions were not that rare, or at least not if you were a good shot and knew the vulnerable spots. On the other hand there is a picture in his book of a heavy Russian tank that has a tiny hole in the side of the turret and other one in the side of the fuselage and the tank has been abandoned. It's probably not much fun being in a tank that has two shells ricocheting inside.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
So actually tank busting was not so easy job in WW2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's for sure!

Tipo_Man
03-14-2008, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from handheld munitions (PIAT, Bazooka, Panzerfaust, etc) almost all anti tank rounds in WW2 used a metal core, not explosive. Explosive rounds tended to be used against soft targets, not tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, but you are not correct.
Handheld munitions (PIAT, Bazooka, Panzerfaust, etc) used HEAT shells (or rockets) which is another story.
When it comes to AP rounds...
Here is a link to some most used soviet shells:
http://www.battlefield.ru/content/view/149/65/lang,en/
Most AP rounds DO have explosive filler, with exception APS rounds of course, although I do agree that most of the damage is inflicted by the kinetic energy of the shell and pieces of brroken armour than by the explosive...
Still a 76mm (or 75mm german counterpart) would mean at least 6 kilos of steel getting inside your compartment. A subcaliber 37mm shell would mean some core with a diameter of 10mm and a weight of some 50 grams. Which is about 100 times less :-).
Yes, you could hit the engine or transmition or tracks etc and stop the tank, but repairing that is not so hard and can be done even on the filed by the regiment.
Generally my point is that considering a tank as "destroyed" is not so easy when compared to aircraft. The latter would simply crash or not :-), while the tank could be easily repaired if it hadn't exploded or burned completely, which didn't happen so often.



Most of

Tipo_Man
03-14-2008, 06:02 AM
Hkuusela,
generally I agree with you point, but I think you are too optimistic about angles of attack and weak spots.
I have a detailed study by the russians which they performed in 1941 to examine the effect of IL-2 guns (20mm ShVAK and 23mm VYa).
Generally their conclusion was that IL-2 were not efective against medium german tanks!
The reasons were
- guns could hardly penetrate side aromour (30mm) or when penetrated had little or no energy left to cause internal damage. Theoricaly 23mm shell penetrated 35mm at 300meters.
- Shooting was not accurate. In test condition, without no enemy AA fire and flown by very experienced test pilots IL-2 scored very few hits in the target. The conclusion based on this tests was that 9 Il-2s were needed to destroy a single tank, and all this assuming that pilots would be as experienced as the ones which performed the test.
- Shooting "from above" was almost impossible (you can test that in the sim too)
So generally your presumption of aiming for specific spot of the tank seems to me very unrealistic.

Hkuusela
03-14-2008, 07:09 AM
I don't want to dispute the Russian tests, I'm just not convinced they are comparable to the question at hand. Different ammo for instance. Did the Russians use tungsten ammo for the tests? What differences there are between Il-2 and Ju-87 as a gun platform? I don't see how aiming for a specific spot of the tank would be impossible if not attacking from above. Of course this would exclude the top armor, but that is not the only way to get to the vulnerable spots. The armor (I think) in the Russian tanks was much thinner than the 140mm that the 37mm tungsten penetrated at best. Shooting from a few meters would give a good angle of impact and allow the pilot to pull up clear of his target. The armor of the tank is not either straight horizontal or vertical, but it has different angles.

Tipo_Man
03-14-2008, 07:29 AM
No, russians didn't use tungsten shells. They were clever enough not to use them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Imagine a fleet of 5 000 Il-2. Each carried 2 x 200 shells. If they make a single sortie in one day and shoot all of their ammo that would mean 2 millions of tungsten shells!
Or 10 tons of tungsten , for a single day !
And 90% of shells would be fired against "soft" targets, not tanks.
And these values 140mm for 37mm shells are extremely optimistic and impossible to achieve even by modern guns.
Take the A-10 30mm gun as an example, I think it is rated 60-80mm penetration with depleted uranium shells!!!
That value of 140mm is.. hmmmm... very optimistic. It is better than most of heavy german AT guns :-)
Generally diving with more steep angle than 20degrees was found to be very hard with IL-2. It required more time (to gain altitude after attack), better "feelings" of the pilots (the tank is not visible by the pilot until he starts the dive), better shooting skills (he has much less time to aim, and he must stop the attack earlier in order not to crash)

Aaron_GT
03-14-2008, 08:11 AM
Tipo: I stand corrected. I suspect my view was blinkered by the fact that the British didn't use APHE, and that's what I know more about.

Hkuusela
03-14-2008, 08:21 AM
I am certainly no expert on the matter, but I would like to make some notions:

1. It was better for the Russians not to use expensive tungsten shells. They would have probably missed anyhow and wasted the good ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2. If the purpose of the Il-2 (soft targets in addition to hard ones) is different from a thoroughbred tank killer, is it really particularly clever not to use ammo that does not suit the task? Pretty obvious to me.

3. The A-10 analogy: What's the firing distance (probably conciderably more than 100m)? Does it use sub-calibre shells like the 37mm (which affects penetration)? Has armor developed since the WW2?

4. 140mm may be over optimistic. However the armor of T-34-76 was 52mm in the front and sides.

5. About Il-2 in a dive: Il-2 was not a dive bomber, Ju-87 was, so there may be differences in dive characteristics.

6. Rudel tells in his book, that the idea was to fly just a few meter off the ground, so maybe they did not attack in a dive every time. If they had the necessary penetration for the side armor, they could have made level attacks too.

Not saying, that I'm absolutely right in this, just giving something to think about...

cpt-rusty
03-14-2008, 11:18 AM
in the book he also states that the tungsten shells were supposed to explose after penetration, and the the armor on top of russian tanks engines were usually pierced by little holes to evac the heat..

ps: my version was printed in paris in 1951 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

GIAP.Shura
03-14-2008, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
2. If the purpose of the Il-2 (soft targets in addition to hard ones) is different from a thoroughbred tank killer, is it really particularly clever not to use ammo that does not suit the task? Pretty obvious to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IL-2 was a tactical ground attack aircraft. It was a masterful tank killer, it just didn't rely on cannon to do it.

Hkuusela
03-14-2008, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
2. If the purpose of the Il-2 (soft targets in addition to hard ones) is different from a thoroughbred tank killer, is it really particularly clever not to use ammo that does not suit the task? Pretty obvious to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IL-2 was a tactical ground attack aircraft. It was a masterful tank killer, it just didn't rely on cannon to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, so there was no point in using tungsten ammo, since it would have been wasted in soft targets. I suppose the point here is, that Il-2 and Ju-87 are not comparable.

Kurfurst__
03-14-2008, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from handheld munitions (PIAT, Bazooka, Panzerfaust, etc) almost all anti tank rounds in WW2 used a metal core, not explosive. Explosive rounds tended to be used against soft targets, not tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only holds true for WW2 British practice of using solid AP rounds without explosive filler, but generally speaking it is true that full-caliber AP rounds of AT guns and tank guns contained a small burster charge that went off once inside the tank.

IIRC the Germans even had HE filler in the 2cm tank autocannons (ie. Pz II, armored cars).

Xiola
03-14-2008, 12:46 PM
Use the Me110 with 37mm cannon and make sure you hit the top of the tank, you need to be coming in at at least 45 degrees, maybe higher angle.

The best way to kill many tanks is to get into a kind of 'pendalum swing' in the plane.

Come in at about 1500m height and then poin the nose down at the top of the tank, fire off a shot, and whether you hit or miss, pull up and swing back up on the other side, then do a climing turn and repeat coming back the other way.

Practise on T34's or SHermans first, as these only need one hit to destroy if you hit them right.

The Stuka is as good at this, but you only get about 7 shots with the Stuka, with the Bf110 you get hundreds.

I made a track once to show how its done, but I think I lost it now.

You can destroy any tank in the game weit the Bf110 and 37mm cannon, but the heavier tanks may take a couple of hits, not just one like the lighter tanks.

BEWARE: You WILL die a lot practising by crashing into the ground, but with some practice you can win the map for your team as long as you have cover from fighters.

BWaltteri
03-15-2008, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Actually tank modelling is very well done in the game. I've done some missions simulating land battles and can claim that tanks have different armour and their guns penetration capabilities are very accurate.
When it comes to Stuka and Rudel.
These 500 tanks are pure propaganda...
Let me be more clear. He might have hit 500 tanks, which is a remarkable achievement.
But destroying a 50 tons of steel vehicle is not so easy.
Generally, one AP round of the 50-76 mm calibre was not enough to destroy a tank in WW2. Let me emphasize that the shell of AT guns weighted some 2-6 kg and contained explosive inside. And still several hits were sometimes not enough to destroy a tank!
The shell of the 37mm gun is 10 times lighter, and has no explosive filling inside. Furthermore, to achieve better penetration, germans used expensive subcaliber tungsten shell, which means that the projectile which actually penetrated the steel was some 8-12mm thick.
Furthermore these shells were much more prone to ricochets and their performance degraded very quicly with range.
I have somewhere the tests of Polish AT rifles against a T-26. The tank was penetrated 26 times and still no vital damage was done to it!
So even if the tank is hit and penetrated, that does not mean it is destroyed!
Even if the shell kills the crew, the tank is intact, the crew can be replaced and it can fight the next day. During their offensive in 1941 the germans repaired up to 80% of their "destroyed" tanks, because they were advancing and the battlefield was their after battles.

Rudel had no way to tell the damage he inflicted to tanks he shot at. And believe me, to have a tank explode after a hit was something very rare in WW2. I've read numerous stories of IL-2 veterans and they all said that they hardly new the effect they'd inflicted on the tanks they shot at.

So actually tank busting was not so easy job in WW2... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what are your methods of tank busting but it entirely depends on the spot where you hit the tank. Only an idiot tries to face off a tank head on, relying on heavy ammunition that is anyway never available. Tanks have slight armament on the top and a 37 mm is enough powerful to pass through the top armor.

Likewise, an infantryman will aim between turret and hull with a rocket launcher, or placing a satchel charge on the engine. Not in techno-hyped armies, though.

I don't believe that Rudel is more propaganda than Hartmann. My grandfather saw Stukas obliterating Soviet tanks at Ihantala and it was the only plane he ever recognized from a picture.

cpt-rusty
03-15-2008, 04:42 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JtD
03-15-2008, 04:58 AM
If you want to destroy a KV-1 with the Stuka in il-2, you need to hit the top. If you do, one hit is enough. It's easier to hit the top of the tank in a steep dive.

Tipo_Man
03-15-2008, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BWaltteri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tipo_Man:
Actually tank modelling is very well done in the game. I've done some missions simulating land battles and can claim that tanks have different armour and their guns penetration capabilities are very accurate.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what are your methods of tank busting but it entirely depends on the spot where you hit the tank. Only an idiot tries to face off a tank head on, relying on heavy ammunition that is anyway never available. Tanks have slight armament on the top and a 37 mm is enough powerful to pass through the top armor.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I know my english is bad...
but I think I've said exactly the same i.e all this different armour thickness is indeed modeled in the sim...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

badatflyski
03-15-2008, 09:22 AM
here are the tnak armor params, in meters.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/conneries/tanks.jpg

So tipo, what armor could not be penetrated by the bk37? and for the rest thinking the bk37 should be used in a vertival dive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif...read more, the G1 attacked from the top of the trees!
The 110 with bk37 is an anti aircraft weapon with HE shells, useless in anti-tank mode, just like the 262u4...but maybe the bk37 with AP was just "slighlty" undermodelled with the wrong ammunution http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif, just like the bredas or the mg131... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
03-15-2008, 09:57 AM
You may want to watch the first movie on JG4's site to see Ju-87G guncam against tanks. (http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Kasino/Filme/Filme-9.htm)

Manu-6S
03-15-2008, 11:16 AM
2 weeks ago in a server I fled the G1 and the anti-tank Me110.

Sortie 1, g1: 3 tanks destroyed in 5 attacks, 3 La5 chase me like flies and downed me (a pair of second after they were all death IIRC).

Sortie 2, g1: 6 attacks, hitted 3 times the same tank (from side-rear) but no effect... pissed I fled so low to brake my gear on the tank's turret so I RTB.

Sortie 3, me110: 6-7 attacks, I always hitted the target but did no damage (again side and rear). Pissed I went after a Pe3 but it PKed me in 2 seconds.

No more antitank guns for me... bombs are better.

Tipo_Man
03-15-2008, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by badatflyski:
here are the tnak armor params, in meters.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/badatflyski/conneries/tanks.jpg

So tipo, what armor could not be penetrated by the bk37? and for the rest thinking the bk37 should be used in a vertival dive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif...read more, the G1 attacked from the top of the trees!
The 110 with bk37 is an anti aircraft weapon with HE shells, useless in anti-tank mode, just like the 262u4...but maybe the bk37 with AP was just "slighlty" undermodelled with the wrong ammunution http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif, just like the bredas or the mg131... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, where did I said it shouldn't penetrate russians tank armour?
I simply didn't trust that value of 140mm. That is more than several times heavier german AT guns could achieve.

My point was that penetration, especially with an subcaliber shell doesn't mean destruction.

Here are the data of the bk37 as it is modelled in the game

MGunBK37JU87
APS Shell
gunproperties.bullet[0].massa = 0.68F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].kalibr = 0.00021904F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].speed = 1170F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].power = 0.0F;

MGunBK37BF110G2
----APS Shell----
gunproperties.bullet[0].speed = 1170F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].massa = 0.68F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].kalibr = 0.00021904F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].speed = 1170F;
gunproperties.bullet[0].power = 0.0F;

----HE Shell-----
gunproperties.bullet[1].massa = 0.628F;
gunproperties.bullet[1].kalibr = 0.00021904F;
gunproperties.bullet[1].speed = 812F;
gunproperties.bullet[1].power = 0.096F;

----HET Shell ?----
gunproperties.bullet[2].massa = 0.55F;
gunproperties.bullet[2].kalibr = 0.00021904F;
gunproperties.bullet[2].speed = 860F;
gunproperties.bullet[2].power = 0.09F;

In my humble opinion, looks like there is a "tweak" which maybe overmodels the bk37 projectiles,
since the APS shell is given the correct muzzle velocity of 1170m/s,
while the same time it has the weight of a standart AP shell - 680 grams.
It should weight half of this I think. Probably this is done to increase penetration to make up
for the benefit the projectile had due to it tungsten core.
But a 37mm AP shell when penetrated will couse more damage than a 37mm APS shell which is not reflected in the modelling.
So things look somewhat balanced to me, with a bonus for the Stuka drivers :-)
And obviously Oleg didn't modelled lack of tungsten ammo at the end of the war.

Oh, and it turns out that you are not correct concerning bk37 in bf110.

It does have an APS shell....

JSG72
03-15-2008, 02:18 PM
You want to destroy tanks? You drop bombs.
100% kill!

And thats what the Henschel 129b pilots wanted when the 101s and 103s were fitted to their planes..:"Henschel 129 Panzerjaeger" by Martin Pegg

With guns you have to muck about and manouvre to try and find the weak points.(AA will get you).

Drop an SD500 and its a guaranteed kill!

Many FW 190F pilots. Skip bombed.: "Schlachtgruppen" by John Weal

Guns were considered a dead end by the pilots.

The fact that you know you Have/have not. destroyed tanks is only because the SIM tells you so.

Real life? You want to see a hole in the ground where that tank used to be

M_Gunz
03-15-2008, 03:48 PM
Drop an SD500 and its a guaranteed kill!

Do you have any data on how close which bombs must hit to be effective?
There was Russian film from Kursk linked to here before that showed tanks thrown in air a good
ways up from close bomb strikes.

Many FW 190F pilots. Skip bombed.: "Schlachtgruppen" by John Weal

WWSensei had us dropping cassette bomblets with maybe 5 seconds delay so they would spread
out and roll into convoy. Many vehicles destroyed in one pass! You want it to hit a ways
away from the target, it's been years since I did it but very satisfying.

JSG72
03-15-2008, 04:10 PM
DATA! DATA?

Common Sense is what you require?

Cassette/SD2s. Are purely "Soft Target" Munitions. And will not, destroy a Tank.

Skip bombing requires you to fly at a low AOA. And dropping the bomb just in front of target. From any approach (On hard ground) bomb deflects from ground and bangs target. Causing mass explosion(Behind you. I would hope?). You would therefore Know of your success.

M_Gunz
03-15-2008, 11:45 PM
I was busting convoys in 42 and there might have been armor, might not.
It was just a lot of fun destroying 15 or so vehicles in one strike.

IRL you could blow tracks off most any tank with smaller charges than those cassette bomblets.

It's a shame I don't have all my old AFV books but when I got back from the service in 78 all
my things had been gone through and much was 'lost'.

JtD
03-15-2008, 11:50 PM
And the British considered their 40mm Hurricanes the best flying AT weapon they had.

Phil_K
03-16-2008, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I was busting convoys in 42 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you like, 90 years old?

Wtornado_439th
03-17-2008, 04:30 PM
A picture is worth 1000 words (or in this case film)

Guns seem to hit pretty hard to me

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg


439th_WTornado