PDA

View Full Version : JU87G1 37mm vs IL2-43M 30mm cannons



TX-Zen
12-30-2003, 04:38 PM
Question for some of you history buffs out there:

Which is a better gun for anti tank work? My long standing impression is that while the IL2 is by far a superior ground attack fighter than the JU87, the raw hitting power of the 37mm guns on the G model is better suited for destroying tanks in particular.

I am very well versed in ballistics, I spent time as a tank commander in the US Army and have blown up a lot of cool things. Cannon fire is something that I know a good deal about, as well as having a well grounded history in WW2 tanks.

What is not jiving is the in game performance. To me (and my opinion is subjective) the IL2 is exceedingly deadly against tanks, but the JU87 is next to useless. I often watch as direct hits bounce off the shermans, T34's and other tanks that I hit with the 37mm guns...including bouncing off the turret roof or the engine deck.

I am aware of the advantage in ROF that the IL2 has over the JU87, but a hit is a hit. Once the round strikes the target, ROF is a non issue and sheer power determines what happens next. It seems to me the 37mm rounds do not have the same hitting power as the 30mm on the IL2 and this does not make sense. It also seems they have a shorter range and dramatically less chance of hitting as well.

For the record, I am 100% sure that I am striking vulnerable parts of the tank at proper angles and hitting places that ought to kill the target. I am also observing the impact of the shell and can see the exact hit location in most cases.

Any thoughts on this, or even some in-game tips that might work? I know what to expect from real life ballistics, but FB isn't adding up unfortunately.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

TX-Zen
12-30-2003, 04:38 PM
Question for some of you history buffs out there:

Which is a better gun for anti tank work? My long standing impression is that while the IL2 is by far a superior ground attack fighter than the JU87, the raw hitting power of the 37mm guns on the G model is better suited for destroying tanks in particular.

I am very well versed in ballistics, I spent time as a tank commander in the US Army and have blown up a lot of cool things. Cannon fire is something that I know a good deal about, as well as having a well grounded history in WW2 tanks.

What is not jiving is the in game performance. To me (and my opinion is subjective) the IL2 is exceedingly deadly against tanks, but the JU87 is next to useless. I often watch as direct hits bounce off the shermans, T34's and other tanks that I hit with the 37mm guns...including bouncing off the turret roof or the engine deck.

I am aware of the advantage in ROF that the IL2 has over the JU87, but a hit is a hit. Once the round strikes the target, ROF is a non issue and sheer power determines what happens next. It seems to me the 37mm rounds do not have the same hitting power as the 30mm on the IL2 and this does not make sense. It also seems they have a shorter range and dramatically less chance of hitting as well.

For the record, I am 100% sure that I am striking vulnerable parts of the tank at proper angles and hitting places that ought to kill the target. I am also observing the impact of the shell and can see the exact hit location in most cases.

Any thoughts on this, or even some in-game tips that might work? I know what to expect from real life ballistics, but FB isn't adding up unfortunately.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

WW_Sensei
12-30-2003, 04:54 PM
The IL2 1943M is equipped with two 37mm cannons, 2 MGs and a 12.7mm MG/Cannon. The 37mm cannons of the IL2M also have a higher ROF and velocity than the Stuka G model so should have more hitting power.

Remember, the IL2 was designed was a tank killer whereas the G model Stuka the guns were an afterthought...

SKULLS_LZ
12-30-2003, 05:34 PM
To add to what WW_Sensei wrote,

German BK 3,7 cartridge wt (grams) 660, muz. vel. (m/s) 810

Soviet NS37 cartridge wt (grams) 748, muz. vel. (m/s) 890

From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

HTH

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg <BR>Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

Arm_slinger
12-30-2003, 05:37 PM
Although being slower i thought the German 37mm's had more penetrative power what with being made from Tungston or whatever it was

TX-zen could you give some details on tungsten shells?

Vipez-
12-30-2003, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SKULLS_LZ:
To add to what WW_Sensei wrote,

German BK 3,7 cartridge wt (grams) 660, muz. vel. (m/s) 810

Soviet NS37 cartridge wt (grams) 748, muz. vel. (m/s) 890

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Stuka G used modified BK 3,7 , which fired Tungsten-cored rounds with muzzle velocity of 1170 m/s, much better than NS37 .. It had better armor penetration, but only 12 rounds. NS37 had much heavier HE-shells though, but that's inrelevent for armor destruction.


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
12-30-2003, 06:46 PM
BK 3,7 37 x 263B 380 g 160 rpm 1170 m/s
NS-37 37 x 195 735 g 250 rpm 900 m/s

With 12 rounds per Gun the rate of fire is not really intresting 1 shoot for 1 approach .)

Also 37mm shells with tungsten cores could penetrate the armor of most tanks.

For il2fb.

The il23m 43 is really good as tankbuster as it can carry ptab and brs132 rockets . So the Problem attacking tanks like Kintiger or Panthers is not that hard can be done at low aoa level . While when using only the anti tank guns you need a high dive angle to penetrate the amor i use about 45 degrees (dive from about 500 m)and aim at top turret . This is the same tatic i use to get the JS2 or the isu152 with the Stuka .

Main problem is most light and medium tanks like
PZIII and PZIV can be taken out easy with the il2s from side or rear while t34s always need a at least 30+ degrees dive angle with the Stuka G.

Regards,
Hyperion

hobnail
12-30-2003, 07:36 PM
They're 58 posts (http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=006419) ahead of you on this one at SimHQ.

Get readin!

http://users.on.net/apoulos/webbanner.jpg (http://www.jg11.com)

WereSnowleopard
12-30-2003, 10:10 PM
Wait until we get to fly a flyable Hs-129. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-30-2003, 10:17 PM
Still want this in FB its a G2 .)
http://www.luftarchiv.de/bordgerate/ju87_bk37.jpg

Regards,
Hyperion

TX-Zen
12-31-2003, 05:57 AM
Ok, first thing was that I didn't realize the IL2 had the NS37 cannon...woops. Starts to make a little more sense now, thank you guys for pointing that out.

As for 58 threads being ahead of me ... lol. I don't get over to SimHQ very often but it's good to see the topic is being debated. I would say based on the data that has been posted, it still feels as though the BK37 is not living up to the effect that the figures imply.

Arm_slinger, the reason that projectiles use tungesten carbide is because of the increased penetration. Simply put, a 'harder' projectile that weighs the same and is moving at the same speed will pierce more armor than the softer one. Tungsten carbide is tougher than steel and gets better performance, though it costs more to produce.

Ultimately the biggest (but not the only) factor in armor penetration is velocity. The faster projectile has more kinetic energy and will shoot through more armor plating, but there is a point of diminishing returns if the projectile is too fast when compared to the amount of armor it hits...like shooting a rifle bullet through an empty beer can. Not enough armor and the projectile passes through without transfering much of it's kinetic energy, meaning that the target is basically undamaged.
Typically the ideal situation is for the round to expend up to 90% of it's KE piercing the armor plate...the remaining 10% keeps it from exiting the target which tends to make it bounce around inside the vehicle, hopefully hitting fuel and ammunition.

When a round penetrates in that manner, it also causes 'spalling' which is when chunks and flakes of the targets own armor is carried with the projectile into the interior of the vehicle. More than 10% remaining KE means there is a drop in the spalling effect as well.


BK 3,7 37 x 263B 380 g 160 rpm 1170 m/s
NS-37 37 x 195 735 g 250 rpm 900 m/s

Hyperion, if these figures are correct (I personally trust your knowledge), then the JU87G is probably not getting the lethality that it should. With these figures the BK37 should have higher KE results...add in the TC rounds and it really ought to have better performance.


Thanks again all for the information!

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

CRSutton
12-31-2003, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Zen:
would say based on the data that has been posted, it still feels as though the BK37 is not living up to the effect that the figures imply.

Arm_slinger, the reason that projectiles use tungesten carbide is because of the increased penetration. Simply put, a 'harder' projectile that weighs the same and is moving at the same speed will pierce more armor than the softer one. Tungsten carbide is tougher than steel and gets better performance, though it costs more to produce.

Ultimately the biggest (but not the only) factor in armor penetration is velocity. The faster projectile has more kinetic energy and will shoot through more armor plating, but there is a point of diminishing returns if the projectile is too fast when compared to the amount of armor it hits...like shooting a rifle bullet through an empty beer can. Not enough armor and the projectile passes through without transfering much of it's kinetic energy, meaning that the target is basically undamaged.
Typically the ideal situation is for the round to expend up to 90% of it's KE piercing the armor plate...the remaining 10% keeps it from exiting the target which tends to make it bounce around inside the vehicle, hopefully hitting fuel and ammunition.

When a round penetrates in that manner, it also causes 'spalling' which is when chunks and flakes of the targets own armor is carried with the projectile into the interior of the vehicle. More than 10% remaining KE means there is a drop in the spalling effect as well.


BK 3,7 37 x 263B 380 g 160 rpm 1170 m/s
NS-37 37 x 195 735 g 250 rpm 900 m/s

Hyperion, if these figures are correct (I personally trust your knowledge), then the JU87G is probably not getting the lethality that it should. With these figures the BK37 should have higher KE results...add in the TC rounds and it really ought to have better performance.


Thanks again all for the information!

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CRSutton
12-31-2003, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Although being slower i thought the German 37mm's had more penetrative power what with being made from Tungston or whatever it was

TX-zen could you give some details on tungsten shells?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding is that German production of tungsten based ammo feel off sharply after 1943. Were they stuka's still getting a steady supply of tungsten ammo later in the war? Anyone know?

p1ngu666
12-31-2003, 08:27 AM
where the stuka's ammo a solid slug? with no HE, got a feeling its modeled like that
so pin ***** and no damage is more likely

TX-Zen
12-31-2003, 08:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
where the stuka's ammo a solid slug? with no HE, got a feeling its modeled like that
so pin ***** and no damage is more likely<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Non explosive rounds are the norm for KE anti tank ammunition. The round depends on the velocity to penetrate the armor and then hit something important like the ammo racks in order to destroy the target. In game you should not need HE to destroy a tank, in fact you shouldn't be able to with HE alone.

TX-Zen
Black 6
TX-Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM Only)
TX-OC3 Server 209.163.147.67:21000
http://www.txsquadron.com/library/20031218144359_Zensig2.jpg (http://www.txsquadron.com)

WereSnowleopard
12-31-2003, 08:51 AM
After I read that messages. I start wondering about performance of MK103 with Tungsten-cored rounds. I decide to search around website to see what's good for that one. I only found best than other cannon is ROF that made me wonder how hardship for me attack armor in MK103 armed Fw-190A-8. I guess what good for MK103 with high ROF is attack IL-2. I am sorry for bit off subject with BK 3.7 vs NS-37. I though all of you may like to take a look at good webiste.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WereSnowleopard
12-31-2003, 09:05 AM
Oh by the way (off subject but importand FYI) GAU-8/A used in the A-10 tankbuster develops 207,000 joules, and also uses a Hartkernmunition shot, although with a depleted uranium rather than tungsten carbide core. NS-37's joules is 294,000 and BK 3.7's joules is 263,000 which what chart from website http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
Go and read website to explain more about effect ondifferent between joules, weight of shell, flatten trajectory and more.

BBB_Hyperion
12-31-2003, 09:32 PM
For the Mk103 i use it in tankbusting sometimes when stuka is not choseable. Its a complex method of attack needed for the approach even more than for the Ju87G. You need to maintain a high aoa on the tank and at the same time flying steady or let the tank run through the revi by the plane itself.
You need to shoot before its fully in the middle to have the right momentum and angle. Normaly from 800 m you can rotate in the tank direction. Important is the reduced throttle and a good timing you shoot too early you miss. you shoot too late you are in the ground but still possible. Also use off flaps for pullout can help a little to avoid crashing after shoot.

For the Tankgun we find on this site that 250000
Joules is the Energie needed to get through 100 mm armor plate at 300 m with 90 degrees and 60 mm on 300m at 60 degrees with 37 mm caliber.

As a example we can use the t34 .

T34/76
Armor Thickness (mm)
Hull Front, Upper 40: 45
41: 45, 60
42, 43: 47, 60
Hull Front, Lower 45
Hull Sides, Upper 40: 45
41, 42: 40-45
43: 40-45, 60
Hull Sides, Lower 45
Hull Rear 40: 40
41: 45, 47
42: 45
43: 45, 47
Hull Top 40, 41, 43: 15-20
42: 19, 15-20
Hull Bottom 16
40, 41, 42: 15-20
43: 20, 15-20
Turret Front 40: 45
41: 52, 60
42: 60, 65
43: 70, 75
Turret Sides 40: 45
41 & 43: 52
42: 52, 65
Turret Rear 40
40: 45
41: 45, 52
42: 47, 52
43: 52
Turret Top 40: 16
41, 43: 16, 20
42: 16, 19

T34/85
Armor Thickness (mm)
Hull Front, Upper 45, 90, 47, 60
Hull Front, Lower 45
Hull Sides, Upper 45, 60
Hull Sides, Lower 45
Hull Rear 30, 47, 45
Hull Top 20-23
Hull Bottom 18, 20, 22
Turret Front 55, 90, 45-75
Turret Sides 55, 75
Turret Rear 50, 60, 75
Turret Top 20

For example we take the side armor at 45 degrees with around 45 mm so we can conlude at a dive angle of 45 degrees we have 90 degrees angle to the armorplate or as indicated our dive angle could be 30 degrees to amor(60? to plate) makes a aoa of 45-30 = 15 degrees to penetrate a 60 mm
plate at 300 m !.

Plz check if calculation is correct.

And now do some testing in FB and report findings .)

Regards,
Hyperion

tenmmike
12-31-2003, 10:30 PM
WereSnowleopard that site is the web site of the book i got FLYING GUNS WORLD WAR II if ya get the chance to buy it do so ..but it is kinda pricy at 49 usd

http://images.ar15.com/forums/smiles/anim_50cal.gif U.S INFANTRY 1984-1991