PDA

View Full Version : 50cal or 20mm for tank busting?



sgilewicz
02-16-2005, 11:40 AM
I was reading a thread a few days ago regarding the upcoming (hopefully) Tempest. One of the posters said that the Tempest was probably a slightly better tank buster than the Jug owing to its four 20mm cannons. My question is this: Acknowledging the superior destructive capability of an explosive round on "soft" targets; wouldn't a solid AP projectile be able to penetrate armor plate better than a relatively small round exploding on the surface? If I remember correctly, the A10 fires solid depleted uranium rounds rather than explosive ones and this is considered the ultimate tank killer. Any informed ideas?

sgilewicz
02-16-2005, 11:40 AM
I was reading a thread a few days ago regarding the upcoming (hopefully) Tempest. One of the posters said that the Tempest was probably a slightly better tank buster than the Jug owing to its four 20mm cannons. My question is this: Acknowledging the superior destructive capability of an explosive round on "soft" targets; wouldn't a solid AP projectile be able to penetrate armor plate better than a relatively small round exploding on the surface? If I remember correctly, the A10 fires solid depleted uranium rounds rather than explosive ones and this is considered the ultimate tank killer. Any informed ideas?

Chuck_Older
02-16-2005, 11:50 AM
Yes. My idea is that the cannon on an A-10 is not of 12.7mm caliber (12.7mm = .5") but rather 30mm, and that the cyclic rate of that weapon is phenonenal. You're comparing apples to oranges



Now, there's a lot more to it than physical size of the round. But even the USAAF didn't rely on eight 50 cals to destroy tanks. It recognised that they were not an optimum choice for destroying armor. that's one reason they carried rockets and bombs. I'd rather accurately drop a 1,000 lb bomb on a tank platoon than hit it with 300 rounds of 20mm, AP or not, any day

fherathras
02-16-2005, 11:52 AM
0.50 cal, wont get throug tank armour, exept, maby japanese tanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

neither should 20mm

wh
The A-10 fires a 30mm high speed cannon whit depleted uranium rounds.



there is alot of difference between, 12.7mm(0.50 cal)ap, and 30mm uranium ap.

FliegerAas
02-16-2005, 11:53 AM
20mm cannons fire AP rounds too. It depends on how the ammobelt is jointed. A 20mm projectile isheavier than a cal.50 round and therefore it has better penetration capabilitys. .50 are only suitable for light armoured targets and even here a 20mm does the job better.
(Against a heavy armoured target even a 20mm is not enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

GoToAway
02-16-2005, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sgilewicz:
If I remember correctly, the A10 fires solid depleted uranium rounds rather than explosive ones and this is considered the ultimate tank killer. Any informed ideas? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The A-10 generally carries a mix of 30mm API and HEI rounds. Tanks generally make use of APFSDS rounds when combating other tanks on the modern battlefield.

That said, there is a HUGE difference between a 30mm AP round fashioned out of DU or an APFSDS penetrator fashioned out of DU/Tungsten versus a .50 BMG round of any sort. Not just in mass or velocity, but in basic functionality.

.50 rounds would turn lightly armored vehicles (like Japanese tanks) to swiss cheese (and this is still true today.) On the other hand, any kill that .50 got on a Panther or a Tiger in WW2 wasn't because it pierced the armor, that's for sure.

Any sort of large caliber or explosive ordinence is going to be more effective than .50 machinegun fire against a heavily armored target.

MO_JOJO
02-16-2005, 12:00 PM
Here you go.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

The gun has a combat mix of AP and HE rounds, and can't be compared to anything flying as far as tank-busting guns go. The plane was designed around the gun, not the other way around.

If I were to choose btwn 20mm and 50cal, I think anyone, would say 20mm. I don't know much about how tough the armor is in this sim, but most armor of the era was weak and susceptible to any high-velocity HE rounds, especially in the turret and engine housing. I am pretty sure that the M2 50cal rds. at 1000M can only penetrate 1 or 2 inches of homogenous steel, not alloy armor.

sgilewicz
02-16-2005, 12:32 PM
Sorry, I realize the A10 cannon vs WW2 armaments is apples and oranges but I brought it up out of the admittedly mistaken idea that the A10 only carried DU rounds (I checked that link out-great info!). Did late war cannon technology enable 20mm tank busting rounds for the heavier models like the Germans and Russians were able to deploy?

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 01:13 PM
The deck armor on many WW II tanks was quite thin. I think a 20mm AP hit from directly above could probably damage most of them. The .50s could also knock out some from directly above. You'd have to consult some armor and penetration charts to see which ones.

One other failing in the game is that neither weapon seems to damage unarmored ships like destroyers and cargo vessels. Unarmed ships were disabled and sometimes set on fire by both types of weapons.

FluffyDucks
02-16-2005, 01:15 PM
No way .50 cal will penetrate the armour of a MBT, and no way a .50cal will penetrate 1"-2" of steel at 1000yds PERIOD.

Maj_Death
02-16-2005, 01:28 PM
If you want to do tank busting with a gun then you must have an AT gun of some sort. .50's and 20mm's simply don't cut it for anything beyond armored cars (ie halftracks). Most allied planes don't have anything bigger so you will need to use rockets or bombs.

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 01:31 PM
You're wrong (at least in WW II.)

The .50 cal can penetrate 12.7mm at 1000m, and 19mm at 550m, according to "Hell On Wheels" referencing the War Department's "Defense Against Mechanized Units".

The top armor thickness of the PZ. IIIJ is .40" (10mm), therefore it can easily be penetrated/destroyed by .50 cal rounds fired from above.

SOME tanks should be destroyable by the .50 cal even though it doesn't work in the game it was possible in "real life".

LilHorse
02-16-2005, 01:32 PM
Yeah, bombs and rockets (much easier to hit with rockets in-game than IRL) for MBTs. 50 cal and 20mm for light armor and soft vehicle like trucks, staff cars and horses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oops! Maybe I shouldn't have made that horse crack. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Von_Zero
02-16-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
You're wrong (at least in WW II.)

The .50 cal can penetrate 12.7mm at 1000m, and 19mm at 550m, according to "Hell On Wheels" referencing the War Department's "Defense Against Mechanized Units".

The top armor thickness of the PZ. IIIJ is .40" (10mm), therefore it can easily be penetrated/destroyed by .50 cal rounds fired from above.

SOME tanks should be destroyable by the .50 cal even though it doesn't work in the game it was possible in "real life". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What was the angle at wich the bullet hit?
What was the composition of the armor used in the test?
What was the speed the bullet had on impact?
What damage inflicted the bullet on the cited armor? did it passed through? Did it stopped in the plate? if it has penetrated the armnor colpletely how much E did it had left? If it could penetrate the top armor on a Pz. IIIj, how much energy woulfd have left so that would ricochet inside the hull and hit something vital?
Supposing a 12.7mm bullet could get through, what damage would inflict if it would fall on the floor of the tank after that? How many bullets can a plane put in a area the size of the top surface of a turret, for example, so that after it gets in hve some good chances to inflict damage to the crew/equipement iside?
From a ouside POV, i would say one would need at least a "quick burst" at convergence range something like perpendicularily on the tank. I think it is obvious it would be a unnecesarily dangerous maneuver.....

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 02:13 PM
Obviously, since it said "penetrate" that means at least the nose of the bullet was through both sides. The angle was 90 degrees (straight on), however, if I remember correctly a 60 degree angle effectively doubles the armor (not counting the chance to glance off) so even at that angle (a 30 degree dive) the .50 could still penetrate and have enough energy to go through another 5mm of armor (not to mention flying armor splinters.) More than enough to kill the crew, break equipment, engine parts etc... We're not talking total destruction here, just knocked out ie. combat ineffective.

BaldieJr
02-16-2005, 02:39 PM
.50's could easily penetrate a tank. It happned all the time and is well documented.

VOL_Hans
02-16-2005, 02:54 PM
No, the answer is a simple no.

20mm cannons and .50 calliber could not threaten any serious tank. Perhaps light tank could be worked over and damaged enough to destroy them, but for the most part those guns are too small. It took 37mm's to really crack armor from the air in WWII, and even then HEAT charges were found to be better.

BBB_Hyperion
02-16-2005, 02:58 PM
I heard from valuable source UBI Forum or something http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif iirc .50s where able to kill tiger tanks.

Use the search function you will find http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

LuftWulf190
02-16-2005, 03:02 PM
Well neither should be able to get to a tank when the rounds are just fired at them, but there are reports of pilots bouncing rounds off the ground and into the unarmoured belly of tanks. Just thing of what afew rounds will do while zipping inside of a steel can like a tank....

.... Then agian, I really don't like that mental image...

Vipez-
02-16-2005, 03:06 PM
here we go again.. Tigers can kill .50s whops i meant .50s can kill tigers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
02-16-2005, 03:12 PM
Hi,

Yeah, they were just carrying bombs and rockets for show...cos all they needed was a few .50s to do the trick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Norris

ClnlSandersLite
02-16-2005, 03:22 PM
Believe it or not, a .50 call will still take out a bmp 1&2 (not sure on the 3) from the sides, top, and rear at 200 yards. Top armor is very thin on most vehicles, so yes, you can take out quite a few AFVs in a vertical dive, but anything a .50 can do, a 20mm can do better. Kinda OT here, but any of you ever hear of Boys Gun? It was an experimental, not many where made. What it was: A shoulder fired SAW/Light AT 20mm cannon. Even the biggest of men couldn't handle the **** thing without suffering debilitating pain afterwards. So, the idea was scrapped early in the us involvement of ww2.

sgilewicz
02-16-2005, 03:29 PM
Guys,I didn't want to start arguments over whether or not 50s could or couldn't take out Tiger tanks. My original post questioned what would be a better type of munition for tank busting; a solid high energy projectile or a high explosive cannon round. It seems like they can both do the trick. I was under the impression that cannon rounds in WW2 exploded on the surface of the target. If they had AP capability then I can certainly see where cannon equipped aircraft would be better tank busters absent other ordinance.

telsono
02-16-2005, 03:32 PM
I was under the impression that killing of the tank was the secondary, although more hopeful, effect of a straffing attack. Disabling the vehicles was the key. The armor of the engine deck is the thinest and knocking out the engine was one of the desired results. As to the other, it was the tank treads. .50 cal bullets could do a great job on those. An immobile tank is a dead tank. Its no good for attack, delays and blocks other traffic who might be subject to further attacks from the air.
I am guessing that the damage model for vehicles in this game doesn't allow the latitude of immobilizing ground targets.

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 03:40 PM
You guys are getting too general now. I never said a .50 cal could take out a Tiger. Their armor is too thick even on the top. However, PZ III and IV's and even V's top armor could be penetrated from greater then 30 degrees at close range (500 meters or less.)

FluffyDucks
02-16-2005, 03:54 PM
I think definitions are needed here, a WWII MBT(Main Battle Tank) would be untouchable by all but the luckiest shot from 20mm, .50 cal don't make me laugh!!! roflmao.
If .50cal could take out MBT why the hell carry bombs/rockets/37mm/45mm why did the Germans use 88cm Flak Guns ffs!.
I can imagine the scene: 1st Lt. to squad leader, "take your .50cal and knock out those Tiger Tanks"......squad leader to 1st Lt. "you take it.....Sir, I'll write your folks" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Once and for all the .50cal could NOT take out MBTs and it would take a LUCKY 20mm hit to do any serious damage or cripple a MBT.
Where you guys are getting the idea that 10mm of steel constitutes armour plate I don't know, my bloody mickey mouse 9mm walther could penetrate that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif .
Even 19mm steel plate would not be considered serious MBT armour.

FliegerAas
02-16-2005, 04:03 PM
Ahh Link broken

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 04:09 PM
Well, FluffyDuck, believe what you want, but if the top armor is 10mm and the .50 goes through 19mm at 500 meters than the tank is in danger from an overhead attack.

I gave you the stats, PZ III and IV have ONLY 10mm top armor and the Panther (PZ V) has 16mm. They're all in danger from a close range .50 attack from ABOVE. From ground level they are, of course, in no danger.

I never said the .50 was the ultimate tank killer. Obviously, planes carried bombs, cannons, and rockets because they do the job better and are also useful against other targets.

Von_Zero
02-16-2005, 04:23 PM
ok the question nobody answered yet:
What was the composition of the armor on the PzIII and what was the composition of the armor that was used for the test?
different matterials have different point of melting (only important for cummulative charges, so not very important when it comes to .50s), and different strenghts. To give you an example: after the tests conducted by the russions on 2 captured Panthers (iirc), they realized that the quality of the armor (i mean the quality of the material, not the thickness, obviously) decreased seriously compared to previous german tanks, mainly because of replacing Tungsten with Vanadium, (or something like that i can't seem to recall exactly or find the source atm), thus the armor becoming quite fragie, and showing cracks and/or failures during the exposure to different weapons.
In conclusion, until we have some data about the armor used in the two cases (the test and the armor on the PzIII), nobody can say that "it is obvious .50s can disable it" or "no no no, this is bs". plain and simple http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
beside that angles between 30~60 degrees are still quite small and the chances that the bullet would bounce are far greater that inflicting any damage..... no matter if it hits steel or wood http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

lbhskier37
02-16-2005, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
You guys are getting too general now. I never said a .50 cal could take out a Tiger. Their armor is too thick even on the top. However, PZ III and IV's and even V's top armor could be penetrated from greater then 30 degrees at close range (500 meters or less.) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its 30 degrees now? You just contridicted yourself. You said a 60 degree angle doubles effective armor thickness. So IF the .50 can penetrate 19mm at 500m, it can only penetrate 9.5mm at an angle of 60 degrees. That might go through 10mm if its the same type of armor used. Now I want you to get in and dive that close to verticle, wait until you are at 500m to shoot, and pull out of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Now how many bullets did you actually hit with?

BBB_Hyperion
02-16-2005, 04:44 PM
These questions have all been answered already in these old threads i suggested to search.

It is indeed possible to get 50s through the top of the roof of the tanks pziii and pziv i think worked as i tested it ages ago from P47 in il2. But the angle to get this makes you pullout a risky business. But i dont know if that is at all correct cause look at this armor table .

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/tanks_medium/pzkpfw_iii.html
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/tanks_medium/pzkpfw_iv.html

The weakest point is indeed the Turret but do you destroy a tank with bullets hardly getting throught the armor ?

The Only Ammo that is usefull against tanks is ap cause it can hit the engine, tracks,controls, etc . Explosive rounds can only be effective when fuel is leaking much harder for diesel than normal fuel btw. Cause a higher pressure is needed to ignite diesel .

chris455
02-16-2005, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the Tempest was probably a slightly better tank buster than the Jug <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably slightly maybe I doubt it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Its 30 degrees now? You just contridicted yourself. You said a 60 degree angle doubles effective armor thickness. So IF the .50 can penetrate 19mm at 500m, it can only penetrate 9.5mm at an angle of 60 degrees. That might go through 10mm if its the same type of armor used. Now I want you to get in and dive that close to verticle, wait until you are at 500m to shoot, and pull out of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Now how many bullets did you actually hit with? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not explaining the angles well enough.

For the plane a 90 degree dive is straight down from above (zero degrees angle off the top armor to the tank), so if the plane attacks from a 30+ degree or steeper dive it will be in the penetration zone. That would be 60 degrees or less angle off the top armor of the tank. But, I imagine 45 degrees + dive would give you a much better chance.

Hopefully, this makes sense... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lbhskier37
02-16-2005, 05:03 PM
but that 30 degrees off verticle would just barely do it, any more and it wouldnt penetrate. Also its not trivial to pull out from 500m in a diving aircraft, definitly not something that would be recommended practice if possible at all.

sunflower1
02-16-2005, 05:17 PM
I've heard of the Boys gun. It was modelled in Avalon Hill's Tobruk and Sqaud Leader.

You couldn't kill anything with it except a truck or halftrack and it made those little cardboard stacks of units even taller, so we just played without them.

On the game piece they looked like an absolutely enormous hunting rifle with a bipod, iirc. Scary.

My dad's father in law from the second marriage (so what would that make him now?) was a jug pilot and told him the story of using low angle .50cal attacks against armor on concrete. If its a myth, its perpetrated by the guys who flew them.

lbhskier37
02-16-2005, 05:22 PM
Can't see how a pilot would be able to tell if a tank was knocked out amid all the dust they wouldve kicked up. External stores of fuel, or towed fuel tanks might have been lit up by them. US reports after action (has been linked here before I dont have the link) found almost no tanks killed by rocket attacks on the Western front although many had been claimed.

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
but that 30 degrees off verticle would just barely do it, any more and it wouldnt penetrate. Also its not trivial to pull out from 500m in a diving aircraft, definitly not something that would be recommended practice if possible at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have it a little backward still, 30 degrees or more of down angle from level flight. But, you are right, it is still a steep dive and you have to get pretty close. That's why bigger guns or bombs or rockets are much more desirable. Obviously, putting flaps down and cutting throttle would be a good idea.

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Can't see how a pilot would be able to tell if a tank was knocked out amid all the dust they wouldve kicked up. External stores of fuel, or towed fuel tanks might have been lit up by them. US reports after action (has been linked here before I dont have the link) found almost no tanks killed by rocket attacks on the Western front although many had been claimed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luckily, Oleg has made it real obvious when something is destroyed for us. Yes, it would be hard to tell what you've done without sticking around for a while and getting shot at by AA unless there was a secondary explosion. Rockets were less accurate than guns and we get way close in FB then they did in real life before we fire.

Xiolablu3
02-16-2005, 06:02 PM
Think about it, if 20mm or even 30mm guns in WW2 could blow up tanks then why did they keep putting 75mm and 88mm guns on tanks?

If the 30mm cannon did the job whats the point of using 88mm or even 105mm??

I know the top of tanks is thinner armour but you still need the 40mm or 47mm of the Hurricane 'tin opener' or Stuka tank destroyer to get thru the top of those Tin Cans.

20 or 30mm just wont cut it on later war tanks.

lbhskier37
02-16-2005, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
but that 30 degrees off verticle would just barely do it, any more and it wouldnt penetrate. Also its not trivial to pull out from 500m in a diving aircraft, definitly not something that would be recommended practice if possible at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have it a little backward still, 30 degrees or more of down angle from level flight. But, you are right, it is still a steep dive and you have to get pretty close. That's why bigger guns or bombs or rockets are much more desirable. Obviously, putting flaps down and cutting throttle would be a good idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK now I see, but with a bullet striking a piece of armor at 30 degrees it would ricochet 99% of the time, so no penetration would happen then. The only way I see a bullet penetrating anywhere near its max penetration is directly at a 90 degree angle or very far off it. Any angle off 90 is going to put the force vector out of line with the center of the bullet and seriously decrease its penetrating power. As far as knocking off tracks with a few lucky bullets, sure, but the fact is a WWII airplane wasn't an effective tank buster unless it carried a large caliber rifle or a very big bomb. The one thing in this game that I think is overmodeled is rockets effectiveness against tanks, pretty much any hit scores a kill while real life after action reports definitly show otherwise.

sunflower1
02-16-2005, 06:34 PM
I'll confess to spending hours upon hours with fairly detailed tank and infantry simulations made by Avalon Hill Company. Height advantage makes penetration far, far more likely. I don't have my reference book anymore, but somebody here does, I think the point that late war tanks are not terribly vulnerable from above can be agreed upon when that armor thickness figure is proffered. 25mm or more, if I had to guess.

The problem is actually hitting something as small as a tank with a limited number of rounds and a short window to fire them in. The modelling of the Sturmovik done by Avalon Hill shows a weapon that doesn't connect often, but when it does its devestating to anything other than the King Tiger, a rare bird anyway, and easier to hit. The modelling of the rockets made using them against armor a waste, much better against infantry in cover. The 23mm's, According to Avalon Hill, penetrate fairly easily when applied to top armor, the 20mm less so by a large enough margin that you had to be desperate to employ them against armor or lack other targets when the a/c showed up. Was it that way in r/l? Did Sturmovik pilots find that the 23mm was the weapon of choice?

I was always very, very impressed with their research and the resulting game texture, I'm curious about whether they're right or not.

PBNA-Boosher
02-16-2005, 06:39 PM
YOu gotta bounce the .50's underneath the tank and light up the oil tanks!

chaikanut
02-16-2005, 06:59 PM
In the game, even the italian 12mm is effective against anything lighter than and including the second panzer (dont remember the coding). If i were to choose between the two, out of practical purposes I would go for the 12 mm: when you find them there is a lot of them compared to the usual aircraft carrying 20mm. In real life as a rule of thumb, the bullet will penetrate at a 90 dgr angle an equivalent of its calibre in plain steel (not hardened). If the round is from some hardened dense material, like tungsten, it will have an easy time. In reverse, if the armor is hardened, the round shatters. Tanks have very thin armor at the top of the turret, on the engine and at the bottom. It is not inconceivable that a 20 or 30mm AP round or even a 12mm on a smaller tank will go through, like other people said however, 12mm are far from ideal. By the way, I have heard that the A10 cannon can open tennis ball sized holes on the armor of an M1 tank.

BBB_Hyperion
02-16-2005, 08:09 PM
Here is a good site for theoretical background.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

LStarosta
02-16-2005, 08:17 PM
I wish you could drop a single 1,000 bomb on a formation of tanks and destroy or atleast damage all of them.

IL2 and the way it models groundpounding is a frickin joke. I drop a 1000 lb bomb 3 feet away from a fricken tank, and nothing happens.

marine428
02-16-2005, 08:19 PM
These figures for 50 cal penetration are most likely as fired from a near horizontal position. If your plane is going say, 200mph then the round will go that much faster. Also, a horizontally fired round loses velocity because of gravity (really because the round travels farther that the acual distance to target)and air pressure. If you are firing at a downward angle then you still have the air pressure issue but the effects of gravity are decreased thus increasing the hitting power of the round even more at a certain distance. This is just my assumption. It seems logical. I've never fired a 50 cal but just being near one when it fires makes you think the world is about to end. I can't even imagine what 8 would do. Also, if you fire one round and it just penetrates then any round that hits in the same spot will go right through. You have to remember that in half a second a P-47 could put out 37 or so rounds. At least a few are going to go through the same hole. Just a few bouncing around a metal can at near max velocity would tear some stuff up. Just a thought.

StellarRat
02-16-2005, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Think about it, if 20mm or even 30mm guns in WW2 could blow up tanks then why did they keep putting 75mm and 88mm guns on tanks?

If the 30mm cannon did the job whats the point of using 88mm or even 105mm??

I know the top of tanks is thinner armour but you still need the 40mm or 47mm of the Hurricane 'tin opener' or Stuka tank destroyer to get thru the top of those Tin Cans.

20 or 30mm just wont cut it on later war tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You need to look at some armor stats. The top isn't just a little thinner it is way, way, thinner. On the order of 10 times thinner sometimes. For example: The Pz IV J has 80mm of front armor and 20 - 30 mm on the sides and back, but on top only 12 - 15 mm. That's less than 1/2 inch. In a land battle you're chance of getting hit by anti-tank weapon on the top is just about zero unless the enemy is on a hill, so the tank designers only put enough armor on top to stop fragments from artillery or light infantry bullets (to save weight.) Even the biggest aircraft mounted guns would not be able to penetrate the front armor of most tanks, but the top is a totally different story.

BBB_Hyperion
02-16-2005, 09:15 PM
Sounds all reasonable marine428 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Plane Speed always adds to bullet speed except shooting in other direction.

What was the point of no return on a p47 that pulls out of a dive ?

4.8 s is the total firing time with 613 kg . 13 rps * 8 = 104 rps =&gt; 52 rp half second.

Now you have other problems like at which speed you can hold the hypothetical 90? degrees dive 60? or 30? . How many seconds you have for shooting and pullout at desired angle without hitting the ground and maximize the firing time at designated area. How likely it is that the tank is out of service ?

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

"The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

So 50s and 20 mm guns are ineffective against tanks . While 50s are pretty useless , 20 mm can do some damage but serious only by chance. Thats the reason such things like il2 m and the ju87g exist else it wouldnt be necessary and the tanks could be stopped far easier.

GR142_Astro
02-16-2005, 10:18 PM
Underneath these grates are some vulnerable components such as radiators and fuel cells. With the amount of lead a Jug puts out it's not hard to see how some could score some hits in there. You don't have to blow up a tank and flip it over to take it out of action.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jgtint.jpg

If it wasn't a possibility, the Germans wouldn't have bothered with spaced armor over the engine deck. This is a model kit, but it's based on actual mods.

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jgjp_13.jpg

WTE_Galway
02-16-2005, 10:18 PM
regarding 0.50 cal and tanks .. take note of the last paragraph in this quote from a RRAF pilot flying Mustangs in Korea:
http://www.australiansatwar.gov.au/stories/stories.asp?ID=226&war=KO&next=yes


" As we approached the bridge we could see the lead T34 tanks slowly moving down the road. Muzzle flashes from machine guns indicated they were firing at us. A few rounds from us and the tank column stopped, presumably to give them a better platform from which to fire back at us.

These were the tanks that had just routed Task Force Smith near Ansong, 12 miles [19km] to the north, the first US army attempt to slow the advance. We did not know that beneath us at P'yongtaek the remnants of that brave task force of 406 men under Lt Col Smith were straggling south as best they could. They had quickly found that their anti tank weapons had been almost ineffectual against the T34 tanks.

It was some time before we were to learn that we could easily knock out those tanks by firing our guns into the engine compartment behind the gun turret. "


I would repeat that .. the P51 could EASILY knock out a T34 by firing into the engine compartment !!

BBB_Hyperion
02-17-2005, 12:30 AM
Did they ask the tankdrivers about the damage or how did they know ? AFAIK the t34 45 85 mm was in use in Korea . How many confirmed 50s tank kills are recorded for Korea ?. When it was so easy it must be quite some.

@Astro

Presence of extra armor wasnt uncommon. Doesnt imply it was against 50s cause there are other things that you wont like in the engine section as well and on this special jagdpanther it might be the old habbit that a flare on the engine section is not healthy for the panther at all. Same effect have artilery shells that detonate on the engine section. When you would place armor plates on a engine section to prevent bullets getting in there you would place em at angles to increase protection. As well the covering plate is so small that you can see that at common attack angles 0 to 30 degrees its completely unprotected . Maybe the Model isnt accurate or the purpose was not against rifle caliber rounds . Btw the engine is in the middle that left and right are only airvents.

lbhskier37
02-17-2005, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marine428:
These figures for 50 cal penetration are most likely as fired from a near horizontal position. If your plane is going say, 200mph then the round will go that much faster. Also, a horizontally fired round loses velocity because of gravity (really because the round travels farther that the acual distance to target)and air pressure. If you are firing at a downward angle then you still have the air pressure issue but the effects of gravity are decreased thus increasing the hitting power of the round even more at a certain distance. This is just my assumption. It seems logical. I've never fired a 50 cal but just being near one when it fires makes you think the world is about to end. I can't even imagine what 8 would do. Also, if you fire one round and it just penetrates then any round that hits in the same spot will go right through. You have to remember that in half a second a P-47 could put out 37 or so rounds. At least a few are going to go through the same hole. Just a few bouncing around a metal can at near max velocity would tear some stuff up. Just a thought. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually when you are firing horizontally you still only lose forward velocity front the drag. The gravity only accelerates the bullet straight down. In a vacuum a bullets horizontal speed would stay the same, and its verticle speed would accelerate at 9.81m/s until it hit the ground. If firing vertically down the bullet would also accelerate at 9.81m/s down so this would be added to the speed. But in real life the deceleration from the air resistance would be enough that the acceleration from gravity wouldn't matter much in the short distance the bullet is traveling.

GR142_Astro
02-17-2005, 01:27 AM
Salute Hyperion.

1 - The model is accurate. Comes from model building rivet counters the likes of which IL2 graphic models have never known. (The Tiger I's turret is asymmetrical and the gun is set off to one side. Those kind of modelers.)

2 - Rgr that the plates weren't installed for ONLY .50 cals but for Jabos in general and shell fragments. I tend to think the .50s of a Jug would be the most effective and troublesome for German tank crews.

3 - The plates did prove to be somewhat effective in warding off unwanted aircraft advances. Look at the positioning and depth of the grates. A flatter angle of attack would in fact tend to get under these spaced plates a bit, but would have a tough time making a right hand turn down into the grates at that point. These pilots shared knowledge about what did and didnt work. There is a well published photo of several Jug pilots sitting on the deck of a knocked out Panther, discussing their kill.

4 - Yes the Maybach HL 230 P30 common in Panther A models (Maybachs were in Panthers, Tigers, Jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, Sturmtigers, etc) sits in the middle under the rectangular hatch. Under the open grates sits much more than "only air vents". The engine compartment is packed. Two large fans flank the engine and each of these sit between 2 radiators. Both the driver side radiators hold engine coolant, and the front radiator on the opposite side is split into an oil and water cooler. The fuel cell and water reservoir are decently protected inside the back armor plate behind the engine. German tanks had to be handled carefully due to engines that overheated easily. The exhaust shrouds seen on Panthers and Tigers were to cover glowing red exhaust pipes. Bright enough to be easily seen on night marches. A hit to the coolant system would disable these tanks in short order.

http://www.ww2mmrefphotos.com/photos/walkpantengine/Kopie%20von%20pmue%20PzKpfw%20V%20Panther%20Ausf%2 0G%20Grandmenil%2016.JPG


The Tiger Is were actually slightly more vulnerable. The fuel cells were under open grates. Beginning with Tiger no. Fgst.Nr.251075 in April 1944:

"Wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks: DW to Tiger I, Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle.

Did Jabos take out German tanks at will with their guns?

No.

Was it repeatable and worthwhile trying?

Yes.

So kids, .50s could take out heavy German tanks.

LeadSpitter_
02-17-2005, 03:49 AM
thing is look what german tank was most produced from 42-45, small not heavily armored one which had highest production numbers and was the most around.

Seems everyone thinks germans just used the kingtiger and elephant becuase they were the best they had, but also the fewest numbers.

hobnail
02-17-2005, 03:52 AM
Shoot a tank with a machine gun, give a tanker a headache.

Shoot his fuel truck, the lorry with the ammo and the donkey carrying tommorrow's food and you stop a tank for good.

The TAF's impact in Western Europe was to paralyse the ability of the Werchmacht to fuel, service and ferry their heavy armour. TAF's own studies revealed the poor performance of direct attack versus supply interdiction.

Abbuzze
02-17-2005, 04:33 AM
The interesting fact is, that if a Tank is killed by 0.50 your read it from a pilots report...
It hard to take this serious... It´s like this stories of ships sunk by bombs- you remember this british carrier, "sunk" by a german Ju88 and apears in a harbour a few days later...

who cares, 0.50 are the predecessor of klingon-disruptors. Tearing apart planes in 0.1 sec. Has no dispersion even at 800m and don´t care of simply math even if the nose of the plane moves they have to hit in 500m... cutting tanks into half I forgot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Beside german MG42 could kill tanks.. at least shermans, the gunners hide behind a "hill" and if the sherman came over this small hit it shows the low armourd belly- at this moment the MG-gunner started his fire, aiming all the time at the same point till the energy of the bullets make the steel at this point glowing red then white and at least breaking, then the MG42 bullet rushed into the tank and killed the crew...
0.50 are real monsterbullets bouncing of the ground (without loosing energy throuh deformation) and simply go through the tank...

Wait I have a better theory!! The 0.50 bullets hit the bottom of the enemy tank till it start to glow... so the tankcrew had to leave the tank, or they will be cooked! Maybe the glowing bottom of the tank set the ammonition into fire and let the tank explode! So you see this miracle is solved!!!

At least stupid germans they should put US-armourd Glass from crashed bombers at their tanks, cause I also learn in this forum that this glas were able to withstand 20mm cannon hits... Summary 0.50 kill tanks. Armourd glass stopped 20mm.
Hmm why didn´t build the US glastanks??

Joe-90
02-17-2005, 04:51 AM
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rboyd/images/IL2_3_1943_v_PZVA_A.jpg

Don't mess about with 20mm unless you have LOADS of time!

Take napalm or cluster bombs in the old IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's some quotes from Oleg and ROSS_Youss I found over at Bellum Forums:


Oleg Maddox

We corrected all PzIVs for 3.05 update in future.

We found that it is really possible to destry it by any 20 mm cannons from above. It is becasue for the armor modeling of the ground objects we use way more simplified (mostly often used cumulative method for ground objects) model of penetration than for the planes (which is the main thing in terms of flight sim and it is done with way more complex penetration model....) It doesn't means that it was a bug... simply was need more tunes and such thing was found just now... Damage of ground objects in code isn't the same complexity as the it is done for the planes.

More complex damage of ground object you will find only in the next sim.
However it means that for BoB will be really neccessary more power PC....due to more complex calculations in real time which we plan to implement there.


ROSS_Youss

ingame tank-armor

[PzIIIM]
Description Germany's tank PzIIIM
PanzerBodyFront 0.055 // 0.50 + 0.005 additional front plates
PanzerBodyBack 0.050
PanzerBodySide 0.030
PanzerBodyTop 0.016
PanzerHead 0.040
PanzerHeadTop 0.017

[PzIVF]
Description Germany's tank PzIVF
PanzerBodyFront 0.050
PanzerBodyBack 0.020
PanzerBodySide 0.030
PanzerBodyTop 0.010
PanzerHead 0.040
PanzerHeadTop 0.010

[PzVA]
Description Germany's tank PzVA (Panther)
PanzerBodyFront 0.085
PanzerBodyBack 0.040
PanzerBodySide 0.040
PanzerBodyTop 0.020
PanzerHead 0.075
PanzerHeadTop 0.020

[T34]
Description USSR's tank T-34.
PanzerBodyFront 0.055 // 0.045 -- good front shape
PanzerBodyBack 0.045
PanzerBodySide 0.045
PanzerBodyTop 0.020
PanzerHead 0.060 // 0.050 -- good front shape
PanzerHeadTop 0.020

[T34_85]
Description USSR's tank T-34-85.
PanzerBodyFront 0.090
PanzerBodyBack 0.047
PanzerBodySide 0.060
PanzerBodyTop 0.020
PanzerHead 0.080
PanzerHeadTop 0.020

GR142_Astro
02-17-2005, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
a bunch of garbage?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, if you don't want to be taken seriously, then keep posting stupid garbage like this that isn't even remotely clever.

@Leadspitter

RGRT, that the numbers of Tigers I II and the Jagd and Sturm variants were insignificant. However Panthers were in great numbers during 43-44. But yes, the MkIV is the most likely German tank to be found during the war. And rightly so, it had its backside handed to it by M4's and Jabos.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Capt._Tenneal
02-17-2005, 08:35 AM
What's the minimum needed to take out (or at least disable) the massive KV-1's in early-Barbarossa scenarios ?

Abbuzze
02-17-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbuzze:
a bunch of garbage?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really, if you don't want to be taken seriously, then keep posting stupid garbage like this that isn't even remotely clever.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Discussed it serious much to often, and to say it loud and clear what the LW command said over hunting tanks with cannons: 20mm is useless against modern tanks. Thats why the MK101/103 were introduced with 30mm.

Maybe the 0.50 is just the better weapon, or it was as usefull as 0.303 cause big number of bullets, greater chance of lucky hits.

Beside, the story with the MG42 and the sherman is true, it worked.

At least all this tankclaims with HMG just remained me to the big number of fighterkills by US bombergunner...

BBB_Hyperion
02-17-2005, 12:33 PM
Wohoo P47 the Ultimate tank killer ?

www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p47tankbuster.zip (http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p47tankbuster.zip)

I repeated my short test with 3.04 all pziii , pziv tanks explode easily by 50s .

Track and Mission included 3.04.

StellarRat
02-17-2005, 01:09 PM
Thank-you Hyperion! If Oleg thinks the .50 can destroy tanks that's good enough for me. (Not to mention it backs my original statement) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
02-17-2005, 02:15 PM
Took just out a T34 & T34 85 mm with 50s .

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/t3485knocked%20out%20by%2050s.jpg

I think it has something to do with the boost the 50s got in some of the later patches . When you compare 20 mm effect to it is just plain wrong .) Real tank killer planes are not even able to shoot through armor from short distance try il2 m (works well when attacking turret pziv) or ju87 g fire from short distance at 90 or 60 degrees to armor you wont get through.

250,000 joules inital energy would be needed in 37 mm for 100 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees and 60 mm /300 m / 60 degrees. bk 3.7 has 270000 joules.

try it out .)

StellarRat
02-17-2005, 03:29 PM
Maybe the 20mm don't use AP normally? They would normally be used against planes where HE would be the best choice. Also, they are generally lower velocity than .50s?

And of course you get more hits with .50s due to more guns and ROF.

Didn't someone post something about Oleg changing the 20s vs armor in 3.05 (the next patch)?

BBB_Hyperion
02-17-2005, 05:11 PM
Its not impossible with 190 we all know mg151/20 had increased ap rouns 50 % cause of the ineffective use against il2s with he ammo.

But pullout can be little tricky.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/190%20t34%2085.jpg

fherathras
02-19-2005, 03:03 AM
thats right