PDA

View Full Version : Tank killing cannon



Lewicide
06-07-2006, 01:55 AM
What Russian armour can be killed with the 37mm armed JU87 and with which shots? the T34's?
Likwise what armour can be killed with the MK103 pods on the FW190's?

I've only had real success withn the 37mms attacking the top armour in steep dives, with occaisional success with rear shots.

Does anyone have a reliable approach to this?

Lewicide
06-07-2006, 01:55 AM
What Russian armour can be killed with the 37mm armed JU87 and with which shots? the T34's?
Likwise what armour can be killed with the MK103 pods on the FW190's?

I've only had real success withn the 37mms attacking the top armour in steep dives, with occaisional success with rear shots.

Does anyone have a reliable approach to this?

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 03:01 AM
USe the Me110 with 3.7BK cannon instead, a lot more ammo with that gun.

You have to hit the top just behind the turret. Gets easier with practise. Take out the flak first and then ask your teamates for cover over the target, then you are free to keep making 'swings' and taking shots. Try and fly in a loose 'U'shape and you can keep hitting them each pass.

KG26_Alpha
06-07-2006, 03:18 AM
With just 12 rounds in each pod, your better taking a bomb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif as the G1 is likely to get you killed trying to attack armour positions, It used to be a great plane for tank busting, I have lots of missions for the G1 but alas now after a patch or 4 its not as "effective" as it used to be, you need to be straight down on the tank hatch or right on top of the engine covers it seems.
Theres some old WW2 film around showing 2 G1's attacking an armoured column in a much shallower dive wiping the tanks out, you wont get that in IL2 like you used to.
It seems like the 37mm AP turned into HE round after Oleg changed the BF110G2 from ground attack cannon angle and AP round to bomber attack with HE round, I have lots of missions using these aircraft and weapons to notice the difference, but it was some time ago.

So practise keeping the nose straight and feet/hands off the rudder on attack run so the nose dont wobble.

Have fun.

BBB_Hyperion
06-07-2006, 04:41 AM
The Armor penetration depends on dive angle and speed.

Ingame Data

[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

Obviously Tugsten Core Ammo can penetrate T34 armor from almost every angle at short range but that isnt modeled in il2 . even at 10 m distance the tugsten core isnt able to penetrate the tank from the side.

Hits at turret oder engine section can take out the tank.

Higher armor higher dive angle needed. For t34 in il2 about 30 Degrees
for IS2 etc 45 .

The JU87G lacks of ammo so Me110 with BK is the only real alternative for cannon tank busting.

For ME110 use starting alt of 800 to 1000 m , best is to dive in and regain alt while speed reduced to stall speed flip plane over left or right wing.Aim for target direction before plane catches up speed (later at higher speed harder to correct approach).

A HE Round is not able to take out a tank , see p39/p63 now only HE .

carguy_
06-07-2006, 04:51 AM
I think sometime ago Oleg did change BK3.7 on the Me110 to HE shell equipped plane.

However the Ju87G1 cannons were to stay with AP shells.For a date of their featuring(1943) the anti tank cannon is not more effective than a normal 37mmpk German field gun.Even hitting tanks from behind doesn`t work.

BBB_Hyperion
06-07-2006, 06:01 AM
When Oleg did change it ,it wouldnt kill tanks anymore.

Anyway here a intresting point about ideal anti tank guns
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

The BK 3,7 was developed from a Flak 18

Xiolablu3
06-07-2006, 07:17 AM
The BK3.7 on the Me110 can kill tanks just fine.

You can take them out in one shot if you hit the top just behind the turret, a real 'sniping' weapon.

On a good day I can take out almost one every pass. JS2's and all. The lesser tanks you can take out if you hit them anywhere, not just the top. I love that gun.

BUT you need a lot of time over the target to do this, so you need cover from your teamates. Its not like dropping bombs and then running for home.

Lewicide
06-07-2006, 07:19 AM
For me the bf110 BK 3.7 seems to be all HE. On the Ju 87 it seems to be shot. None of which is capaable of taking medium armour without a top-shot.

Historically the FW190 with the MK103's was a later solution to armour busting ( I doubt the MK 103 had better perfomance than the BK 3'7's)


Just can't work out the lack of efficacy of the JU87g's

THey wouldn't have been put in if they didn't work, and tank busting is all they do...

Dtools4fools
06-07-2006, 09:44 AM
Wasn't standard attack from rear anyway? And didn't Rudel himself write that it was accurate guns and possible to aim (and hit) weak spots?

Thought I read that stuff sometime somewhere?

So why is the gun not as effective as some people think it would be?
Russian tanks are quite well aromred in the rear.

Difficult to say as for penetration capability of the BK 3.7
Accordingly to the site mentioned above it shot mainly Tungsten core ammo (which the army had no more in 44, was only made up to 43 or so). Comparing with tungsten ammo for shorter Pak36 and taking the 140mm/0 degrees of armor penetration from link above I came up with something like this (estimate, but rather on the generous side)

100m

140mm/0 angle
90mm/30 angle
40mm/60 angle

500m
90mm/0 angle
60mm/30 angle
>30mm/60 angle

Compare with following tanks

IS 2 and IS I
rear armor 60mm at 40-50‚? - no kill, even close up
rear turret 100mm at 30‚? - no kill again
Only top armor possible

T-34/85
rear armor 45mm/45-48‚? just poassible
rear turret 52mm/10‚? well possible
top armor of course

Su 122 is similar to T-34/85 and Su152 has 60mm but less slope, only 10-20‚?, so should be possible.

Fact that tank buster is diving into attack in shallow angle actually lessens the slope effect for armor plate and maybe even IS-2 could be penetrated at rear.
On the other hand Tungsten ammo armor penetration deacreses much hitting sloped armor, not ideal for that kind of job.

That is if said tungsten ammo was still available then for Ju 87.
If not, using regular AP, thinks would look grim for all but top armor on all tank types.

Side armor sometimes was similar to rear, front however much stronger.

I think the BK 5 an eventualy the BK 7.5 show the need of a better anti tunk gun - meaning the BK 3,7 must have had its limits. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone for the heavier guns, no?

It's not really a tank sim either...
To me if you can take out T-34's with BK-37 but you will have troubles with IS-2, then that seems good enough.
****

StG2_Schlachter
06-07-2006, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
I think sometime ago Oleg did change BK3.7 on the Me110 to HE shell equipped plane.

However the Ju87G1 cannons were to stay with AP shells.For a date of their featuring(1943) the anti tank cannon is not more effective than a normal 37mmpk German field gun.Even hitting tanks from behind doesn`t work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 3,7 cm guns on the G1 were quite effective actually. The calibre was the same as the field gun.

However firing the cannon while diving added speed to the rounds as opposed to fire a field gun. And tank armour is thinner on top and aft.

CD_kp84yb
06-07-2006, 02:25 PM
Hi all

The drawings i have here show no Tungsten core, but a wolfram-carbide core in a housing of aluminium.

the numbers for penetration are at 90 degrees
@100m= 140mm
@600m=95mm

at 60 degrees
@100m= 69mm
@600m 47mm

V0=1150Ms
tracer burns for 1200meters (1.5 sec)
weight 405 gram
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/37mm2.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/37mm.jpg

the gun (BK3.7) could fire the following rounds
3.7 cm -H- panzergranatpatrone L'spur ohne zerleger
3.7 cm- panzergranate L'spur Ub ohne zerleger (traininground)
3.7 cm -M- panzergranatpatrone ohne zerleger (M stand for mine iow it has a explosive charge)

Ohne zerleger means no selfdestruction

cheers

ow btw the Bk3.7 was not only developed from the 3.7 flak 18 , but the later ones used in Me110 and Me 410 where developed from the 3.7 Flak 43, guess what ??? they were also called BK3.7

telsono
06-07-2006, 03:01 PM
CD please review your basic chemistry.

Wolfram = Tungsten

Properties of Tungsten

Background Information

The word tungsten means "heavy stone" in Swedish. The chemical symbol for tungsten is W which stands for wolfram. The name came from medieval German smelters who found that tin ores containing tungsten had a much lower yield. It was said that the tungsten devoured the tin "like a wolf".

VW-IceFire
06-07-2006, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lewicide:
For me the bf110 BK 3.7 seems to be all HE. On the Ju 87 it seems to be shot. None of which is capaable of taking medium armour without a top-shot.

Historically the FW190 with the MK103's was a later solution to armour busting ( I doubt the MK 103 had better perfomance than the BK 3'7's)


Just can't work out the lack of efficacy of the JU87g's

THey wouldn't have been put in if they didn't work, and tank busting is all they do... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that configuration didn't work or didn't work well and was not adopted. MK103 is pretty worthless against tanks in my limited use against them. Even against Shermans.

BSS_CUDA
06-07-2006, 03:16 PM
I cant believe the false infromation your giving him http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif everyone know that if you want to kill a tank you use the 50cal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif heck it can take out a Tiger tank http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-07-2006, 05:39 PM
Of course you can but can you live to tell ?

http://rapidshare.de/files/22493399/p47vstiger.avi.html

Here Proof from 4.05 .

LStarosta
06-07-2006, 05:50 PM
http://www.fallout3.phx.pl/obrazki/rozrywka/gadzet_browning.jpg

Now you can kill Tigers from 10 miles away.

F16_Neo
06-07-2006, 05:51 PM
The 37mm for 110 works just fine!
Click here to watch Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks (http://media.putfile.com/Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks)

LStarosta
06-07-2006, 05:52 PM
As for busting Russian tanks, I found the 5cm cannon on the Me262 quite useless.

WTE_Galway
06-07-2006, 05:53 PM
It seems reasonable you need top hits.

The pak36 37mm antitank gun was labelled "door knocker" by german infantry because the only effect it had on anything better than a light tank was create a loud bang when it hit.

WWMaxGunz
06-07-2006, 06:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
IS 2 and IS I
rear armor 60mm at 40-50‚? - no kill, even close up
rear turret 100mm at 30‚? - no kill again
Only top armor possible

T-34/85
rear armor 45mm/45-48‚? just poassible
rear turret 52mm/10‚? well possible
top armor of course
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are those the slope angles as seen from same height ground?

Sloped armor from above = possible perpendicular (zero angle) hit. Check angle to shooter.
Even top armor is steeply sloped to AC in shallow dive.

UberDemon
06-07-2006, 09:33 PM
Have you guys tried the LaGG-3 IT? Big Frigging nose gun... not bad if you can get a shot right...

Lewicide
06-08-2006, 01:03 AM
What tanks can the MK103 kill?

Anyone had any success with this cannon?

Genie-
06-08-2006, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Neo:
The 37mm for 110 works just fine!
Click here to watch Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks (http://media.putfile.com/Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH C'mon Neo! Target: Tanks?

What kind of tanks are that? japanese? or early russian? I cannot recognize them becasue they are too small. try that bf110 3.7 HE shell on some real tanks, and then post a movie.

Genie-
06-08-2006, 02:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
USe the Me110 with 3.7BK cannon instead, a lot more ammo with that gun.

You have to hit the top just behind the turret. Gets easier with practise. Take out the flak first and then ask your teamates for cover over the target, then you are free to keep making 'swings' and taking shots. Try and fly in a loose 'U'shape and you can keep hitting them each pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes children! and of you will be reeaaallyy good Xiolablu3 will even make a track to show you how is he doing that!

now let's all sing along!!

(acustic guitar in the background..)
"Hit the tank, from point blank,
use the HE, and fly fly awaaayyyy..."

Brain32
06-08-2006, 04:03 AM
ROTFL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Maybe the song lures the crew out, then you can strafe them with MG17 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

KG26_Alpha
06-08-2006, 04:35 AM
Guys

Ju87-G1 Has AP
Bf110G2 Has HE

You can destroy light tanks with HE rounds but not what I would consider "43" armoured tanks till the Henchels replaced the Ju87-G1's, as in IL2 the G1 is pretty much useless in a combat area its hit kill rate is minimal its slow and you have to run like hell at low level to escape, any other Stuka is more effective at tank killing and getting you home if used correctly especially the D5.

NagaSadow84
06-08-2006, 04:58 AM
Is the different armor-quality modelled in the game? 100mm of russian armor wasn‚‚ā¨ôt equal to 100mm of german armor.

JG53Frankyboy
06-08-2006, 05:21 AM
after testing some weapon configurations with the Fw190 to use it as a tankkiller in spring 1944 one of the LW "wishes" was a Fw190 with a MK103 under the fuselage - mounted were the bombrack was.
-easy aiming
-less dispersion (barrel could be stabilized)
-less influance on handling and performance

as with the two wingpod mounted variant !

negative point was:
-the MK103 was not enough reliable to fire it through the propeller http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
-as for the use of the MK103 at all, very small supply of tungsten ammunition !

JG53Frankyboy
06-08-2006, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Genie-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Neo:
The 37mm for 110 works just fine!
Click here to watch Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks (http://media.putfile.com/Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH C'mon Neo! Target: Tanks?

What kind of tanks are that? japanese? or early russian? I cannot recognize them becasue they are too small. try that bf110 3.7 HE shell on some real tanks, and then post a movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

at least on the T-34-76 it works.
test it yourself in QMB, smolensk map, tanks as target.
not ervery hit is a kill, sure, but it works.....

but nevertheless, the 110 with this BK37 is more thought to be a Bomberinterceptor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-08-2006, 05:31 AM
Here NTRK 405 example BF110 with BK37 shooting JS2 .

Camera positions included.

http://rapidshare.de/files/22524869/BF110_BK37vsIS2_405.ntrk.html

carguy_
06-08-2006, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
You can destroy light tanks with HE rounds but not what I would consider "43" armoured tanks till the Henchels replaced the Ju87-G1's, as in IL2 the G1 is pretty much useless in a combat area its hit kill rate is minimal its slow and you have to run like hell at low level to escape, any other Stuka is more effective at tank killing and getting you home if used correctly especially the D5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actualy until early `42 you can destroy Russian tanks with MG151/15 equipped Bf109F2.Safest option ever.

Vrabac
06-08-2006, 05:43 AM
Ju87G not effective against tanks? This is NOT true, I have a lot of offline and online experience with it and I can tell you that you can kill one tank with each pass, except for KV1 and probably JS2 as well, but still KV1 is your worst nightmare since you can go vertical on it and hit and still sometimes it survives. Everyhting else is one shot one kill. Come from rear under angle (30-40 deg), zoom in, press the trigger when sight is over the tank and you're done. Bf110 has more ammo, and it's cannon seems to be just as effective despite obvious HE graphical effect, but it's in my experience terribly unstable and aiming with it is much more difficult so I prefer Ju87G. Ju87G has less ammo, but still enough to kill 10 tanks with misses and mistakes included, and that's more than enough for one sortie.

About FW190 I think it's more or less useless for tank busting with gunpods, tried it out a bit and didn't work. But not much experience with it.

Dtools4fools
06-08-2006, 07:49 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> quote:
Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
IS 2 and IS I
rear armor 60mm at 40-50‚? - no kill, even close up
rear turret 100mm at 30‚? - no kill again
Only top armor possible

T-34/85
rear armor 45mm/45-48‚? just poassible
rear turret 52mm/10‚? well possible
top armor of course



Are those the slope angles as seen from same height ground?

Sloped armor from above = possible perpendicular (zero angle) hit. Check angle to shooter.
Even top armor is steeply sloped to AC in shallow dive. </pre>


Sorry dude, but did you read my entire post?

From further below, very same post:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Fact that tank buster is diving into attack in shallow angle actually lessens the slope effect for armor plate and maybe even IS-2 could be penetrated at rear.
On the other hand Tungsten ammo armor penetration deacreses much hitting sloped armor, not ideal for that kind of job. </pre>

Cheers!

Dtools4fools
06-08-2006, 08:21 AM
CD_kp84yb,

thanks for the ammo drawings‚¬®

Penetration levels seem to be however quite high in my opinion.

For Pak36 with tungsten APCR, MV of 1020m/s
I've got

100m
0‚? - 90mm
30‚? - 65mm
60‚? - 25mm

500m
0‚? - 58mm
30‚? - 42mm
60‚? - 18mm

Even fort the Russian 45mm AT gun, L66 one, Tungsten APCR at 1070m/s

100m
0‚? - 110mm
30‚? - 79mm
60‚? - 27mm

500m
0‚? - 72mm
30‚? - 52mm
60‚? - 19mm

The jump in penetration compared to the increase of MV up to 1150m/s just seems to big to me.
Especially the sloped armor values.
Wonder if shatter gap are included in those numbers.

BTW, I get above numbers from CM, think the guys (redford or whatever his name was, the guy who wrote the book on WWII ballistics and armor) put quite some effort in it to try to get it right.

In any case T-34 should be possible to be KOed by BK 3,7, in fact any tank except maybe IS-2 and KV-I (its smaller raer armor slope actually might defeat hits easier if plane dives in at angle), on those one would need to hit top armor.
Someone mentioned tanks having weaker rear armor; well not all tanks have weaker armor in the rear. Some Russian tanks were designed as "breakthrough tanks" and are well armored all around - T-34 is one example.

Another thought:
Tungsten ammo has no HE filler, so it relys entirely on it's energy to do damge to the tank after penetration. Means if it just barely penetrates the armor and there is little energy left to bounce around inside tank there will be little damage. So not every penetration will result in a KOed tank...
Advantage from hitting form the rear is that you will most likely damage the engine which would put the tank out of action (immobile).
****

Kocur_
06-08-2006, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Ingame Data

[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

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eeexqueezeme!? 90mm front hull armour in T-34/85!? BS! Late T-34/76 did have frontal armour increaced to 60mm, which overstressed front wheels suspension. But in T-34/85 new much bigger, heavier, with thicker frontal armour and much heavier cannon made front wheels suspension FAR overstressed, which was compensated by returning to original 45mm armour.
Well just another case of B(e) S(ure) in "modelling"of Soviet equippment - why should be anyone surprised...

Side 60mm armour!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yeah, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-08-2006, 09:16 AM
Well we would surely be surprised even more with more ingame Data available http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dtools4fools
06-08-2006, 10:14 AM
I have never heard of any T-34 with 60mm hull armor - at any part of the hull, neither front nor side. Nor 90mm hull armor.

To my knowledge it stayed at 45mm (at different angles on different part of hull, but in general well sloped) for all models including T34/85

Turret armor was increased to 52mm all around to 65mm (front)-52mm (rear) in 42 and finally 70mm (front) and 52mm (rear) in 43 models.
34/85 had turret front of 90mm and rear of 52mm.

So mybe that's where those 90mm came from, but that would be "panzerhead" and not "body", no?

I do not know how they incoporate slope of armor as well, however as said: it isn't a tank sim...

Just tried a few Ju87 G missions and after many crashes (I'm certainly not a good pilot and my worn out logitech joystick makes flying almost impossible- need a new one, different brand of course...) finally hit T-34/85.
Once both shells hit in side, in suspension, and the thing stopped moving. Turret still turning, so still alive.
Really liked this!
Second one was three hits, one rear idler, two rear hull plate, tank exploded. Dead.
Seems OK to me...

****

Dtools4fools
06-08-2006, 10:29 AM
BTW, where and how can I look up the above displayed "ingame data"?

There is plenty of mistakes in the tank reviews on IL-2 mainscreen data menu already. Panther 85mm front, PzIVJ 50mm front, T34/85 side 60mm (however front is at 45mm there and only turret at 90mm!), Hetzer rear 20mm, plus quite a few more I saw at a short glance.
Would like to take look into ingame data, don't think it is BS modeeling of Russian tanks, looks like it is spread over tanks from all nations...
*****

Xiolablu3
06-08-2006, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Genie-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
USe the Me110 with 3.7BK cannon instead, a lot more ammo with that gun.

You have to hit the top just behind the turret. Gets easier with practise. Take out the flak first and then ask your teamates for cover over the target, then you are free to keep making 'swings' and taking shots. Try and fly in a loose 'U'shape and you can keep hitting them each pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes children! and of you will be reeaaallyy good Xiolablu3 will even make a track to show you how is he doing that!

now let's all sing along!!

(acustic guitar in the background..)
"Hit the tank, from point blank,
use the HE, and fly fly awaaayyyy..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, I will make a track on how to do it, but there are better shots than me on the server I play on, I did a lot last night with it, shame i didnt see this post before that.

I will make a track tonight and post it. (I bet I cant hit a thing with it now, knowing it has to be tracked http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)

Lewicide
06-09-2006, 12:14 AM
Any thoughts on convergence and engagement range on those T34's (for the stuka G1)?

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 02:29 AM
Depends what range you want to shoot from. Probably around 350 is a good convergeance for cannon.

BUT - I dont see any benefit really over the Me110 with BK37 by using the Stuka.

1. YOu are much more vulnerbale to fighters in the Stuka as its so slow.
2. You must still hit the top of the tank
3. YOu only get 12 rounds in the Stuka. Witht he Me110 you get loads.


Lewicide - watch the track I posted, you still need to use this technique for the Stuka in order to hit the top of the tank.

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

Try and aim for the engine, just behind the turret. Hope this helps.

Vrabac
06-09-2006, 04:04 AM
It's all true, but for me it's very hard to aim with 110 so I do many useless passes (meaning I'm there longer and fighters have longer time to find me), Stuka is way more stable and much easier to aim. It also means it easier to crash with 110 if you don't have a lot of experience (like me for example, it's really dangerous thing for me to do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) Also it's in my experience not neccesary to hit a certain spot, just hit the tank itself from rear and under sufficient angle.

Convergence at around 300 meters, yes. T34s should be one pass one kill really, so should Shermans and SU100 and similar assault guns.

Dtools4fools
06-09-2006, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. You must still hit the top of the tank </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this?
The one tank kill I achieved yesterday in practising was hits on rear and side plate of T34/85. Big explosion.

Approach was quite shallow angle. Convergence was set at 200m, put two holes into the rear plate, one left, one right, so obviously 250-300m would be better.

****

JtD
06-09-2006, 08:30 AM
The Ju-87 has advantages over the 110. 1st off, it is more maneuverable and can this way evade enemy fighters. It also allows for shorter firing distances. 2nd, it is a smaller targets, both for AAA and enemy fighters. 3rd it can take more punishment, 4th and probably most important, it has a much better handling allowing for more precise shooting. Also, as a sidenote, it's slower speed allows for a longer approach and also for more precise shooting.

All in all it is more effective than the 110 in tank attack missions, I'd say about 50%. This also means less time over targets and thus a smaller likelyhood of intervening enemy fighters.

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 08:46 AM
Sorry I do not have much experience with the Stuka cannon, only a few sortie, but I hit tanks with it in various places and found it exactly the same as the single 3.7mm on the Me110, so I never used it much again.

I hit tanks with every single shot and didnt take one single tank out using the Stuka, which is why I didnt really use it again. Maybe your guys experience is different, I will have to try it again.

BBB_Hyperion
06-09-2006, 09:48 AM
The 110 is more effective.

In old times i had 1000 tank kills a week with the ju87g.
It was a very stable and good turning plane. That changed with some of the patches and it was never restored to old abilites. Ju87G2 was never inserted nor the dive brakes were added on g1.
I really like the JU87 but it is pretty much outdated vs late war fighters even more outdated than the 110.

Advantages 110
-Speed
-Single Central Mounted Gun(For Aimpoint)
-AMMO
&gt;&gt;Time over Target

Disadvantages
-Bad low speed handling


Advantages JU87
-Manouever
-Lower Attack Speed

Disadvantages
-Long time to target
-Ammo Limit
-Pullout harder

Xiolablu3
06-09-2006, 10:47 AM
Great flying with you last night Hyperion, you are on my 'track' hitting the tanks at the same time as me, we nearly collide at one point :P

I was impressed how we cleared the target area of fighters and finally won the map by killing all the tanks, a real team effort http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lewicide
06-09-2006, 04:49 PM
I am considering doing a second install specifically for the Ju87G1 and tank hunting.
Which patch is the best for this?

I will also try the using 110 more, killed a couple of T34's (engine deck shots) with it last night.

Curiously, killed a T34 with the Ju87 using a shallow (very) dive and shots to the rear of the turret (using the static object T34).

Thanks for all the advice and responses.

For some reason I thought that historically, a Ju87G1 attack was a shallow dive hence no dive brakes?

JtD
06-10-2006, 05:23 AM
Ju-87 would attack almost level for easiest aiming. The 37mm was capable of penetrating 100some mm of armor, meaning it would go right through a T-34 at most angles. Historically there was no need to dive.

Genie-
06-10-2006, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Depends what range you want to shoot from. Probably around 350 is a good convergeance for cannon.

BUT - I dont see any benefit really over the Me110 with BK37 by using the Stuka.

1. YOu are much more vulnerbale to fighters in the Stuka as its so slow.
2. You must still hit the top of the tank
3. YOu only get 12 rounds in the Stuka. Witht he Me110 you get loads.


Lewicide - watch the track I posted, you still need to use this technique for the Stuka in order to hit the top of the tank.

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

Try and aim for the engine, just behind the turret. Hope this helps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3 is right until the point where he saids that you can hit the engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. After I have seen in this track that you can kill tanks with BK3.7 I have tried it for myself.. and..here are the results:

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8846/grab00114gy.jpg

here are the colums of tanks.. yes!!

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4820/grab00012uf.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3356/grab00021gt.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8167/grab00031mp.jpg

here is my first pass and as you can see you can hit the engine.. but...

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6539/grab00043xx.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5884/grab00052ov.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9420/grab00069mb.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8268/grab00070mx.jpg

few more passes and hits and still nothing!!! I'm getting little frustrated....

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/7173/grab00089eq.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9597/grab00099pm.jpg

more hits and still nothing!!!! ARGGHHHH!!!

then I have decided to go under a higher angle...

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8846/grab00114gy.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6026/grab00121ak.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4479/grab00136ee.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9198/grab00149wm.jpg

still nothing!!!! maaamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

now I'm really pissed off and going even MORE higher!

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/1761/grab00154dg.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4039/grab00163og.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5788/grab00176oq.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4794/grab00187oo.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9332/grab00214rf.jpg

and FINNALY a kill..

and here is the angle..

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9905/grab00220pt.jpg

AND directly in top part of the turret

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3452/grab00233jk.jpg

let's try another one.. immidiatly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/463/grab00243cf.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/5593/grab00264ng.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/982/grab00275ds.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6210/grab00289xd.jpg

ah yes.... finally...

so.. hit the top! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6176/grab00297ba.jpg

ah yes.. story is not over...

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/420/grab00336ot.jpg

II CANN FLLYYYYYYY , II CANN FEEELL THEE SKKKYYYYYY, I CANN KIILLL THE ....

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3121/grab00343xg.jpg

woosshhhhhhhhh!! ...

That was close...

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/8007/grab00358cw.jpg

BANG!!! one shot... PK http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9322/grab00373xt.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/952/grab00380kg.jpg

bye bye :P

Xiolablu3
06-10-2006, 09:08 AM
YOu are simply not at a high enough angle in the first shots.

See on my track that I come in at 45 degrees or above. Also I meant hit the engine just behind the turret coming in from the top. Sometimes turret hits kill, but not on the later tanks like the JS2. I am pretty sure you have to hit the eninge behind the turret on these later tanks. YOu must always be higher than 45 degrees to kill unless they are damaged already.

Oh and always take he flak out first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KG26_Alpha
06-10-2006, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Ju-87 would attack almost level for easiest aiming. The 37mm was capable of penetrating 100some mm of armor, meaning it would go right through a T-34 at most angles. Historically there was no need to dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point from the begining.

Ju87G1 in IL2 is wrong.

read the previous posts

Dtools4fools
06-10-2006, 09:40 AM
Need for a top hit to kill IS-2 seems to be perfectly OK to me.
And even for T-34 with its highly sloped armor coming in from very low the tungsten ammo will have problems to penetrate. A 40‚? dive should improve kill chance much.


A bit OT, but what you guys think of the AA attempts of the tanks?

I have never heard of tanks trying to put up coordinated AA efforts and trying to shoot down attacking planes...

*****

Xiolablu3
06-10-2006, 11:05 AM
Genie, I have seen on your pics that you say you are hitting the engine, but the front is not the engine! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The engine is BEHIND the turret. (the grating you can see from the top)

Dtools4fools
06-10-2006, 12:31 PM
But except for the first overflight he is hitting the rear of the T-34's...????
If the turret is turned around in AA fashion to shoot at attack plane coming in from rear, then engine still stays in rear and is....in front of tank cannon....?

Data for 42mm Pak41, Tungsten APCR at 1256m/sec MV, which should be a slightly more powerful gun the BK 3,7 is:

100m
0‚? - 117mm
30‚? - 84mm
60‚? - 30mm

500m
0‚? - 87mm
30‚? - 63mm
24‚? - 24mm

Now the 45mm/42-48‚? sloped rear plate of T34 will be just at the edge for penetration at range around 300m at low level attack. If coming in on a dive it should be easily penetrated up to 500m.

Question is how is this modeled in the game? Or is it at all?

****

Xiolablu3
06-10-2006, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
But except for the first overflight he is hitting the rear of the T-34's...????
* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he is not at a high enough angle in those shots.

JtD
06-10-2006, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:

Now the 45mm/42-48‚? sloped rear plate of T34 will be just at the edge for penetration at range around 300m at low level attack. If coming in on a dive it should be easily penetrated up to 500m. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The sides of the 34 are just as thinly armored and almost present a right angle to attacking ac.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Question is how is this modeled in the game? Or is it at all? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg once said that in the code they simply adjusted armor thickness to represent the effects of angled armor. I am not sure if this is still true, as my experience is different. It could be, however, that the higher angle simply allows for a larger likelyhood of hitting the thinly armored top.

Dtools4fools
06-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Right, lower hull is 45mm at almost no angle, so if plane comes in shallow should be easy to penetrate. Upper ull is again 45‚? slope.

So if it is all adjusted to 0‚? it would mean that shallow attack is better - IF angle of attack of the bullet (the angle the shell hits the armor) is modeled. Dunno about that either..

If it is not modeled at all then angles just do not matter at all - except that from steeper angle you might more likely hits on the vulerable top as you said.
*****

CD_kp84yb
06-10-2006, 04:14 PM
Hi

Been away for awhile.

OK for the word tungsten, my oops cos wolfram is the old name for it, lol never thought about that.

Cheers.

Ok never compare totaly different type of guns and ammo, its not only the muzzle velocity that counts , but the mass of the core and its speed how it behaves,The BK3.7 had a longer barrel and a bigger case.
When comparing a BK3.7 take the 3.7 cm Flak 18 or 43, from those guns it was developed. They could both fire AP rounds when acting in groundfire role

Well the 3.7mm Pak when using HK was a big pain in the *** above 300 meters when using Hartkern (hard core) ammo, you can see it in the intro page of the Beschusstabel (manual that comes with the gun).

The penetration for the 3.7 pak 36 in my books and docs gave

3.7 Pz.GR 100m=34mm 600m=27mm
3.7 Pz.GR40 100m=64mm 600m=22.5mm

the hartkern had a big drop above 300m due to the fact its core was light (lost speed rapidly)
here is the manual

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel1a.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel1b.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel2.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel3.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/tabel4.jpg

Now i have never seen such a table for the BK3.7, but i will search for it, but as its not a fieldgun (PAK) im afraid there is no such table.
The 42mm Pak 41 is not a good one either to compare, cos its not a 42mm gun but a 29mm gun.
Its barrel widt started with 42 and ended in 29mm, so again a light weight core.
You can see this when looking to the data.(According to the data i have)
V0= 1265m/sec
Max range 7000meter
100m=100mm (4.2cm PzGr.patr 41
1000m= 40mm (dito)
max shots for barrel 1000


Btw the drawing i gave earlier the discription gives that its not only the core that does the trick but also the Aluminium magnesium cover and the body of AL-Cu-Mg that helps by how its discriped in German" Duch****swirkung mit Brandwirkung durch schmelzen der Leichtmetallhulle"

The core was only usefull against clean armour, when the armour was covered by plates the core mostly broke up.

So far the discription with a rough translation.



regards

Dtools4fools
06-10-2006, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ok never compare totaly different type of guns and ammo, its not only the muzzle velocity that counts , but the mass of the core and its speed how it behaves,The BK3.7 had a longer barrel and a bigger case.
When comparing a BK3.7 take the 3.7 cm Flak 18 or 43, from those guns it was developed. They could both fire AP rounds when acting in groundfire role </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Kind of agree with this.
But hey, somehow we have to compare and as you said it will be difficult to get stats on the BK 3,7.
So by looking at the difference in the guns and comparing them with other similar guns (OK the squeeze bore is quite different) like the Russian 45 and the Pak36 we can kind of "guess" the performance of the Flak.
To me it seems those 140mm seem to be very high. Like if I look at the difference of Pak36 firing AP and Tungsten, I see an increase of performance let's say of 50%. So if Flak18 goes from AP to Tungsten and performance then goes up by 100%, then this sounds a little strange to me...especially the long range performance as I mentioned earlier (we see that Tungsten 3,7mm of Pak36 drops rapidly at 300m)
Now how much heavier was the Tungsten 37mm shot used in the Flak18?
MV is around 100m/s faster. And by how much will this increase penetration?

If Pak36 AP is 51mm/0‚? and MV 740m/s and Tungsten for that gun 90mm (+76%) and MV 1020 (+37%)
then how come
Flak 18 goes from AP 53mm/0‚? and 770m/s
to
Tungsten 140mm (almost +200%!!!!) and 1150m/s (+49%)
Up in MV seems to be in line with Pak36; up in penetration seems not to be. All that difference because of different shot?
Personally I doubt it.

The comments of "Duch****swirkung mit Brandwirkung durch Schmelzen der Leichtmetallh√ľlle" sounds to me more a positive effect helping to do damage to the tank after penetration, but not that actually acively helps to improve penetration. It sounds like "Penetration effect with fire effect due to Alu" to me. Which is a good thing to have as a 37mm shot who has not much energy left is not the greatest thing to do damage inside the tank.


What I agree is above drawings: Pak36 is able to penetrate at 100m T-34 armor at said spots (dead on on curved turret front, lower side hull with little slope, dunno about turret sides and rear however). At 100m!
In this case Tungsten in Flak18 could be able to perform similar out to 300m. Possible, but sure no easy kill.

Didn't Rudel write "T-34's are more difficult to destroy than American tanks"? This is reflected in above profiles (albeit the Sherman profile is just calculated) and means NOT EASY...


Now we need some gifted pilots who take screenies of Ju87G shooting (and hitting, not like me missing all the time...) at rear of T-34 at 300m max.
Just go to arcade mode and set a plane next to the tank on the ground to it to get distance...
****

JtD
06-11-2006, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Duchschlagswirkung mit Brandwirkung durch Schmelzen der Leichtmetallh√ľlle </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

contains the meaning "melting through". So this phrase is also about ap capabilites.

I'd also like to say that I picked a G-1 for fun yesterday, hunting T-34's. Found out:

You can destroy them when attacking from the side, low, I just needed multiple hits.

Angles do matter, I hit the top at an angle of say 5-10‚? and did not destroy that tank. Same issue, if you attack the 45‚? side armor with low angle of attack you will get worse results.

Xiolablu3
06-11-2006, 01:00 AM
Main reason I wont take the Ju87 for tankbusting is the lack of ammo.

Even if you can kill a Tank a little eaiser with the Ju87's gun, you have to run backwards and forward to base and back in order to a kill a lot of tanks.

A couple of good Me110 pilots with good fighter cover can win a map. They can kill 20 tanks per run if they get uninterupted attacks.

On the map I made that track on, (I think you were on the server at the time JTD) It took a lot of effort to clear the target area of fighters, but we did it using teamwork (FW190A6/Me109G6late Vs La5FN is never easy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) Then we organised some fighter cover while me and BBB HYperion hammered the tanks in Me110's. We won the map with time to spare by killing ground targets on the first Me110 sortie.

If we had tried with Stuka's we would have had to keep running back to base for ammo, which would have taken us out of the area with fighter cover into dangerous runs back to base.

I will always prefer Me110 I think, purely because a)you are more likely to reach the targets as you are much faster. and b)You have so much more ammo which is just as capable of killing a tank in one pass as the Stuka if you use the correct technique.

Kernow
06-11-2006, 07:03 AM
Trying the G-1 against T-34s I seem to remember I came to the conclusion you needed both rounds to hit the side/rear for a kill. When one round hit, but the round from the other gun missed they tended to survive. These were low angle attacks.

From the shots posted above with the 110 making steep attacks, I reckon one round kills if it hits the top armour, but 2 are needed against the side/rear armour.

Although the Il-2 with NS-37s was able to penetrate the top armour on Tigers, I've never managed to kill one, even by hitting the armour over the engine. Maybe a really steep dive would result in a kill, but for real the IL-2 was limited to 30 degrees and this seems a max practicable angle in game. It can kill lighter tanks from the side/rear, however.

I believe many RL Stuka pilots prefered bombs for tank killing; not everyone was as good a shot as Rudel. And, as was normal practice, the D versions were normally sent along to suppress enemy flak.

Dtools4fools
06-11-2006, 09:20 AM
JtD,

n√¬∂√¬∂, Junge...!!!!

"Durchschlagswirkung mit Brandwirkung durch Schmelzen der Leichtmetallh√ľlle"

ist was anderes als...

"Durchschlagswirkung mittles Brandwirkung und durchschmelzen der Leichtmetallh√ľlle"

Es ist eine "Durchschlagswirkung mit der Erscheinzung einer Brandwirkung durch das Schmelzen der Aluminiumh√ľlle"; die Aluminiumh√ľlle schmilzt wegen des Aufpralls des Geschoss und verursacht somit die Brandwirkung im innern des Panzers.

There is no "melting through" in this phrase.

it says "Penetration effect WITH fire effect cause by (through) melting of Aluminum hull"

Not "melting through", not "durchschmelzen". Different word.

No HEAT round here either...


You might hit the nail on the head with the double hits required to knock out tanks. With my worn out stick I was able to score only twice double hits on T-34; both low passes, once simultaneous hits on lower side hull, tank was immobile. Second time low attack again, two hits on sloped rear plate, tank expolded.

If angle of attack is modeled then coming in at 45‚? one should be able to penetrate sloped rear hull plate easily as well. However the engine cover presents a much larger and more vulnerable target at that angle so no need for aiming at rear plate.

Overall I think it is good if the medium and heavy tanks aren't too easy to kill (and maybe the 110 is too strong if you can get 20 tanks per sortie...). Maybe lot of people think tank busters are too weak as they believe the claims of the tank buster/ground attack planes. Massive overclaiming gives a distorted picture here.


BTW, found this on the CM forum (http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm):

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> DT,

Since you mentioned it...

quote:Originally posted by dieseltaylor:
I have below a Russian link but as I do not read Russian it is a little wasted on me. It is lengthy and possibly has Russian information.

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/bww2/ju87g.html

(SNIP!)

Tank-destroying Ju-87 G planes were widely used on the Eastern front, especially in the battles of Kursky Duga. The Ju-87 G-2 was the aircraft flown by the famous German pilot, Heintz Ulriech Rudel - he alone destroyed 519 units of enemy armored vehicles."

I read Russian and looked at the site. It is a fairly detailed description the development and fielding of the Ju-87G Stuka.

The site appears to be run by two aviation enthusiasts somewhere in Russia. Here is the list of sources cited at the bottom of the Ju-87G article (I have translated the Russian-languages sources cited):

Aviation and Aerospace, A. Perov and A. Restrenin
Aviation and Aerospace, A. Demin
Wings of the Motherland, S. Tsvetkov
Combat Aircraft, A. Medved'
Wings of the Luftwaffe, William Green
Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, LuftArchiv.de. Squadron/Signal. AC No: 73.
Ju 87 Stuka in Action, Brian Filley.
Ju 87 Stuka, Aero technika lotnicza.
Ju 87 Stuka
AJ Press. Monografie lotnicze. Marek Murawski.
Junkers Ju 87 Stuka, Start-Verlag, Bad Zwischenahn.

As to the article's contents, it is almost as if JasonC had written it. The article is quite long so here some of the high points or assertations that seem to me to be pertinant to this discussion:

1. The Ju87G-1 had more armor than the standard Stuka, speficially, a 20mm plate behind the pilot.
2. The plane had no MGs, although sometimes a 20mm remained installed. If it was there it was used as an aimer for the 37mm.
3. The plane's slow speed and lack of maneuverablity made it an excellent gun platform.
4. The plane was incapable of performing a dive attack. Gun runs were at an angle of 10-12‚?. To get a roof hit the plane required 30‚? or more - an impossible task for the plane given the weight of the cannon and the need to get the cannon close to the target. Also, the plane had no dive brakes.
5. Pulling out of even the shallow gun run was physically difficult for the pilot.
6. The 3.7mm AT gun's practical rate of fire was 1 rounds every two seconds.
7. The maximum number of rounds fired in a gun run was one or two rounds.
8. Strong recoil made a second shot practically impossible without realigning the aircraft on target.
9. The plane's 3.7 cm gun needed to be under 200m. from the front of a T-34 tank to have a chance of pentrating it at normal attack aspects. For flank attacks the distance was 400m.
11. The plane did not threaten Soviet tanks with roof hits, because as a practical matter the plane only could attack in a shallow dive.
12. Due to shell flight speed the plane had between 1.3 and 4.4 seconds to fire. (Fire too soon and you won't penetrate, fire too late and the rounds impact past the tank.)
13. Even if the round hits and penetrates, it's a dinky 37mm round, and T-34 generally laughed off hits from that weapon.
14. T-34/85 was, naturally, more resistant.
15. Soviet statisticians estimated the chances of a Ju-87G1 actually making a KO hit on a Soviet tank in combat conditions as between 2 and 3 per cent per sortie, if it actually attacked and expended all its ammunition against a Soviet tank.
16. Thus, the Soviets figured it took 40-50 Ju87G sorties to destroy a single T-34.
17. The key to effective use of the Ju87G was exceptional pilot skill, as an average pilot would just miss.
18. Field experience by the air group "Weiss" and "Panzerversuchskommando" on the Kuban led the Germans to conclude that even if the pilots of the planes were first rate, the only time AT aircraft like Ju87G or Hs-129B would do any good at all would be in massed aircraft attacks, in a very "target-rich" environment, free of Soviet AAA.
19. German claims of tank kills using these aircraft were inflated to the point of absurdity.

Here is the full text of the web site's review of the Luftwaffe's AT experience at Kursk:


"...Hauptmann Rudel announced that on the first day of battle, 5 July, he destroyed twelve Soviet tanks. What's more four of those, by his own words, were destroyed in the first sortie. In all German pilots claimed they destroyed 64 Red Army tanks.

On 7 July 1942 the pilots of StG77, StG2 –¬ł Sch.G1 reported they destroyed 44 tanks, 20 cannon, and roughly 50 light vehicles. In the course of 8 July the pilots of these same squadrons and anti-tank groups claimed damage or destruction to 88 tanks, 5 artillery and 3 AAA cannon, 2 M-13 rocket launchers, and around 40 light vehicles. What's more, more than 80 units of Soviet armored vehicles were allegedly destroyed by the Hs129B of FuPz.

We note that the claims of the German pilots of destruction of Soviet tanks were, as was the case for most other ground targets, supported by nothing more than the pilots' own words. In the majority of the aircraft gun cameras were absent, and if they were present, they showed only the the fact of firing, the strike of shells onto a tank. As one would expect, the real losses of Soviet tankers from bombs and gunfire of German aviation in reality was distinctly more modest, than is characterized in the reports of German pilots.

According to the staff reports of the Soviet 1st Tank Army of the Voronezh Front, against which were active the squadrons from FuPz, the irreversible combat losses of T-34 from enemy aviation, from the period of 5 to 20 July 1943, was a total 7 combat vehicles.

This was 1.6 per cent of all T-34 losses for the period. Moreover, Luftwaffe bombs or aerial cannon destroyed around 30 light T-60 or T-70 tanks. The combat losses of units and formations of the entire central front from bomb attacks by German aviation from July to August 1943 was 187 tanks and assault guns of all types, or 6.3 per cent of all losses. Of these, given Soviet repair averages, roughly 70 tanks were irreversibly lost and written off as a result of these attacks.

19. The article goes on to point out that the German air units suffered significant losses to achieve this result, for instance 30 per cent casualties in FuPz in 11 days of combat, and 89 per cent losses over 8 months of combat by StG2 (Ju-87)
20. Kursk was especially dangerous for the best fliers in Ju-87 units on AT duty. StG2 lost 2 squadron commanders, six wing commanders, and two group adjutants during the battle - ten pilots with a total 600 combat flights under their belts. The German officer cited for this is the StG2 commander E. Kupfer.</pre>

Topic is here (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004196;p=3)
****

BBB_Hyperion
06-11-2006, 10:30 AM
Well like US Websites you need to take this reports with a grain of salt in general this is a good idea for everything .

Tank kills is a topic of it's own. Normaly a tank kill is 100 % when the tank is burning. Russian and German field repair teams were very good and were able to repair most tanks. So for example 10 tanks taken out on the day . 1 total destroyed ,2 for replacement parts and 7 tanks repaired in the field etc.

Reliable damage reports for day by day action cant be found neither on russian or german side. (Specialy for units in Combat)

On the other hand when you saw a tugsten core hit in the engine section you could be sure that when you hit on close range that it got in the engine. But it was not possible to know what kind of damage it was.

The dive breaks on ju87g maybe were present on rudels prototype plane.
IIRC there is a description in the book using the dive breaks to slow down for the tank attack for aiming.

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 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 BBB_Hyperion:
Well like US Websites you need to take this reports with a grain of salt in general this is a good idea for everything .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not like websites from other places that always have full truth and never exaggerate.

CD_kp84yb
06-11-2006, 12:31 PM
Hi

For the gun we have in game i know for sure its the BK3.7 based on the 3.7cm Flak18, and not the one based on the flak 43. The later had a higher rate of fire and was used in the Me 110 and the Me 410 after 1.6.1944.the test where positiv and 3 x110 and 2 410 were equiped with this gun.
A Me 410 was send on combat (dont know what target) and was shot down Wrknr 10241.

The 3.7 Flak 18 and 43 never fired Tungsten core as AP. The special ammo was only used in the BK guns , Her is the AP round for the normal 3,7 cm Flak 18,36,37 and 43.

3.7cm Panzergranat-patrone 18
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/flak37ammo.jpg

it also could fire (the normal flak 3,7 that is)
Sprenggranat-patrone 18 mit oder ohne leuchtspur
Brand-sprenggranat mit oder ohne leuchtspur
or gluh spur

There also was a Minengranat-patrone but it was still tested by Truppenversuchsamt by 31.5.1944. and there is no date when it was listed in service , so there is doubt it was used, imho not used.

Btw in those pics the raise of the gun of the T34 is awfull steep, hehe almost 60 to 70 degrees , nice one in this game.

Im still looking for more data on the BK3.7 AP round,, otherwise in a few months i sure have.

regards

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 12:43 PM
When I see things like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:

100m

140mm/0 angle
90mm/30 angle
40mm/60 angle

500m
90mm/0 angle
60mm/30 angle
&gt;30mm/60 angle
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coupled with this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
rear armor 60mm at 40-50‚? - no kill, even close up
rear turret 100mm at 30‚? - no kill again
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It causes me to note that angle of dive is not taken into consideration at least for THAT.
How else 'no kill'?

60mm rear armor should be possible from 500m in a 10 to 20 degree dive by the 1st part.

I do not understand how later notes about dive angle makes the no kill parts true so I made
that reply including quote of exactly what I referred to. Perhaps trimmed down it is more
clear?

Dtools4fools
06-11-2006, 04:52 PM
Max,

I agree with you. Those first "no kills" are no considering the angle of dive.

In the very same post I later wrote:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Fact that tank buster is diving into attack in shallow angle actually lessens the slope effect for armor plate and maybe even IS-2 could be penetrated at rear.
On the other hand Tungsten ammo armor penetration deacreses much hitting sloped armor, not ideal for that kind of job. </pre>

If coming in in dive angle one will hit the plate dead on (more or less) and now kill should be no problem.

What I meant with second part, Tungsten hitting armor from an angle, it seems that those armor penetrations there SEEM to high. They overall SEEM to high to me compared to similar guns.

Dtools4fools
06-11-2006, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sloped armor from above = possible perpendicular (zero angle) hit. Check angle to shooter.
Even top armor is steeply sloped to AC in shallow dive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That's actually what I meant with this:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">Fact that tank buster is diving into attack in shallow angle actually lessens the slope effect for armor plate and maybe even IS-2 could be penetrated at rear. </pre>

Not arguing about this.
Just poor English on my side I guess...

****

F16_Neo
06-11-2006, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Genie-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Neo:
The 37mm for 110 works just fine!
Click here to watch Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks (http://media.putfile.com/Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH C'mon Neo! Target: Tanks?

What kind of tanks are that? japanese? or early russian? I cannot recognize them becasue they are too small. try that bf110 3.7 HE shell on some real tanks, and then post a movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do T-34/85's qualify?
Just tried 4 AI's... four hits four kills... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Angle is everything.

WWMaxGunz
06-11-2006, 09:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Max,

I agree with you. Those first "no kills" are no considering the angle of dive.

In the very same post I later wrote:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Fact that tank buster is diving into attack in shallow angle actually lessens the slope effect for armor plate and maybe even IS-2 could be penetrated at rear.
On the other hand Tungsten ammo armor penetration deacreses much hitting sloped armor, not ideal for that kind of job. </pre>

If coming in in dive angle one will hit the plate dead on (more or less) and now kill should be no problem.

What I meant with second part, Tungsten hitting armor from an angle, it seems that those armor penetrations there SEEM to high. They overall SEEM to high to me compared to similar guns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I wasn't taking issue with your post, just the part I quoted nothing more.

Tanks DM is simplified as we all know for one. The tank guns that can track and hit you
with high deflection are because the AAMG's are not modelled, the tracers would kill the
framerate quicker than the tank guns (which include 20mm-37mm AAA tanks) get you. What
is not shown and may be considered in the tanks DM is for AAMG to fire the top hatch must
be open, nyet? So how much bullet or shell can go through hatch and gunner and still
cause ammo inside to explode? In a case like that, high total rate of fire (all guns)
will find the hole more often.

Xiolablu3
06-12-2006, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Neo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Genie-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F16_Neo:
The 37mm for 110 works just fine!
Click here to watch Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks (http://media.putfile.com/Bf-110G2--37mm-vs-tanks) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH C'mon Neo! Target: Tanks?

What kind of tanks are that? japanese? or early russian? I cannot recognize them becasue they are too small. try that bf110 3.7 HE shell on some real tanks, and then post a movie. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do T-34/85's qualify?
Just tried 4 AI's... four hits four kills... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif
Angle is everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are T34/85's being killed with one shot in the ttrack I posted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think you can kill any soviet tanks with that gun as long as you come down at a steep enough angle, I am sure I have killed JS2's.

Lewicide
06-12-2006, 01:17 AM
Is there any variation between patches in the killing power of the 37mm cannon on the Ju87G1 as some have noted?

BBB_Hyperion
06-12-2006, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Well like US Websites you need to take this reports with a grain of salt in general this is a good idea for everything .
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not like websites from other places that always have full truth and never exaggerate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never did found one containing the ultimate truth(if there is one unbiased) but most likely it is not found on any countries involved in the conflict .) That are namely USA,Russia,UK,Germany etc.

There are many agendas and knowledge bases standing behind websites.Some websites use
picture material and use their own interpretation what is to be seen there.

Like the infamous 50s vs tiger tank video were 2 Jagdpanther can be seen and fuel trailers explode . No proof that the tank was damaged at all even when it wasnt a tiger as claimed.

Or the picture of a badly hit tiger that was used as shooting practice target claimed as battlefield result.

Or B17 Gunners shooting down more planes then ever were available.

etc

When there are 2 main intrest sides describing the use of a equipment part it is preferable to use both
views to get an overview , but usage experience of the equipment can only be taken from that side that actualy used it. Else that would be the same as asking your neighbour how driving your car is from just seeing it and maybe 1 testdrive.

Xiolablu3
06-12-2006, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:


Never did found one containing the ultimate truth(if there is one unbiased) but most likely it is not found on any countries involved in the conflict .) . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, although UK usually tells the most truth http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif (Guess where I am from?)

Dtools4fools
06-12-2006, 09:12 AM
Like in that Hurricane flick?

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

Lewicide
06-13-2006, 06:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is there any variation between patches in the killing power of the 37mm cannon on the Ju87G1 as some have noted? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just asking again as some have suggested this in this thread.

BBB_Hyperion
06-13-2006, 08:13 AM
BK37 changed ammo to tugsten in a patch that is the only change done to this gun. JU87 manouevering changed in 2. something iirc. Not that it is of any use to use that old versions anymore.

Xiolablu3
06-13-2006, 10:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Like in that Hurricane flick?

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

Oh come on DTools, everyone knows that the Hurricane really far outclassed the Me109F. UK is immune from propaganda so it has to be true!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Did you not see how easily it outmanouvred 'that German Plane' in the clip? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

WWMaxGunz
06-14-2006, 04:49 AM
typical mistake, the planes do not fly themselves. It is the pilots who win or lose.

Lewicide
06-14-2006, 07:04 AM
You can smack T34's with the traditional low dive approach on the side armor with the Ju87G1. Just did a 3 out of 3, convergence at 200m starting a run at 200m altitude about 800m away, aiming just above or at the turret,boom!

Very nice when it works, the Bf110 =3.7 can't do side armor........I think.

Dtools4fools
06-14-2006, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Like in that Hurricane flick?

Big Grin



Oh come on DTools, everyone knows that the Hurricane really far outclassed the Me109F. UK is immune from propaganda so it has to be true!! Wink Veryhappy

Did you not see how easily it outmanouvred 'that German Plane' in the clip? Tongue Googly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, don't remember that part, didn't watch the clip to the end...
First part was so bad, acvtually on par what I would expect from the "Wochenschau", that I decided not no watch 'till the end.

Hope the told the actual Pilots of the Hurri II different story...otherwise they would probably find out quickly themselves...the hard way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

****

Xiolablu3
06-15-2006, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
Like in that Hurricane flick?

Big Grin



Oh come on DTools, everyone knows that the Hurricane really far outclassed the Me109F. UK is immune from propaganda so it has to be true!! Wink Veryhappy

Did you not see how easily it outmanouvred 'that German Plane' in the clip? Tongue Googly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, don't remember that part, didn't watch the clip to the end...
First part was so bad, acvtually on par what I would expect from the "Wochenschau", that I decided not no watch 'till the end.

Hope the told the actual Pilots of the Hurri II different story...otherwise they would probably find out quickly themselves...the hard way... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

**** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The movie was for the home front, the pilots knew the shortcomings of the Hurricane themselves http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It still did OK for an out of date fighter tho. 4x20mm are dangerous on any plane and the Hurri was good enough to be very dangerous to the 109F if it had a height advantage. I have shot many many 109F's down in a Hurricane online in the 'inferior' plane.

They had to keep morale up at home to keep the workers producing weapons at a high rate, and it worked.

The plane it 'outmanouvred' in the clip was a Ju88 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif To be fair, I am guessing the thinking was that the Hurricane was for shooting down the bombers, and thats why they gave it 4x20mm cannon and showed it attacking a Ju88. It was the commentator claiming it 'outperformed the German machine' who added that comment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Every country does this kind of thing. You know yourself form this forum that the P51 and B17 won the war!

The Iraq war was over when they pulled the statue down, can you remember? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I wouldnt worry about the soldiers on the ground believing that sh*t, they know the score.

Kernow
06-15-2006, 07:38 AM
And, as we were talking of tank-killing cannon, the Hurri IIc was very good at attacking ground targets including tanks. Although the 40 mm gun was needed in the desert for some of the later German tanks, against the lighter Japanese tanks and vehicles the Hurri IIc proved effective into 44 at least (45?), although I think bombs were its main air-ground weapon.

Dtools4fools
06-15-2006, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Hurri was good enough to be very dangerous to the 109F if it had a height advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell, almost any fighter plane with an altitude advantage and -even better- an unsuspecting opponent will make the day...
Of course this does not make the plane better than it is...
Same when Knoke goes in with his flight of 18 109G's from high and in the sun on a pack of around 60 P-51's. 12 dead P-51's and 1 dead 109 (pilot bailed out). It just doesn't mean 109G is better than P-51...
Likewise 12 Hurris sure are better than one 109F. But still it does not make the Hurri a better plane than a 109F...

I mean I'm pretty sure on a 1:1 dogfight with no altitude adavantage for either side I would choose the...Hurri II after watching this flick... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well, I'm shocked, Ju88 being outmaouvered by a Hurri II...what a great achievement of Brithis aircraft design... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Overall I was amazed as I thought such exaggerating propaganda was the privilege for the Nazi and Communist dictatorships during WWII, but obviously it was all over...

*****

Xiolablu3
06-15-2006, 02:17 PM
What I meant by that comment is that th Hurricane was not THAT much slower than the 109.

With a bit of height on its side it could easily fight 1:1.

Other planes such as the Brewster or Gladiaotr would have a tough time ven with an alt advantage.

Mate, propaganda and spin is all over the world and used by EVERY governent TODAY not just in WW2. You shouldnt be so shocked at the Hurri documentry, look a little deeper into your leaders speeches (I dont know where you are from) and you will see what I mean.

Dtools4fools
06-18-2006, 07:29 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">You shouldnt be so shocked at the Hurri documentry, look a little deeper into your leaders speeches (I dont know where you are from) and you will see what I mean.
</pre>
Sure you are right here; "politics is nothing bzut lies" as grandpa said once...

Living in Switzerland, btw; we got seven of those dudes here, don't have the time to listen to everything they say. it's hard enough to follow what one is saying...talking is their business, no?
not too much interested as I'm around in the country for only 5 months per years anyway...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hurri II against 109 very much depends what 109... if 109F as in the flic than it is a very large speed difference I would say...wouldn't want to do more than one pass from above....stay in dive and leave ASAP...

But then, I wouldn't want to have any plane above me, not even a Gladiator.
Nor a Spit, even if flying a 262...

*****