For MudMovers: What kind of tanks cannot be destroyed with Mk103?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Yes, you can destroy them from the rear, but actually in RL, they penetrated even the turret sides, although, the pilots don't realize it, so they tended to favor the bombs against this canon, but infantry reports stated that they were quite deadly on T34's turret, in the battle of Kharkov 1942.

The pilots realized this fact very well. I can supply you with books about it.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by swiss

The pilots realized this fact very well. I can supply you with books about it.

Sources are always welcome!

Still, from what I can remember, the very few Hs129 with a 30mm installed on them, got an initially bad review. Almost to the point that if the Germans loose on Kharkov 42, not enabling the infantry to inspect enemy destroyed tanks, this weapon introduction could have been delayed.

I don't remember the source, I learned this while making a short Kharkov 1942 Hs129 campaign some 3 years back. If you could point me to better info, I will really appreciate it.

Still, my point was that it will penetrate the turret sides, while in game, it won't.

[TinyTim]

Originally Posted by DKoor

I've managed to destroy T-34/76s and T-34/85s with Mk103s, those are mediums, but am interested to see whether this weapon has capability to destroy larger tanks? KV-1s heavies or alike?

Thanks.

Ironically enough, it is possible to destroy a Tiger with .50 cals in IL2 1946 (and that was possible in older versions of the game too), so I guess it's possible to destroy pretty much anything with an Mk103. Might only have bit of trouble pulling up after that vertical dive and shooting from 50 meters!

Originally Posted by Luno13

I find the cannon-Stuka isn't so terribly hard to use. I like to set convergence at 1000m (So I don't have to get too close), dive in at 45 degrees (any lower, and I always tend to fly into the ground).

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean - I've been using combat flaps and trimmed plane accordingly to get some negative AOA, so that the cannons actually point a tiny bit lower than the vector of flight instead of higher. You have to keep her fast tho.

[csThor]

It was not before autumn 1942 that the first real successes broke up the front of the pilot's considerable distrust in the weapon, the tactics and the intended mission itself. That, however, was limited to a single Staffel, 13.(Pz)/JG 51, operating in the central zone between Vyazma and Rzhev.

The rest of the Hs 129 units did not really convert to tank-busting until spring 1943. The Battle of Kursk was then the real kick-off for that role for the Hs 129.

[Mabroc]

Since AB bombs are just really empty containers and we already have an excellent upgrade on bombs fuzes and impact power (according to penetration on ground or above it) why about giving the player the option to choose what kind of ordnance is carried by the AB case?

They put inside the right stuff for the next target to attack, we already have the butterfly mini-bombs, the AT type and the incendiary so why dont have the option to choose from those 3 types as fill? There were some more types of little bombs but dont need to be all modelled right now (or ever, who needs anti-personal mines?) Just the 3 types of contain as a submenu or drop-down menu when you choose an AB type of bomb

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Mabroc

Since AB bombs are just really empty containers and we already have an excellent upgrade on bombs fuzes and impact power (according to penetration on ground or above it) why about giving the player the option to choose what kind of ordnance is carried by the AB case?

They put inside the right stuff for the next target to attack, we already have the butterfly mini-bombs, the AT type and the incendiary so why dont have the option to choose from those 3 types as fill? There were some more types of little bombs but dont need to be all modelled right now (or ever, who needs anti-personal mines?) Just the 3 types of contain as a submenu or drop-down menu when you choose an AB type of bomb

+1

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Nope.

AB's were just cases to drop safely a lot of different ordnance's.

The first being the butterfly bombs,(represented on AB250, a terror weapon dropped over britain) cluster of anti personnel SC types, Anti tank bomblets, (represented on AB500), incendiary (AB1000)

Before these AB cases were available, the pilots have the scary job of carrying a lot of bomblets with no time fuses, and already armed on their belly. (actually, this is the case of PTAB's)

Ah ok, didn't know that, thanks.

How unsafe were the "loose" bomblets? Could they go off if the plane shook on a bad takeoff, or if flown in turbulence? Or were they vulnerable to enemy fire?

[TinyTim]

Another point worth considering in my humble opinion is that in reality an Mk 103 salvo could incapacitate a tank without destroying it (like in "piercing the armor, killing the crew and detonating its ammo load"). Optics, weapons, tracks etc. were all quite vulnerable to high calibre autocanon fire (and they still are nowadays!). Unfortunately it's 1 or 0 in IL-2 and you have to actually pierce the armor in order to knock the tank out or it stays fully capable no matter how much lead you throw at it.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by TinyTim

Another point worth considering in my humble opinion is that in reality an Mk 103 salvo could incapacitate a tank without destroying it (like in "piercing the armor, killing the crew and detonating its ammo load"). Optics, weapons, tracks etc. were all quite vulnerable to high calibre autocanon fire (and they still are nowadays!). Unfortunately it's 1 or 0 in IL-2 and you have to actually pierce the armor in order to knock the tank out or it stays fully capable no matter how much lead you throw at it.

Piercing the armor meant blow up the tank. Remember, they had no sophisticated fire suppression systems. Tungsten gets glowing hot when it penetrates(it's pyrophoric) teel - if it enters the crewcompartment: Bang.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by swiss

Piercing the armor meant blow up the tank. Remember, they had no sophisticated fire suppression systems. Tungsten gets glowing hot when it penetrates(it's pyrophoric) teel - if it enters the crewcompartment: Bang.

The point is that in the real world you do not need to cook a tank to take it out of action you can disable it or force the crew to abandon it. Taking out a track, disabling the turret, knocking out the engine are all historically achievable without piercing the armor.

However, as pointed out at the start of the thread, the IL2 damage model for armor is very simplistic and in the game its either destroy the tank completely or nothing happens at all.