Questions on strafing and tank busting

[Gryphon]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

I agree.


A stopped tank is a target, a moving one is a serious threat.


I thought Rudel was German, and thus wouldn't have been targetting Tigers?

Never said he was targeting Tigers, i was merely stating that Tiger's gun was far more effective at taking out tanks than the BK 3,7.

Explosive rounds from tank guns are for soft targets, very useful for that, but only for that. With all tank vs tank gunnery (except HEAT warheads, which are more used from bazookas than guns, and may never have been used from tank guns in WW2) the shot are solid, they go in, they lose a lot of energy doing that, and then they bounce off the inside of the armour on the other side. Brewing up was a known phenomenon, it wasn't instantaneous.

I said high-explosive-anti-tank but realised this is a rather poor choice as this is obviously confused with HEAT, I of course meant armour-piercing-high-explosive or APHE (also known as armour piercing shot with HE filler). Most people don't use the designation however and instead refer to just "AP". I never mentioned dedicated high-explosive.

What? HEAT rounds were VERY common in tank guns. In fact, as far as the German forces alone go, all self propelled artillery (Wespe, Hummel etc.), support halftracks (Stummel) and close support tanks (Pz. IIIN, Pz IV short of all types), etc used shaped charges to combat armour in self-defence.

In WW2 the shot was almost never truly "solid". A lot of ammunition smaller than approx 50mm was, but most larger rounds (75mm and up) posessed HE filling which would burst the round once it penetrated. Finally, i never mentioned brewing up, but it sure as heck can be instantaneous when the ammunition gets hit and sets off.

I didn't know that about the Japanese, but I very much doubt the same applied to the T34, and with JS2s about, you wouldn't want HE loaded.

Like i said, AP(HE) does the job.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Gryphon

I said high-explosive-anti-tank but realised this is a rather poor choice as this is obviously confused with HEAT, I of course meant armour-piercing-high-explosive or APHE (also known as armour piercing shot with HE filler). Most people don't use the designation however and instead refer to just "AP". I never mentioned dedicated high-explosive.

I don't know about that, a book I have mentions AP, APC, APCBC, APCR, APDS, HE and HEAT. My understanding is that an exit hole in armour would be much bigger than the entry hole, and the extra material would fly off and that, plus the incoming projectile, would frequently detonate ammunition.

What? HEAT rounds were VERY common in tank guns. In fact, as far as the German forces alone go, all self propelled artillery (Wespe, Hummel etc.), support halftracks (Stummel) and close support tanks (Pz. IIIN, Pz IV short of all types), etc used shaped charges to combat armour in self-defence.

I think we have a terminology problem here, the way I would use the term is that those are artillery pieces used in an anti-tank role, not guns fitted to tanks as primarily anti-tank weapons.

In WW2 the shot was almost never truly "solid". A lot of ammunition smaller than approx 50mm was, but most larger rounds (75mm and up) posessed HE filling which would burst the round once it penetrated.

Do you have a source for that?

Finally, i never mentioned brewing up, but it sure as heck can be instantaneous when the ammunition gets hit and sets off.

Starting yeah, stopping, often not, AIUI.

Like i said, AP(HE) does the job.

As I read the quote, against the Japanese, the Americans actually used HE.

No offence intended, if I can learn something here, that's good.

[Gryphon]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

I don't know about that, a book I have mentions AP, APC, APCBC, APCR, APDS, HE and HEAT. My understanding is that an exit hole in armour would be much bigger than the entry hole, and the extra material would fly off and that, plus the incoming projectile, would frequently detonate ammunition.

Yes, that is right, but when armour is thin enough and the shell is overpowered sufficiently there will be little to no material flying off, or in any case, not enough to cause any damage. The frequent thing that will happen upon penetration is just "inconveniences" to the crew or vulnerable systems, most of the time tanks do not brew up, unless they are notorious for doing so especially easily. Anyhow, after-armour effects are increased substantially with larger shells and their bursting charge.

Furthermore:

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-...les--APHE.html

In addition: Encyclopedia of German tanks of WW2 (Chamberlain & Doyle, 1978, somewhere around p.300 off the top of my head), Tiger Tanks (Jentz & Doyle, 2000), http://www.battlefield.ru/content/ca...44/64/lang,ru/



"This drawing illustrates how the APCBC round (the main type of armor piercing ammunition used by the Tiger's crews) works. The first cap, the aerodynamic one, makes possible an efficient trajectory. Then, it disintegrates when the target is hit. The second cap, the blunt one, designed for ballistic performance, takes over and avoids the projectile from ricocheting off inclined armor. The projectile penetrates the armor and then explodes inside the tank, causing catastrophic damage." (source: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm)

Do you have a source for that?

look above.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

An important thing to realize about IL-2, is that the effect of various anti-armour devices are not historical.

For example, in reality, rockets were far more inaccurate than portrayed in the game. As it stands now, one of the best anti-armour weapons is the Soviet BRS-132mm rocket, it is possible to kill a Tiger II relatively easily from the rear with one of these, if you hit it directly. You can fire off pairs of them and kill multiple targets. In reality, aiming accurately with these weapons was impossible, so they were salvoed, with all rockets being fired at once.

The best weapon in WWII versus Tanks was the large bomb. In the game the effects of these weapons is not as powerful as they were in reality, so rockets are generally the better choice.

The Soviet 37mm cannon which mounts on the IL-2-3M is a much better weapon than the German 37mm on the Stuka. This is historically accurate. It was much higher velocity, with a heavier round. It can kill a Tiger II from the rear, and against lighter tanks can be devastating, able to clear up an entire set of columns with the guns alone.

One little known, but devastating tank killer are the AJ-2 Cassettes, also in the IL-2 loadouts. These are little bomblets but they can actually kill a Tiger II with no problem at all. They all drop at the same time, so you can't do multiple drops, but if you have a line of Tiger II's in a row, you can actually kill all of them with a single drop of these cassettes.

The Soviets have a huge set of choices for air to ground weapons, which are not available either to the Western allied aircraft, or the German. (not accurate)

Overall, if I have a choice of an air to ground aircraft, and I know there is zero air opposition, and little AAA, then I'd go for the IL-2-3M everytime. The combination of 37mm cannon, plus AJ-2 cassettes or 132mm Rockets is the best. If there is opposition, then the best bet is a faster Fighterbomber, the best choices being either the P-38, P-47, or Corsair. Probably the edge in ordanance load goes to the P-38 with 10 rockets, and two 1000 lb bombs, or the Corsair with 8 rockets and three 1000 lb bombs. The 190 or Tempest are more surviveable versus enemy fighters, but can't carry the ordanance available to the US aircraft.

The Stuka ranks way down the list as an air to ground weapon, with no rockets, and its cannon being less effective. Plus it can't carry the combination of 37mm cannon plus bombs and rockets. It does have the option to carry the superheavy bombs, like the 1800 kg one, but with this loadout, it can barely takeoff, and climbs horribly. Historically as well, this bomb was only loaded experimentally on a few occasions. The Stuka is pretty decent early war on the East front, where the opposition is less effective.