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

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Luno13

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?

1)They actually go off
2)No idea about turbulence
3)They were, as they were already armed.

Truly! Pilots disliked them a lot!

On the other hand, tanks damage model is actually a box with a cylinder over it. Each side of the box have a single armor value, and the cylinder is always the frontal armor of the turret... Tanks turrets on il2 are VERY tough!

Still, theoretically, in game accepts destroying tougher armor by hitting it repetitively an x number of times depending on gun caliber. There are no HP's here.

Truth being, is that IL2 has too many planes from a programmers point of view, and keeping balance in between all of them is a hell of a job.

[RPS69]

Tested the AB's on 4.11

AB 250, really not for AT use
AB500, equal as in UP, works fine. (Not that UP is a reference, just that on 4.09 they were useless)
AB1000, also works as AT, this is also different from UP.

[RPS69]

Tested the AB's on 4.11

AB 250, really not for AT use (funy effect!)
AB500, equal as in UP, works fine. (Not that UP is a reference, just that on 4.09 they were useless)
AB1000, also works as AT, this is also different from UP.

[DKoor]

Thanx for testing...
I see some stuff are changed.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by DKoor

Thanx for testing...
I see some stuff are changed.

Just for the record, my test range was with KV1's

[K_Freddie]

I set my stuka cannons to 400m, come in at about 20-30 degrees, just above the tank cannon elevation (it not very high in the game) on the sides or rear.
There's time for 2 shots, and the shells usually strike where the sights are targeted.. very little trajectory drop.

It nice to see 2 shells converge and POP goes the weasel

It'll be nice to have better explosions on ground stuff - nothing like a good bang!!

[[URU]BlackFox]

I don't know if it's possible, but maybe the tank could be "disabled" when the necessary explosives detonate near them (like simulating the track damaged from the blast), and have the pilot credited with a "disabled tank". That would make some bombs and medium caliber weapons more useful.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by [URU]BlackFox

I don't know if it's possible, but maybe the tank could be "disabled" when the necessary explosives detonate near them (like simulating the track damaged from the blast), and have the pilot credited with a "disabled tank". That would make some bombs and medium caliber weapons more useful.

The difference between disabled and destroyed often get missed on these forums.

Tracks and engine compartments were vulnerable to aircraft weapons as light as 20 mm or in some cases 0.50 cal (there are numerous stories of Korean War T34's being temporarily disabled by 0.50 cal directed at the engine compartment) .

However the tank was often only disabled for a very short time (hours at most) so unless friendly infantry were about to force abandonment of the disabled tank there was no great advantage to disabling it.

[Faustnik]

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

It'll be nice to have better explosions on ground stuff - nothing like a good bang!!

On your particular activity, Stuka with armor piercing ammo, explosions are really out of the question!

And since the damage model of ground objects are overly simplified, big explosions will be an allways or never implementation. Explosions tax this game a lot, so I'am not relly sure if I will welcome more hollywood efects in game.

Maybe an option could be added on the mission builder to select the vehicle as explosive or not.