Yak-9T - incredible firepower (or maybe incredible tank's lack of armor?)

[gaunt1]

Tanks are soft probably due to gameplay reasons. Historically, aircraft were generally useless against tanks (except Ju-87G). But ingame, it wouldnt make any sense that you cant kill tanks at all. So I think this is a compromise between realism and gameplay.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Historically, aircraft were generally useless against tanks (except Ju-87G).

I don’t want to start a flame war, but this seems to me excessively trenchant. Soviet Union won the war with "useless" Sturmoviks, and RAF fielded equally "useless" Typhoons.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to make some experiments under repeatable conditions. Any volunteer?

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by Furio

I don’t want to start a flame war, but this seems to me excessively trenchant. Soviet Union won the war with "useless" Sturmoviks, and RAF fielded equally "useless" Typhoons.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to make some experiments under repeatable conditions. Any volunteer?

I think it depends on your definition of "useless". If you mean physically detroying tanks then I would agree.
But I'm sure air attacks were disruptive and damaging to the enemy regardless of whether the tank itself was actually "destroyed".
I think the biggest "effect" though was simply to morale and logistics by forcing the enemy to adapt their movements to allow for potential air attack. Even if the attack never eventuates, or inficts insignificant damage when it does, having to allow for it still burns up vital resources, slows down movement, and affects morale.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

I think it depends on your definition of "useless". If you mean physically detroying tanks then I would agree.
But I'm sure air attacks were disruptive and damaging to the enemy regardless of whether the tank itself was actually "destroyed".
I think the biggest "effect" though was simply to morale and logistics by forcing the enemy to adapt their movements to allow for potential air attack. Even if the attack never eventuates, or inficts insignificant damage when it does, having to allow for it still burns up vital resources, slows down movement, and affects morale.

Personally, I consider claims about tank destroyed largely mythical, beginning with the biggest over claimer in human history (Hans Rudel, but this is my opinion, of course, even if based on simple mathematical analysis).
I agree with you that actual number of tanks directly destroyed from the air was surely low, far from what propaganda said for years. And – in my opinion – the Ju87g was not better than other anti-tank aircrafts with similar performances and armament (the Hurricane IId, for example).
Your analysis of the real impact of air operations is true, and could be largely extended to strategic bombing.

In any case, all of this is clearly off topic. I must apologize with Pershing. Returning to topic, I think that some experiment under controlled and repeatable conditions (scientific method, you know) should be the first step to solution of this problem. My two cents.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by Furio

Personally, I consider claims about tank destroyed largely mythical, beginning with the biggest over claimer in human history (Hans Rudel, but this is my opinion, of course, even if based on simple mathematical analysis).
I agree with you that actual number of tanks directly destroyed from the air was surely low, far from what propaganda said for years. And – in my opinion – the Ju87g was not better than other anti-tank aircrafts with similar performances and armament (the Hurricane IId, for example).
Your analysis of the real impact of air operations is true, and could be largely extended to strategic bombing.

In any case, all of this is clearly off topic. I must apologize with Pershing. Returning to topic, I think that some experiment under controlled and repeatable conditions (scientific method, you know) should be the first step to solution of this problem. My two cents.

Off topic how?
The topic is the in-game abilities of aircraft to destroy tanks en-masse and that is what we're discussing. Personally, I view the "anti-armour" missions the game generates as merely being symbolic for general "very difficult ground attack" missions simply because of the dearth of ground activity generally. Basically you are attacking ground units with only a small chance of limited success, as opposed to when you are sent to attack soft targets which you effectively wipe out completely.
In other words, I think of it as a pure "game mechanism" rather than a genuine attempt at replicating ground attack. Seeing tanks burning is merely the game's way of saying your attack has disrupted an enemy ground attack, I don't regard it as "you have destroyed four tanks".

Since a very large part of the air war was directed at ground targets I would love to see a more believable implementation, but I don't know what capability is possible with the IL2 engine.

I particularly enjoyed F15: Strike Eagle III and Falcon 3.0 for their ground war implementation many years ago and would love to enjoy something similar from the newer sims. But even with modern weapon systems I doubt I ever tallied 36 vehicles killed, not even in Longbow 2.

I think all IL2 really needs is the ability to inflict a range of effects on vehicles (and other ground units) rather than simply "dead". Then you could certainly "hit" 21 tanks and even destroy several of them, but most would be vehicle damage or crew losses rather than "destruction".

[Furio]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

Off topic how?
The topic is the in-game abilities of aircraft to destroy tanks en-masse and that is what we're discussing. Personally, I view the "anti-armour" missions the game generates as merely being symbolic for general "very difficult ground attack" missions simply because of the dearth of ground activity generally. Basically you are attacking ground units with only a small chance of limited success, as opposed to when you are sent to attack soft targets which you effectively wipe out completely.
In other words, I think of it as a pure "game mechanism" rather than a genuine attempt at replicating ground attack. Seeing tanks burning is merely the game's way of saying your attack has disrupted an enemy ground attack, I don't regard it as "you have destroyed four tanks".

Since a very large part of the air war was directed at ground targets I would love to see a more believable implementation, but I don't know what capability is possible with the IL2 engine.

I particularly enjoyed F15: Strike Eagle III and Falcon 3.0 for their ground war implementation many years ago and would love to enjoy something similar from the newer sims. But even with modern weapon systems I doubt I ever tallied 36 vehicles killed, not even in Longbow 2.

I think all IL2 really needs is the ability to inflict a range of effects on vehicles (and other ground units) rather than simply "dead". Then you could certainly "hit" 21 tanks and even destroy several of them, but most would be vehicle damage or crew losses rather than "destruction".

Here you hit a point.
A downed plane is invariably a total loss (unless it finds a friendly airfield just below). Obviously, a damaged tank can be repaired. More obviously, the repair is easy if the damage is light, as is common when the damage comes from the light armament of any anti-tank aircraft. We should consider that a 37 mm (Ju87g or Il2-37) or 40 mm (Hurricane IId) gun is very light by tank’s standard. A track can be easily damaged, and this damage effectively stops any tank, but can it be considered “destroyed”? Only if it’s abandoned to enemy hands. So, here I agree with you: it’s not off topic and it’s not a matter of gun-versus armour only.

[gaunt1]

I think it depends on your definition of "useless". If you mean physically detroying tanks then I would agree.
But I'm sure air attacks were disruptive and damaging to the enemy regardless of whether the tank itself was actually "destroyed".
I think the biggest "effect" though was simply to morale and logistics by forcing the enemy to adapt their movements to allow for potential air attack. Even if the attack never eventuates, or inficts insignificant damage when it does, having to allow for it still burns up vital resources, slows down movement, and affects morale.

This is the truth. Contrary to popular belief, IL-2 was almost completely useless against tanks, it couldnt really do anything against them. However, it was a TERROR against troops, convoys, and light vehicles, and inflicted huge losses to these units. German tankers didnt fear Sturmoviks. Infantry did!

I still think that the only aircrafts that were capable of destroying tanks effectively were the Ju-87G and the Hurricane IID/IV (forgot this one earlier). 20,23 and 30mm guns were unable to even slightly damage them. In theory, the Hs-129B3 was also useful, but it was a poor weapon system in reality.

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...hbusters4.html

[Furio]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

This is the truth. Contrary to popular belief, IL-2 was almost completely useless against tanks, it couldnt really do anything against them. However, it was a TERROR against troops, convoys, and light vehicles, and inflicted huge losses to these units. German tankers didnt fear Sturmoviks. Infantry did!

I still think that the only aircrafts that were capable of destroying tanks effectively were the Ju-87G and the Hurricane IID/IV (forgot this one earlier). 20,23 and 30mm guns were unable to even slightly damage them. In theory, the Hs-129B3 was also useful, but it was a poor weapon system in reality.

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-...hbusters4.html

English is not my language, so I’ll try to summarize precisely my opinion: all WWII era anti-tank aircrafts were very moderately effective, including Ju87G and Hurricane IId. The “popular belief” about their effectiveness is based on propaganda and over claiming pilots. Over claiming is perfectly understandable. A pilot flying above the battlefield, evading AA fire with all the possible speed, could not tell if the tank he fired at was really destroyed, or only damaged, or simply hit without any damage. Claims could only be verified in the aftermath of a battle if a serious survey is done on abandoned tanks. This was seldom done. One exception was the Battle of Falaise Pocket. Here, a serious survey registered an over claiming of ten to one and more. Perfectly average, I think.
This is not surprising. WWII aircraft were in general lightly armed. The most powerful gun was probably mounted in the nose of the Yak 9k, but even 45 mm was not enough to assure a tank’s destruction with a single shot. I don’t know if this is correctly modelled in our game. I didn’t fly many ground attack sorties, and found PTAB bombs – as modelled – more effective than 37 mm guns.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

This is the truth. Contrary to popular belief, IL-2 was almost completely useless against tanks, it couldnt really do anything against them. However, it was a TERROR against troops, convoys, and light vehicles, and inflicted huge losses to these units. German tankers didnt fear Sturmoviks. Infantry did!

This was also true on the Western Front. After D-Day many German tanks were captured because they ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned. That was directly caused by effective Allied tactical air strikes which completely disrupted the German supply network.


Something that hasn't been mentioned, both in terms of limitations of the IL2 damage model for ground vehicles and in historical limitations to killing tanks using aircraft weapons, is that planes were usually engaging the enemy from rather extreme ranges for the weapons system and at a very high angle relative to the tank's armor plate.

This was sort of mitigated by the fact that skilled ground attack pilots could choose their angle of attack to hit the tank's weakest armor and that most tanks didn't have much armor on their upper decks.

A more realistic damage model would take into account things like angle of penetration relative to armor, reduction of armor penetration due to range, chance that a missile will break up or richochet when it hits armor, and the effects of layered or stand-off armor (e.g., the "skirts" on many German tanks).

As others have said, a system which has states of damage other than "perfectly functional" and "dead", and which allows for effects such as crew kills and mobility kills would also be helpful.

And, as a final issue, many vehicles were equipped with top-mounted MG which could be used in a light AAA role. This was particularly true in areas where air attack was likely. There should be a lot more MG fire from "soft" convoys.

[sniperton]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

This was sort of mitigated by the fact that skilled ground attack pilots could choose their angle of attack to hit the tank's weakest armor and that most tanks didn't have much armor on their upper decks.

So far as I know, armour thickness and armour sloping were optimized against enemies on the ground (enemy tanks and artillery), and tanks were quite vulnerable to aerial attacks. That is, a 3.7 hit from above could do as much damage as a 7.5 hit from the ground. Dunno what consequencies it had, but SOME consequencies it must have had.