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

[DKoor]

Originally Posted by IceFire

I've been wanting the Panzerblitz for years I think they were equipped on the FW190F-9 model if I'm not mistaken?

Not sure mate, but with them Fockes would be even more vile they they already are.

[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).

Although it's slow, it's also hard to spot at low level, so if you're sneaky, you can survive.

I recall on an a closed pit server some years ago that I was flying a Fw-190F at no more than 100 m AGL and I was even escorted by some spitfire after I dumped my bombs and blew up their artillery

The AB's were mostly meant for ground troops and installations, I think. Every time you see a tank in war footage, there are at least a few dozen infantry sitting on it, and running behind it and to its flanks. Soldiers also had to eat and sleep on the go, so I imagine it would be possible to find soup lines or camps with tents (maybe not in the open, but hey, the Eastern front had a lot of steppe). Obviously, this isn't modeled in Il-2 (the closest thing is the "field HQ" target in DGEN which has staff cars, and radio trucks parked in a city or treeline).

Anyway, Il-2 does have frightened truck drivers, so maybe these models can be repainted to look like soldiers, and spawn as a group to follow around tanks and trucks, or have their own way-points etc. It's already possible to kill fleeing drivers, so this shouldn't affect "gore" considerations.

With 4.11 you can adjust the time that AB's will start to fragment. You can practice with time settings and altitude to get the best results.

[DKoor]

I set frag time to 0 , this way it fragments really quickly which is useful as I like to approach very fast in shallow dive at low altitude as I find my hit ratio to be stellar in comparison to any other approach.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Luno13

The AB's were mostly meant for ground troops and installations, I think.

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)

[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.

[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.