Ju-87G Stuka

[Furio]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Well, actually the BK 3,7 was very powerful. Original round was able to penetrate 58mm armor, more than enough vs T-34/76s (the slope of its armor had little effect), and also vs T-34/85s, except turret sides. Later it received another round which was able to penetrate as much as 120mm!

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/arch...dkanone37.html

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

[Furio]

Seriously, and more kindly speaking, the theoretical penetration is not everything. The BK 3.7 had even better performances in optimal conditions, being able to penetrate 140 mm., at 100 m. and 90°. But at 60° and same distance, penetration was halved at 70 mm. In the end, real world anti tank aircraft of WWII were not that much effective. Surely less effective than the simulated ones of our beloved sims.
In my opinion.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Furio

In the end, real world anti tank aircraft of WWII were not that much effective.

As far as I know, there were only 3 planes that were truly effective vs tanks:
Ju-87G, Hs-129B3, and Hurricane with Vickers S-guns. The rest, including IL-2, just a myth.

[gaunt1]

Originally Posted by Furio

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because BK 3.7 used tungsten carbide projectiles. Tungsten was rare and needed elsewhere. Also, since it lacked bursting charge, it didnt inflict as much damage as a normal shell. In reality, T-34s were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7 due to their thin armor, but the thicker armored KV and IS tanks were hard nuts to crack, because the shell lost too much energy to do damage inside. This is why germans needed a bigger weapon (BK 7.5)

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by Furio

Then why use 88mm and larger calibre cannons in tank warfare? And why build tanks at all, if it was so easy to knock them off with a light gun?

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Because penetration of armour is not a granted kill. Bigger shell-usually more energy left after penetrating, higher chance to do any lethal or crippling damage. Addded to that bigger gun means greater range and bigger shell means less prone to get glancing hits and less susceptible to wind.

History confirms. During the war, tanks were equipped with bigger and bigger guns, up to 120 mm. Specialized attack planes followed different paths. RAF tried the Vickers S on the Hurricane, but then preferred rockets on the MkIV and the Typhoon. Russians tried 37 mm. cannons on their Shturmoviks, but then returned to less specialized armament, more effective in the CAS role. Only Germans persisted, with questionable results. Some HS129 had impressive armament, but the type had poor performances, bad to execrable handlings and dangerously unreliable engines. As for the Ju87G, suffice to say that a big, two seat plane was needed to haul aloft just 24 rounds, with performances no better than a Westland Lysander.

I agree with Gaunt1: myths abound. The Il2 was an effective CAS type, and surely gave a big contribution to Russian victory, but its anti-tank abilities were dubious. As for the Ju87G, its fame came mainly by the super human Rudel’s feats, and I think the time has come to express some doubts about his victory tally, as it ultimately sums up to two whole tank divisions.

[gaunt1]

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks, they did incredible destruction in supply convoys, which, in long term, was far more effective than to destroy tanks themselves. On the german side, Hs-129 and Fw-190F were also highly effective in this role.

(A flyable Typhoon would be awesome in the game, but I wouldnt mind an earlier Fw-190F, like the F-3 too)

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by gaunt1

Even though IL-2s, Typhoons, P47s were almost totally useless vs tanks...

In terms of killing tanks, sure. For harassing tanks maybe not. It sure does not help the tank crews' stress level and rational decision making being pinged by planes cannons/MGs -even if they were totally sure that they were invulnerable to air attack - and I'd bet they were not.

[RPS69]

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

In game, the Bk canon are supposed to penetrate easily up to 35mm armour, making 40mm invulnerable to Bk attacks, never matter the angle.

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters... as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.

Hs129, when they were not harassed by enemy air opposition, were quite effective. At first, when they were first used on the battle of Kharkov, they tried for the first time a 30mm PaK. Pilots were critical of the weapon, because they believed it was useless, so they called it so, but at the end of the battle, when german troops advenced and reached knocked out T34's, they discovered that the 30mm penetrated T34's turret sides, and killed commander and gunner. Yes... they penetrated the turret armour!

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.

I use it at 300m, and calculate firing time by dive angle, and height. When I reach near convergence distance, I fire a single shot, and take care to climb again. Is useless to try a second shot, because you will only score near misses on the sides of the tank. Thay are a damn small target.

Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

[Furio]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Some corrections:

There was no need to attack on a 90º approach.
Attacks should be done on a 45º to 60º dive.
The concept that made those attacks good, was the armour on top back of most tanks.
It will seldom be thicker than 30mm, being the KV an exception with 40mm.

I didn’t talk of 90° dive. I talked about the bullet hitting target at 90°, regardless of plane position. At any other hitting angle, penetration is reduced, up to glancing and no penetration at all.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Discussing effectivity of air weapons against tanks, assuming that a kill is only such when the tank is destroyed for good, it's actually hilaryous.

Damaging tracks, killing engines, putting them on fire, force them to button up, and so on, are succesfull air attacks.

A damaged and temporarily disabled tank can be an advantage during a battle, but cannot be considered a kill, if it isn't captured. Otherwise, the same tank could be killed countless times. A kill means:
A) A completely destroyed tank.
B) A damaged, immobilized and captured tank.

Originally Posted by RPS69

Il2 37mm canon, were a failure because they were not synched. They were useless against tanks. Actually they found some use as anti shipping weapon, where aiming wasn't that important.

The lack of sinc made bursts impossible, but how many bursts can you fire with the 12 rounds per gun of a Ju87G?

Originally Posted by RPS69

On the other side, Stuka G weapons, were reasonably effective, the main problem with the aircraft itself, was it's low surviving capability once it was attacked by enemy fighters...

I agree with you. Ju87G was very slow and vulnerable, but at least it has a gunner. The Hs129 was even slower, had no rear defence and had a built-in enemy in the form of unreliable engines.

Originally Posted by RPS69

as long as enemy fighters weren't as useles as the ones on Rudell's accounts.

I would not take too seriously Rudel's tales. His victory tally is more than suspicious.

Originally Posted by RPS69

In game, the development is quite good. You can kill many tanks with the Ju87G, by doing a 45º dive, and firing on convergence. You have a single shot to take with both bullets hitting the same place.
Also, on IL2 tanks won't change direction and make your aim somewhat more difficult. Same as ships, they don't engage on evasive maneuvers, so it is actually easyer to score a shot, because tanks are trotting ducks on a row.

Agreed. In game, you can fly the Hs129 with perfectly reliable engines and fire easily the Shturmovik’s 37 mm. cannons.