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

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by swiss

Stuka Pilot pdf

Sorry, still cant find any reference to sirens.



Actually he only made the G famous, that was the one he was involved in the development.
That's probably the only plane you should trust him when it comes to specs.

Do you have a link to the original German edition?

[swiss]

no
was a pita finding the Englisch .pdf already

[Pursuivant]

Getting back to the problem of over-effective aircraft weapons vs. tanks, here's a useful data point.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Fo.../000016-2.html

The takeaway (by Niklas Zetterling, author of several books on the Battle of Kursk) is that on the Eastern Front the OKW reduced the number of ground vehicles claimed as killed" by aircraft by 50%, and reduced the number of ground vehicles claimed as killed by ground forces by 30% when figuring estimates of actual totally destroyed AFV. The numbers produced using these formulas agree fairly well with actual Soviet records.

So, while I'm still hunting for actual confirmation in primary sources, it seems like pretty good evidence that air power is overrated against tanks.

Of course, what these formulas don't take into account is repairable damage and crew injuries/kills.

IIRC, the rule of thumb for repairing AFV during WW2 was that for "killed" vehicles 1/3 could be returned to service overnight, 1/3 could be returned to service in a few days, and 1/3 were write-offs.

For a slow retreat or poor supply situation, I'd guess that the 1/3 that could be repaired in a few days actually had to be written off - either cannibalized, abandoned or destroyed to keep them out of the hands of the enemy. For a rout or terrible supply situation (e.g., Stalingrad pocket, Normandy Breakout), assume that any damaged AFV is a lost AFV.

Perhaps not relevant to single missions, but useful for dynamic campaigns.

[bladeracer]

To give vehicles and other ground units more involved damage modeling does it require re-coding?
Or is it a simpler matter of extracting the SFS and editing the text for each model?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by bladeracer

To give vehicles and other ground units more involved damage modeling does it require re-coding?
Or is it a simpler matter of extracting the SFS and editing the text for each model?

Realistic (i.e., "aircraft like") damage modeling for ground vehicles would require a massive rewriting of code, so it's a non-starter.

Just reediting "damage ratings" (described in terms of "panzer units") is a simple text editor job where you don't even need to code to change the values.

My solution of creating a third "partially damaged" state for ground vehicles might actually be feasible, since it just requires reprogramming how ground vehicles behave once once they take damage beyond some percentage of their total "hit points." No special effects or change in damage models would be needed, the vehicle just stops moving or starts retreating and perhaps the player gets a "Car/Tank Damaged" message on the HUD display.

[bladeracer]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Realistic (i.e., "aircraft like") damage modeling for ground vehicles would require a massive rewriting of code, so it's a non-starter.

Just reediting "damage ratings" (described in terms of "panzer units") is a simple text editor job where you don't even need to code to change the values.

My solution of creating a third "partially damaged" state for ground vehicles might actually be feasible, since it just requires reprogramming how ground vehicles behave once once they take damage beyond some percentage of their total "hit points." No special effects or change in damage models would be needed, the vehicle just stops moving or starts retreating and perhaps the player gets a "Car/Tank Damaged" message on the HUD display.

That does sound like a fairly simple and effective fix.

[Pershing]

Fresh example of Yak-9T's "multikill" - http://www.il2.corbina.ru/sortiedeta...&playerid=2774.

8 "Tigers"
6 StuG IIIG
1 Panzer IVJ
....

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Pershing

Fresh example of Yak-9T's "multikill"

If nothing else, it seems that the late war heavy tanks need to be seriously up-armored and/or need a higher threshold for the sort of guns that can damage them. I could imagine a Pzkw IV or a StuG (based on the PZkw IV chassis) being taken out by a lucky hit from a 37mm gun, but not anything based on the Tiger, Panther or Josef Stalin design.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

StuG (based on the PZkw IV chassis)

Most versions, Pzkw III.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Most versions, Pzkw III.

You're right, but I was thinking StuG IV, since the other victims were a Pzkw IV and a bunch of Tigers. Hence, mid to late war German armor.