Tank busting in the IL 2..

[unreasonable]

I suspect the problem of how eady it is to kill tanks in the game is not down to weapon or armour stats but due to the unreal risk/return compared to real life:

 

Game - go for risky shot, if pays off = get tank kill and feel good, if make mistake = die as you crash into the ground, respawn!

 

Trivial risk, trivial return.

 

RL - go for risky shot, if pays off = get tank kill and feel that you have accomplished your mission, if make mistake = die as you crash into the ground. The End.

 

Terminal risk, almost trivial return.

 

RL pilots just cannot take the risks we do and learn from their mistakes, since the mistakes are so often fatal.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Also remember that when armor angle vs projectile increases so does the effective thickness of the armor. An armor plate at 90deg is 40mm, but as the angle increases so does the thickness.

[=69.GIAP=RADKO]

S!

 

 Also remember that when armor angle vs projectile increases so does the effective thickness of the armor. An armor plate at 90deg is 40mm, but as the angle increases so does the thickness.Just curious 

 

Fair question. As far as I can remember there is nothing like this currently simulated in BoS and I'm not entirely sure it needs to be. A lot of work, also added strain to performance for something that will not necessarily make a huge impact on how it plays. I understand it might effect the way we approach a target keeping angles at a minimum. Correct me if I'm wrong but in most cases the correct weapons for the job were probably used against such targets and targeting the rear armour was adequate enough without worrying about angles too much.

 

Love to know if someone has better insight into this.

Edited October 2, 2014 by =69.GIAP=RADKO

[312_Tygr]

Guys, do not mix Sh-37 and NS-37... the first was the unreliable, unsynchronized one, the second is what we have in game and was produced in much higher numbers. As for me, I use 23mm VYa with AP only - very effective. RS-132 rockets work very rarely, bombs too - both need a direct hit.

[LukeFF]

Guys, do not mix Sh-37 and NS-37... the first was the unreliable, unsynchronized one, the second is what we have in game and was produced in much higher numbers. 

 

Negative, we have the Sh-37.

[bivalov]

Guys, do not mix Sh-37 and NS-37... the first was the unreliable, unsynchronized one, the second is what we have in game and was produced in much higher numbers.

in game exactly SH-37/SHFK-37 with muzzle brake, and 20/2х40 shells.

 

because that lagg-3 (~s34), and several il-2 with this complex, really were used in BOS. and IINM problems with work of cannons were only on il-2 (bad maintenance, and will be interesting to get this in future, ie il-2 only with 1 cannon etc).

 

meanwhile, combat tests of lagg-3 and il-2 with NS-37 were much later in 43.

 

(plus i remind that and VYA-23 it's VERY doubtful armament for lagg-3, at least, during BOS and for second half of 1942, because there no any serious information about this, besides strange mention about little batch in early'42)

 

although, in total, this complex very similar on NS-37 (IINM even was used one shell, or they are very similar).

 

 

and btw in game lagg-3 with VYA-23 as tankbuster are better, than lagg-3 "s34" (because it's not real s34, according to known description). but, maybe, that's because high ping on Eagle Nest, maybe, it's my bad, but i got exactly this experience...

[JG1_Pragr]

Interesting read about the tank busting:

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

[JG1_Pragr]

Speaking about the tank busting. The best you could hope in most cases (IRL and using not tank-busting canons) would be that your ammo would went through the grill on rear top of most tanks and caused the fire in the engine compartment. How much this is possible I don't know but I think the possibility is very low (actually almost zero). Another possibility would be ignite the fuel in barrels carried on tanks with the fuel flooding the inner parts of tanks (not the case of BoS since there are no tanks with fuel outside). Now about the specialized canons and rounds. The anti-tank rounds 30x184 (MK101/103), 37x195 (NS-37) and 37x263 (Bk3.7). They seem way more powerful than even the VYa round (23x152), especially the german ones using tungsten core, but one thing to consider. Even the 50 mm tank/PAK rounds were considered not effective against tanks and their use were limited to tungsten ammo. The 37 mm guns were considered not effective against anything heavier than light tanks even during the battle of France in 1940.

 

There are some advantages I can see in case of aerial anti-tank guns:

 

1) it's possible to attack the parts covers with relatively weak armor;

2) the speed of the plane is add to the speed of round (about 100 m/s should improve the penetration ability);

3) it's possible to get closer to your target than on ground with anti-tank gun.

 

With all this in mind I would considered that destroying tanks with anti-tank guns is damn hard job. Not impossible but still very hard to achieve some considerable success. I think the most effective way to destroy armor targets is using the container bomb units with PTAB (Russian) or SD-4 HL (German). Maybe not so funny as shooting the canons but effective and realistic

Edited December 11, 2014 by II./JG1_Pragr

[Lusekofte]

Well I read the IL 2 was not effective in tank busting role , but it did carry a lot of armament for light armed tanks and vehicles. Cluster containers and a sort of flamethrower. I am sure they knocked out some tanks with bombs and rockets.

The JU-87 was limited success since there where few of them, Stuka pilots converted to FW-190 had some success with bombs. They flew behind it right behind it, level hugging the ground and as soon as the tank disappeared beneath the propeller they dropped the bomb, reprovingly a hit every time

[SKG51_robtek]

If the tank-busting is easier as in IL2-1946, with its "fly on rails" FM, than there is something definitely wrong.

If that stays this way its another step from sim to game, imo.

[Lupson]

If you enable text logs in startup.cfg and then launch a Quick Mission vs ground targets (or similar) and do some strafing runs vs tanks you should then see entries, including damage made, in the logs.

 

Example: 

 

T:65095 AType:1 AMMO:SHELL_GER_20x82_AP AID:1865727 TID:822271

T:65095 AType:2 AID:1865727 TID:822271 DAMAGE:0.014

 

You will probably see a lot of hits not resulting in any damage made as well. As per the RoF editor documentation, an object is destroyed when damage reached 1.0.

 

If one tries to keep track of the direction of attack (e.g. from front|side|rear of tank) when examining the log files, perhaps one can determine whether the game takes aspect into account and which ammo types that are able to cause damage.

[System87]

I dont fly the IL2 alot but i remeber once taking out a PZ4 engine with 23mm AP shells, u just need to hit the soft upper rear part of the tank. 

[Willy__]

Dont bother with bombs or rockets, load up the 23mm with AP only and you can shot down those tanks like butter. Seriously, it is that easy. Just remember to come from the back of the tank.

[BlackDevil]

RL pilots just cannot take the risks we do and learn from their mistakes, since the mistakes are so often fatal.

 

Exactly 

[Trooper117]

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but in the ammo loadout screen, what colour is HE, and what colour is AP? On some aircraft load outs you can have all blue or all orange selected on certain weapons. Which is which?

I have used the search function and can't find the info anywhere... also it is not in the manual.

[Bando]

orange is HE

Blue is AP

[Trooper117]

I suspected as much... many thanks