P-51 would be devastating weapon of war in this game.

[Sternjaeger]

Anti tank rifles are borderline effective against light armor. Guess why they were replaced by rockets or even magnetic mines? I don't think a 1944 aircraft can fire focused enough to pierce armor that a 6 pounder can't. On 80 bullets, no way that even half will hit its target, even less in a small region.

 

Sure, I'll give that to you, you can bust a lot of things with machine gun fire, you can break vision blocks, periscopes, with luck even a track as said before... but can you disable a tiger or a t34? No.

 

Anyway I don't get why this always comes up. The M2 browning is not a super weapon. It should not be treated like it is, we should not entertain the possibility of it destroying everything in sight with well focused hail of bullets. It's an excellent air to air weapon but is there anyone arguing if a FW190 could knock out an IS2 with its guns? It can't. It's the same thing excepted that the FW190 has even more firepower.

 

you're missing the point completely. What we were saying is that sure, you won't go through the armour of a Tiger, but you're likely to cause some pretty serious damage to the tracks and surely penetrate the engine grill area with a well placed burst, don't you agree? That would be enough to stop the tank if not worse, that's why with the Tiger II they reinforced the engine tops as well. 

 

Show any evidence of a tiger being destroyed or knocked out by .50 cals?

 

13 Tigers destroyed by aircraft in Normandy, 7 of which to carpet bombing of high altitude aircraft and the rest to fighter bombers.

 

It is pointless to theorise show some evidence other than anecdotes. If a .50 cal equipt aircraft has ever knocked out or seriously imobalised a tiger or panther it is one in a million.

 

Aircraft were largely ineffective against tanks, both the RAF and USAF massively overclaimed their successes against them.

 

it's not theory, it's physics.. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

No it's fact. You have to show some evidence this happened which you can't. Physics shows that bombs and rockets are highly effective on tanks yet they account for a very small amount of the tank and AFV kills. The odds .50 cal guns killed a single tiger or pather are virtually zero. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened and even if it did it maybe just a couple of occasions.

 

The British Operational Research team did a lot of research on the effectiveness of aircraft on tanks, have a read of it.

Edited March 2, 2014 by JG5_Emil

[Rama]

Physics shows that bombs and rockets are highly effective on tanks yet they account for a very small amount of the tank and AFV kills. The odds .50 cal guns killed a single tiger or pather are virtually zero. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it happened and even if it did it maybe just a couple of occasions.

 

The British Operational Research team did a lot of research on the effectiveness of aircraft on tanks.

I agree with that.

I was quite suprised when I did read the report of The british ORT about the inneficiency of the rockets.

[Sternjaeger]

how do you expect to find evidence exactly? Even if I found personal accounts you'd probably dispute them.. 

 

Let's put it in this way, if we can calculate the kinetic energy of a half second burst shooting from an aircraft and see how much that is, would that convince you that you can cripple a tank with a burst? 

 

And again, tracks, engine top grilles, visors, turret joint, external fuel tanks, hinges... plenty of stuff to break.

[Rama]

Sternjaeger.

The problem isn't if this is "possible". You're right it is impossible to prove it isn't... as it is imposible to prove the non-possibility of almost everything.

The problem is that the probability of it, if maybe not totally null, is very, very low... and most of the pilots never even tried, not wanting to waste ammunition.

If one day you can manage it, you should go to Bovington museum (or to Saumur in France) and have a talk with the documentalist there. There were plenty of studies about Tank casualties and their causes.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

how do you expect to find evidence exactly? Even if I found personal accounts you'd probably dispute them.. 

 

Let's put it in this way, if we can calculate the kinetic energy of a half second burst shooting from an aircraft and see how much that is, would that convince you that you can cripple a tank with a burst? 

 

And again, tracks, engine top grilles, visors, turret joint, external fuel tanks, hinges... plenty of stuff to break.

 

Personal accounts of tank crews would suffice but they do not exist. The BORT would have reported evidence of something so unlikely in my opinion. Tanks destroyed by aircraft were generally done som by heavy bombers, then rockets or bombs and after that large caliber cannon rounds.

 

You want to use science like physics then you must also take in to account probability, on top of which we have angle of attack, the accuracy of the aircraft/pilot, speed, the degree of attack in relation to the angle of the tank, if it had armour skirts etc etc. There is too much to even calculate so we have to look at the facts and there are none. I will concede there is a slim chance that they might have got rounds through the vents or maybe damaged the tracks but I suspect we're talking about one or two occasions if that.

 

This is a pointless argument in my opinion if you want to carry it on go ahead but it's going to be fantasy one way or another.

 

RE: .50 cal in A2A combat I feel that it was a good weapon system, certainly better than a twin MG and single 20mm set up. The only thing the 109 has against the USAF/RAF aircraft is their inline weapons system but even still it's not comparable. One has only to look at the guncam footage out there to see how effective .50 cals are against fighter.

[MiloMorai]

50, Ball, Armor Piercing round, has a penetrating power of 0.75 in (19 mm) at 500 meters

 

 

The thinnest armour on a Tiger is 25mm and that is on the belly. The Panther has 30mm in the front half and 17mm for the belly.

 

Ever hear of any Ma Deuces on the ground taking out a Tiger or Panther?

[Bladderburst]

SternJager, as I said, you can mess up pretty badly what's on the outside of the tank but it's built to take it anyway. If you break a viewblock, it takes 5 minutes to change.

You CAN'T disable a tank with machine gun fire. Even an unmanned vehicle at point blank range it would be futile, you would hurt yourself more than the vehicle.

 

I think that you can appreciate the difficulty at shooting at a ground target in a flight sim, now you're telling me that the pilot is skillful enough to aim at weakpoints such as the tracks and the CENTRAL grid of a tiger tank at the right convergence while diving at 500KM/H?

 

[Sternjaeger]

fellas, I KNOW .50 cals won't destroy a tank, I'm gonna put it in bold so we're sure we're talking about the same thing:

 

an aircraft equipped with .50 cals and AP rounds can concentrate enough firepower to damage externally a tank, and even if a handful of bullets ricocheting through the vents and doing serious damage is a low possibility, there is still the possibility to disable the tank by causing damage to its tracks, visors and other parts, which is achievable with a well placed burst.

 

I know the RAF report quite well, and if anything there is one interesting fact that we underestimate most of the time: the majority of tanks disabled during the ETO were abandoned by the crews. The psychological effect of aircraft pounding you relentlessly made a lot of tank crews flee, leaving a perfectly functional tank abandoned to its own means (and soon after destroyed by ground troops). 

[Kurfurst]

you're missing the point completely. What we were saying is that sure, you won't go through the armour of a Tiger, but you're likely to cause some pretty serious damage to the tracks and surely penetrate the engine grill area with a well placed burst, don't you agree? That would be enough to stop the tank if not worse, that's why with the Tiger II they reinforced the engine tops as well. 

 

 

Serious damage to the tracks..? By heavy machineguns ? On a Tiger?   The first one they captured and tested in North Africa had a mine placed under its tracks, and even that failed to impress it...  Heavy machineguns are completely ineffective against tanks, not to mention proper heavy tanks. Anti tank rifles fired much more powerful ammunition, yet still were ineffective.

 

As for the M2, it was solid design, originally meant for ground use and it shows. As an air to air gun, it was perfectly average by the 1940, there were better designs around. The USAAF/USN choice for it was based on that it was tried, tested and proven gun - and nothing else was available. Lot of work went into copying the Mauser MG 151/15 which failed, and the only 20 cannon available, the Hispano could not boast great reliability to start with, and production defects in the US meant these problems were aggravated. Given what was available, the Browning M2 was the best and most obvious choice for the US armed forces. And it DID a solid job, mind you. But that does not make it a better choice, had other guns like the Berezin of the era been available to the US. They still copied the Soviet incendiary round from it BTW..

[VO101_MMaister]

It is not completely clear what are you guys comparing here.
Guns or weapon systems?

Regarding guns, at the end of the day, when you pull the trigger there are only 3 things matter, how reliable, how destructive, how accurate it is.
To say that the M2 was the best in these overall is more than questionable.

if you could choose one single gun to be mounted onto your aircraft before you go6 to an aerial battle, would you choose that? Or would it be an MG151/20 for instance? Or something with even more punch?

 

If you compare weapon systems, considering logistics, possible targets, weapon placement and combinations then it is a whole different story. In this thread it is just mixing up a bit for me.

By the way, have you heard guys that the MG151/20 is still in production in South-Africa?  It is used on vehicles and helicopters.

MM

Edited March 3, 2014 by VO101_MMaister

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

By the way, have you heard guys that the MG151/20 is still in production in South-Africa?  It is used on vehicles and helicopters.

 

Cool!

 

I believe the Hispano is still made too, as boat armament for river boats in Honduras.

[MiloMorai]

I know the RAF report quite well, and if anything there is one interesting fact that we underestimate most of the time: the majority of tanks disabled during the ETO were abandoned by the crews. The psychological effect of aircraft pounding you relentlessly made a lot of tank crews flee, leaving a perfectly functional tank abandoned to its own means (and soon after destroyed by ground troops). 

 

Abandoned because of breakdown or out of fuel.

[Bladderburst]

I don't think that you can get a single bullet inside a tank through a "vent", they're made to avoid this. I don't think that the crew has any fear from any kind of "spalling" from .50 bullets. The optics are well protected against bullets and the view blocks are easy to change in the event that they are broken (a matter of minutes).

I did not know that the tracks could withstand a mine explosion, if that's the case, there is no way a machine gun can do any damage to the tracks, even less to the wheels (maybe just tear off some rubber).

 

Using machine gun only, you could kill the commander if he was unbuttoned but that's it.

The tigers were usually abandoned because they were out of fuel or broke down. I have to see a single example of a crew getting tired of hearing machine gun "tink tink" and just blowing up their tank because their morale broke down or something like that.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Boussourir

[Sternjaeger]

I really don't know where this legend of a Tiger resisting an anti-tank mine generated... the tracks were wide, yes, but not indestructible..

[MiloMorai]

I really don't know where this legend of a Tiger resisting an anti-tank mine generated... the tracks were wide, yes, but not indestructible..

 

Consider the source.

 

The Brits put Hawkins grenade mines under the track and detonated them. It totally destroyed the track and had a devastating effect on the road wheels.

[Sternjaeger]

Consider the source.

 

The Brits put Hawkins grenade mines under the track and detonated them. It totally destroyed the track and had a devastating effect on the road wheels.

 

I read some years ago that one of the several flaws of the Tiger was the issue related to the tank often breaking its own track link joints under excessive stress, so I really don't find it as laughable as someone else here..

Edited March 3, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Kurfurst]

I really don't know where this legend of a Tiger resisting an anti-tank mine generated... the tracks were wide, yes, but not indestructible..

 

Tiger Fibel and iirc Thomas Jentz to suspect behind the "myth". No, they were not indestructible, but the running gear was massive as it can get in a tank.

 

The page from the Tiger comic manual notes, that the particular vehicle on the picture, after getting hit by no less than 227(!!) times by AT rifle (that would be 14,5 mm, much more powerful rounds than the 0,50 Browning, andthis puts the effectiveness of MHG rounds into perspective..), 14 times by 52mm(?) and 11 times by 76,2 mm gun hits hits, some of which directly hit the tracks, and also running over 3 landmines and with several swing arms disabled, several parts of the running gear shot through, the tank still covered 60 km in terrain on its own power.

 

At which point it probably run out of fuel.

Edited March 3, 2014 by VO101Kurfurst

[MiloMorai]

I read some years ago that one of the several flaws of the Tiger was the issue related to the tank often breaking its own track link joints under excessive stress, so I really don't find it as laughable as someone else here..

 

Yes while making very sharp turns.

[Bladderburst]

In conclusion, it seems very reasonable to say that any machine gun is totally ineffective against tanks.

[Bladderburst]

And to get back on the general topic, no, the mustang of 1942 would not be a devastating weapon of war in the theatre of Stalingrad where long range does not matter.

And for the bit of praise to the developers of the OP, I agree .

Edited March 3, 2014 by Boussourir

[Emgy]

Topic title referred to the early early access versions where the single 12.7 and twin 7.92 were devastating ! MG lethality has been adjusted since then, though. They're still much more effective than the toothless clod MGs.

[Bladderburst]

Hmm did not get that part.

[DD_fruitbat]

Topic title referred to the early early access versions where the single 12.7 and twin 7.92 were devastating ! MG lethality has been adjusted since then, though. They're still much more effective than the toothless clod MGs.

 

I shot down 7 do17's the other week with those MGs in one spitfire loadout. Difference between Clod and this is, that i actually had to aim in Clod at a specific point (engine in this case), just saying. 

[Sternjaeger]

In conclusion, it seems very reasonable to say that any machine gun is totally ineffective against tanks.

 

No, that's a conclusion based on nothing. There were a lot more lighter tanks than Tigers (Tigers were in fact a very small proportion compared to the rest) which armour and structure would have been damaged by heavy machine guns loaded with AP rounds. Hanomags were a classic example of armoured vehicles that could be knocked out by .50 cals. 

 

And to get back on the general topic, no, the mustang of 1942 would not be a devastating weapon of war in the theatre of Stalingrad where long range does not matter.

 

And for the bit of praise to the developers of the OP, I agree .

 

It's not just range that made the Mustang a devastating weapon: effective armament (no flying Tiger tanks last time I checked), speed, manoeuvrability, equipment (K-14s were effective gyro gunsights) made it a fierce opponent.  

[Bladderburst]

Hanomag (SDKFZ251) is not a tank, it's a PC and barely more armored than a truck. All these vehicles can be taken out by heavy machine guns, especially from the air since the haltracks and mobile artillery were often open to the elements.

 

You probably can damage to some extent heavier vehicles with hmg. So my claim of totally ineffective is not that true. Disable one... well, I'd like to see an instance where it was attempted and the results, seriously doubt it could be done. Tiger tank and the likes forget it, Panzer4, maybe...

 

Mustang is a good aircraft, it's just not that "devastating". As a ground attack, it's not really awesome. As a dogfighter, it can hold its own. Most fighting will be at lower altitude also. I'm not really convinced it would dominate as some people would like to think. End of 1942 also, what variant is flying?

[6S.Manu]

Mustang is a good aircraft, it's just not that "devastating". As a ground attack, it's not really awesome. As a dogfighter, it can hold its own. Most fighting will be at lower altitude also. I'm not really convinced it would dominate as some people would like to think. End of 1942 also, what variant is flying?

 

The one mounting the Allison engine and 4 HMG...

 

I agree with you on this quote. IMO the most important feature of the P-51 was its range (by far): it was the best "American dogfighter", but it's not in the same category of Spitfires, 109 and not even 190. Speed and high speed maneuverability are a big +, but it was the range who allowed them to reach the optimal tactical positions. 

 

If we talk about survival in whose last years, of course I would have been in a P-51. In 1942... I don't think.

 

About weaponry, I've said my opinion in the first pages.

Edited March 4, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[6S.Manu]

Difference between Clod and this is, that i actually had to aim in Clod at a specific point (engine in this case), just saying. 

 

I agree. Aiming is too easy in the current release, FM is "weird" (but I'm not a real pilot) and I really hope DM is far for complete.

[Rama]

Aiming is too easy in the current release

You say that, and others in other posts say it's too difficult and that they can't hit a thing.... see... just various opinions.

[6S.Manu]

You say that, and others in other posts say it's too difficult and that they can't hit a thing.... see... just various opinions.

 

Of course. Let me split the issue: I have difficulties in pointing the airplane for the enemy (oversensitive controls), but once it's in front of me I can spray and hit anyway.

 

But sure it depends on the pilot too. ;-)

Edited March 4, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

Don't understand. "pointing the airplaine for the enemy" is the the same as "aiming". So is aiming too dificult or not?

[6S.Manu]

Don't understand. "pointing the airplaine for the enemy" is the the same as "aiming". So is aiming too dificult or not?

 

Probably I should have said "hitting the enemy" instead of "aiming". 

 

I'm mean that most of the damage is done spraying single bursts against enemy, without a "real" aiming for accurate shots: the difficulty is in keeping the plane's nose steady because of oversensitive controls and the lack of trim in the Russian planes.

 

In IL2 I have to do:

1) major maneuver to put myself in position

2) minor correction to get the shot in the right spot

3) fire a single burst

 

In BoS it's like I don't need the #2 point.

 

For example in one of the first occasions I pointed the enemy positioning myself at its 5 o'clock: there was much wobbling, the nose went up and down, left and right, so I fired a burst of MGs to get a lucky shot and I was surprised that I hit the enemy and it started smoking. Probably it was luck, but it happened to me again. I was probably at 200m, even if I'm used to fire much closer.

 

Just as the colliders in the game engine are too big.

Edited March 4, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[Rama]

Probably I should have said "hitting the enemy" instead of "aiming". 

Maybe... but maybe also you just overcontrol you plane because you aim in zoom mode, thus creating some dispersion but still being able to hit with a few percentage.

Maybe the problem isn't the aiming, neither the hitting, but too much damage created by a single hit. (and then it has to do with DM, not FM)

 

Just as the colliders in the game engine are too big.

Nope, you are over-analysing (but I don't blame you, that's very frequent on forums... maybe even more than overcontrolling when piloting in a sim ).

[sturmkraehe]

fellas, I KNOW .50 cals won't destroy a tank, I'm gonna put it in bold so we're sure we're talking about the same thing:

 

an aircraft equipped with .50 cals and AP rounds can concentrate enough firepower to damage externally a tank, and even if a handful of bullets ricocheting through the vents and doing serious damage is a low possibility, there is still the possibility to disable the tank by causing damage to its tracks, visors and other parts, which is achievable with a well placed burst.

 

I know the RAF report quite well, and if anything there is one interesting fact that we underestimate most of the time: the majority of tanks disabled during the ETO were abandoned by the crews. The psychological effect of aircraft pounding you relentlessly made a lot of tank crews flee, leaving a perfectly functional tank abandoned to its own means (and soon after destroyed by ground troops). 

 

Come on, Stern. If some concentrated machine gun fire was sufficient to knock out a tank - even only temporarily - why would any infantryman be afraid of a tank? They'd just add some blokes with machine guns in their platoon and the tanks would be grilled. In particular since aiming and hitting the allegedly machine gun sensitive parts is much easier from a static position than from a fast moving shooting platform cruising at several hundred mph ...

 

It simply does not make any sense this theory.

Edited March 4, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Bladderburst]

P51, always starting fights on forums. However we can't deny that it looks and sounds really nice.

[sturmkraehe]

Great picture! Oh yes, it's a beauty!

 

OT: Do I see a spark of a reflection on the blades? Shouldn't we have a faint copy of it in our sim?

Edited March 5, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Bladderburst]

Well the shiny, like the chrome, was not really there during wartime. Specularity on a camouflage is not a thing you wish.

[Venturi]

[MiloMorai]

Americans wanted the chrome. Told the enemy where they were so if the enemy attacked they could shoot them down

[Bladderburst]

Unpainted finish and chrome are two things. That contemporary P51 is all mirror, the other is just unpainted.

Anyway you're right, at the end it wasn't worth it to camouflage the aircraft since they had crushing numbers, it costs less and the plane has a slight gain in performance.