German vs Soviet AT capabilities

[=RvE=Windmills]

In short, I feel the sim could be more generous to the dedicated German AT weapons.

 

Specifically when it comes to the Mk103 and the BK3.7, I don't feel like their penetrative power is fairly represented in their ability to destroy Soviet armour. Penetration values for the Mk103 are over 90mm at 0m, and over 140mm for the BK. These are both sufficient to easily go through T34 armour from any distance you are reasonably going to be firing at, granted your angle isn't terrible.

 

It is certainly possible to kill T34s with them ingame, however it takes quite a few more shots than I believe it should. the 3.7 takes 6 shots  to kill a T34 usually. While this isn't a crazy high amount, it is a lot compared to the ammo supply on the 87, and also makes it hard for the 110G2 as no misses are allowed with its 6 round clip. The 129 (while I don't know the exact amount of rounds) needs a fairly lengthy burst from a specific dive angle to efficiently kill T34s in a single run.

 

By comparison, VYa has a relatively easy time against German tanks despite having significantly less penetrative power. While realistically it certainly could penetrate P4s, the current ease with which it does that does not feel correct when looking at the German options.

 

The sim atm simply prefers the 'high volume weaker shell' compared to the 'lower volume high powered shell'. I don't think this is entirely reasonable when looking at the drastic difference in penetration power between the two sides.

 

 

Both realistically and gameplay wise I feel it would be really good for the German side if the Mk103 and BK3.7 was boosted by about 30%/40% in power. Making the 3.7 require 3 or 4 hits to kill and the 103 a noticeably shorter burst. The Ju87 is a death trap in the AT role, the Hs129 understandably rare seeing as its fairly hard to fly + being a collector plane. The 110G2 is a unicorn due to how late the machine is in the timeframe. Also due to these factors, a change like this should help the German side quite a bit in most online scenarios.

 

Thoughts on this?

Edited November 12, 2017 by Windmills

[LukeFF]

Have you seen this video?

 

[=RvE=Windmills]

I watched it a while ago I think. Anything in particular you want to discuss about it?

[Finkeren]

Maybe I’ just a horrible shot, but I have never been able to reliably replicate the supposed amazing anti—armor capabilities of the VYa-23. I find them utterly impotent against hard targets.

[=RvE=Windmills]

Maybe I’ just a horrible shot, but I have never been able to reliably replicate the supposed amazing anti—armor capabilities of the VYa-23. I find them utterly impotent against hard targets.

 

It's not particularly 'amazing'. It's mostly strong because the 23mm have a lot of ammo and the Il2 has plenty of power to easily set up approaches and make fast turn arounds. 

 

Best approach is probably from the side, where you have the largest surface area to hit. It doesn't seem less effective than hitting from the rear in my experience. Just wait till you are roughly at convergence and then just unload. It's pretty easy to make a kill every single run. No particular dive angle is required, most important is that you're hitting the tank perpendicular (whether from side or back)

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not to sound rude, but correct me if I'm wrong: you want the developers, who have access to ballistics tests and very detailed data on the power of each weapon and the resistance of respective armours in each tank, to make German weapons "40% better" (however you do that) because you feel it's better that way?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Not to sound rude, but correct me if I'm wrong: you want the developers, who have access to ballistics tests and very detailed data on the power of each weapon and the resistance of respective armours in each tank, to make German weapons "40% better" (however you do that) because you feel it's better that way?

 

 

It's not about armour penetration ability. That is not really in doubt. The problem is that it takes very many penetrating hits to destroy a tank because tanks have a certain number of 'hitpoints'. This is very fuzzy in real life, so data is not very useful. It is very much about making it 'feel right'.

[=RvE=Windmills]

It's not about armour penetration ability. That is not really in doubt. The problem is that it takes very many penetrating hits to destroy a tank because tanks have a certain number of 'hitpoints'. This is very fuzzy in real life, so data is not very useful. It is very much about making it 'feel right'.

 

Pretty much this, it's already very much subjective since a lot of what determines penetration is far outside of what the game models. You'd need to add internal components to tanks, crew, more complex armour values for each individual plates, after armour effects that differ depending on ammo/amount of armour they went through. Even if you model all that, you still would have to debate what actually constitutes a 'kill'.

 

There's a very obvious difference however between the German guns and the Russian ones. Using APCR ammo the German guns have insane penetration. It would easily penetrate even the thicker T34 armour while still retaining more than enough energy to destroy whatever was behind it. Compared to the VYa for instance, the number I most frequently see is about 25mm at 400m. It's not that easy to find complete numbers on it though. WT models 37mm of penetration at 10m for 0 degrees. This is sufficient to penetrate the P4s armour from certain angles at combat distance, but leaves much much less of a margin than a round that goes through 90mm+ of armour. 

 

But yeah, it's still very much subjective whatever way you look at it. I just feel you can make a decent argument for making the German stuff a bit better.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Windmills

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Without a concrete understanding of how the weapons, ammunition and armor work in the sim and better information than what is available to the developers(which will never happen) I don't think there is any serious argument to be made.   This seems to be about wanting the Germans to have an easier time tank-busting.

 

I spend essentially all of my time in the sim attacking ground targets online, often tanks, and I don't have any complaints.  I started with the stuka equipped with leg cannons and graduated to the IL-2.  I prefer the IL-2 for endless reasons, but it's still not easy to kill tanks with cannons.

 

P.S. If you actually fly the AT stuka the way it needs to be flown, 10 meters off the ground from takeoff to target and home, then you'll have as good a chance of surviving as can be hoped.  It's only a true death trap in the hands of those who refuse to adapt themselves to their environment.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It seems that the current model is designed for reasonable tank-busting difficulty rather than accurate simulation of the process.

 

Tanks should not usually withstand multiple penetrating hits. If even a single projectile enters the fighting compartment, it is likely to cause injuries or at least panic. With just one crew member incapacitated, the tank almost always becomes ineffective for combat. That is why it feels strange to put five rounds into the turret or hull side only to see the tank drive on as if nothing happened. 

 

In the real war, I suspect tanks were somewhat less resistant to hits. On the other hand, it was far more difficult to achieve hits while firing from aircraft. Therefore, I think the game achieves a balance by requiring more hits. 

[=RvE=Windmills]

Isn't that contradicting your original question/request? i.e. that it is these things that make it effective not the penetration issue you first say?

 

And my thoughts would always be to have 'realistic' over 'gameplay' for this sort of thing. Everything should perform as historically accurate as is possible, not be boosted/nerfed for gameplay's sake.

 

What is historically accurate in this context though? There's no real reason for the Bk3.7 to take 6 shots to 'kill' a tank, it's pretty much an arbitrary number.

 

The VYa could definately get through the armour of a P4, but it was not easy. If you look at the armour values on the P4 you'd see that it would actually be really hard to get through its side armour (you have something like 5mm of excess penetration at 10m). Ingame though hosing them in the side seems like the best way of killing them. It's not necessary to attack from the top (10mm armour) or from the back (20mm).

 

This made for an obvious reason for the development of the 37mm armament, because the VYa did not have sufficient performance to reliably penetrate medium armour. The ingame choice when engaging tanks like P4 should realistically be the 37mm, but it's pretty much a toss up between the two atm and depends more on preference. The VYa and the NS/Sh37 are both very capable at dispatching P4s ingame, which is odd at the very least. It can be debated how these two should be balanced against each other (should one go down in effectiveness or the other one up), I think you can argue both ways tbh, but it leaves the Germans in a weird place. If there's one thing that should be obvious realistically, is that if a pair of VYa can kill a P4 from the side than the Mk103 should make mincemeat of a T34. It currently just does not really do that.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Windmills

[Jason_Williams]

What's the point of this post other than veiled criticism?

 

Jason

[=RvE=Windmills]

What's the point of this post other than veiled criticism?

 

Jason

 

I try to be as constructive as possible, it's certainly not my intention to merely criticize the game. It just seems to me that these things are worth discussing, as I believe there's some inconsistencies in how easy/hard it is for certain weapons to destroy tanks. I've believed this for a while and I'm just throwing my thoughts out there now.

 

Also, I thoroughly enjoy tank busting ingame and I would love to give people more reasons to pick up planes like the Hs129 and I think I can make a good case for that.

 

I fully admit that I don't have a complete understanding of how the armour system works in the game, nor exactly how each tank differs. All I can do is play the game and test what I can, but it's not easy to find everything out like that. I've very likely missed certain subtleties about how these things work, but I can only base my views on what I see happen in the game.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Windmills

[AndyJWest]

No comment on the effectiveness of German AT weapons beyond stating that any changes to weapon effectiveness have to be based on historical data, not subjective feelings or a wish to somehow balance the game online. What I'd I'd like to know though is why Windmills describes the Hs 129 as 'fairly hard to fly'? Compared to what? From personal experience, it seems one of the easier BoX aircraft to fly, and the contra-rotating engines make aiming relatively easy. Sure, if you haul it around as if it is a fighter you will have problems, but properly handled it does its designed job well enough. 

[=RvE=Windmills]

No comment on the effectiveness of German AT weapons beyond stating that any changes to weapon effectiveness have to be based on historical data, not subjective feelings or a wish to somehow balance the game online. What I'd I'd like to know though is why Windmills describes the Hs 129 as 'fairly hard to fly'? Compared to what? From personal experience, it seems one of the easier BoX aircraft to fly, and the contra-rotating engines make aiming relatively easy. Sure, if you haul it around as if it is a fighter you will have problems, but properly handled it does its designed job well enough. 

 

I guess mostly referring to the tank busting aspect. You need a fairly specific approach angle, speed and firing accuracy to really deal with tanks effectively. It also just seems like a rare plane to see online, which is sort of a shame but understandable for a variety of reasons.

 

Anyway, the realism argument is a hard one to make. I suppose you are referring to armour values and penetration values with historical data? The problem is that even with all that it still doesn't really give you a clear 'answer'. If you shoot a 37mm round at a P4G that penetrates based on the data, how much damage should it do to the tank? Should it instantly kill it merely because it penetrated?

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Unfortunately, such data simply does not exist. Nobody counted 37 mm holes in T-34 wrecks on the steppes or interviewed tankists to find out how many rounds entered their machines before they bailed out. 

 

This is one of those discussions that can never be properly concluded until the game simply 'feels right' to the majority of players.

[=RvE=SirScorpion]

What's the point of this post other than veiled criticism?

 

Jason

 

No comment on the effectiveness of German AT weapons beyond stating that any changes to weapon effectiveness have to be based on historical data, not subjective feelings or a wish to somehow balance the game online. What I'd I'd like to know though is why Windmills describes the Hs 129 as 'fairly hard to fly'? Compared to what? From personal experience, it seems one of the easier BoX aircraft to fly, and the contra-rotating engines make aiming relatively easy. Sure, if you haul it around as if it is a fighter you will have problems, but properly handled it does its designed job well enough. 

 

 

Let me take a shot at this, I get his meaning but think it might have been slightly lost in the wording.

 

German AT Guns "103/3.7" are known to have way more power in penetration than its counter parts, They however have limited magazine size "Ammo is much larger and used more unique material", Now I as well do not know how the armor penetration mechanics work in the game, However i know that tanks and armor have "HP" values attached to them which is not strictly realistic. 

 

Now since this is a Flight sim this is totally fine however you need to simulate effectiveness accordingly, there are plenty of ways of doing it as long as it covers the major points of anti tank warfare. 

 

In other words killing a tank is measured in many ways in reality, mobility kill, firepower kill, crew kill or catastrophic kill to name a few, Now this for the sake of simplicity is tough to model unless you are going for a full tank sim.

 

In the game and In Mplayer, killing armor is more or less binary "score and trigger wise", add to that the limitations of the 129 being a collector aircraft and not as easy to fly as lets say an IL2 to fly it constructs some barriers of entry "its slightly tricky at take off" it limits the ability of Germans online to take out tanks. While the more common BK3.7 is under preforming if you compare it in the aspect of the kill. 

 

The Bk3.7 which is available on several aircraft  has more velocity, APCR ammo, a larger round and way more penetration so it is also limited in ammo, reducing the damage needed which at the moment is around  avg 6 rounds for 1 tank from the correct approach. While in reality a tank penetrated with 1 or 2 rounds is usually Knocked out due to crew abandonment let alone something that can pen the tank 3 times over. 

 

 

an easy way to to fix this is keep the Russian guns as is they seem fine, the MK103 needs a reduction of the amounts of hits "assuming they are penetration hits" needed by about 25%, the Bk3.7 by 50%      

[=RvE=Windmills]

Probably the title wasn't the best choice of words, makes it sounds like a 'my side is treated unfairly' thread. Though I think the post is sufficiently nuanced to not really give that impression if you read it.

 

 

 

This is one of those discussions that can never be properly concluded until the game simply 'feels right' to the majority of players.

 

Yeah, which is why it's useful to discuss it imo, it's not something you can look up in a manual and get the answer.

 

There was some grumbling in the WoL thread a while ago about 'imbalance' in each sides capability to kill tanks. I disagreed with the arguments put forward there but I do feel there's some legitimate arguments can be made in favour of the German weapons, hence the thread.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Windmills

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

In my experience the T-34 needs around 4-6 37mm rounds, you can manage to take it out with 4 but you need to hit it in the right spot. The Soviet 37mm can take out the Panzer IV as well with around 6 hits, the VYa-23 needs around 30 hits on average (having 2 guns plus the IL-2 being a stable gun platform helps achieving this amount of hits in a single pass). Shooting at Panzer IVs with the German 30mm gives better results though, needing around 12 hits on average to kill the German tank with the MK 103.

 

The MK 103 is better than the 23mm in both penetration and damage, but the rate of fire isn't very good, specially compared against the dual 23mms in the IL-2 (400 rpm vs 2 x 600 rpm), needing to make several passes to achieve the necessary hits to destroy the target, also the 23mm in the IL-2 gets plenty of ammo, 300 rounds total. The gunpod mount in the Hs 129 has quite a bit of dispersion, you need to fire at close range to hit most of the rounds (don't know if this is accurate or not).

 

If we get an Me 410 in the (long) future we could see the MK 103 in it's full potential, with 2 cannons in the nose. Also we are almost at the end of the capability of the VYa-23. Maybe if we get some new German tanks for Battle of Kuban they would be resistant to it from side, like the newer variants of the StuG III, Panzer IV and III which had the added side skirts. Don't know if Panthers and Tigers served in Kuban but ofc they would be resistant to it as well (the Tiger even to the 37mm).

[Wulf]

To my way of thinking, if the crew compartment of a tank is penetrated by an AP round, in all probability most if not all of the crew members would be instantly killed or incapacitated, either by the projectile penetrator or by the  spalling of the armour plate on the interior wall of the tank.  Given the violent energy release inside the compartment, exposed flesh and bone would be rendered into something akin to meat pate.  Similarly, a single AP penetrator entering the engine compartment of a tank would probably do more than enough damage to stop the thing in it's tracks.

[ITAF_Cymao]

Perhaps the problem is the excessive effectiveness of the russian 23mm against german tanks,
at least this is the complaint on the WoL.

 

S!

Edited November 13, 2017 by ITAF_Cymao

[Finkeren]

To my way of thinking, if the crew compartment of a tank is penetrated by an AP round, in all probability most if not all of the crew members would be instantly killed or incapacitated, either by the projectile penetrator or by the  spalling of the armour plate on the interior wall of the tank.  Given the violent energy release inside the compartment, exposed flesh and bone would be rendered into something akin to meat pate.  Similarly, a single AP penetrator entering the engine compartment of a tank would probably do more than enough damage to stop the thing in it's tracks.

 

While having the crew compartment penetrated would certainly be potentially dangerous to the crew and at the very least extremely unsettling, I don't think it would necessarily mean instant death or incapacitation of the entire crew, especially if we're talking about something as small as a 23-37mm solid core round (also keep in mind, that the tungsten round that does the actual penetration on the German APCR is much smaller than the full projectile). First: How much energy is released through spalling depends very much on the speed at which the projectile penetrates. If the round uses nearly all of the energy it's carrying to just barely penetrate the compartment, there just isn't gonna be any energy left to throw small pieces of metal around at lethal velocity. Second: Even if the projectile penetrates at a relatively high velocity, the actual amount of metal shards flying through the air may not be that great from a 23mm round or even a 37mm one. In a museum I've seen a German tank that was hit by British 40mm AP rounds (likely from a Hurricane) and the holes were not exactly huge on either side of the armor, meaning, that the total weight of metal pieces flying around the compartment would be small, something like 2 or 3 rifle bullets worth, which really shouldn't have a great chance of outright killing all or even most of the crew.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

There are enough stories of T-34 crewmen being hit by aerial projectiles which managed to penetrate. A common theme is how the shrapnel just bounced off their jackets without causing as much as a scratch.

[Finkeren]

There are enough stories of T-34 crewmen being hit by aerial projectiles which managed to penetrate. A common theme is how the shrapnel just bounced off their jackets without causing as much as a scratch.

 

Which should be pretty obvious. If the penetrating projectile is only moving at maybe 100m/s by the time it actually breaks through to the compartment, the shrapnel is not going to fly out any faster than that and very likely slower. The pieces flying out are going to be small (and thus carry little energy), not at all aerodynamically shaped (meaning they slow down very quickly) and poorly shaped for penetration. Getting hit by such shrapnel won't be pleasant of course, but the risk of actually getting killed outright by it is gonna be small.

 

Not all spalling is created equal though. The spalling that results from a large high explosive detonation on the outside of the armor (such as a HESH shell) is extremely deadly, because the pieces flying off get their energy from an extremely powerful impulse traveling at several thousands of meters per second and thus they fly around the crew compartment at the speed of rifle bullets. This is basically how the SU-152s dealt with Tinger tanks.

[=RvE=Windmills]

It's hard to find any real information on the rounds effectiveness, this picture from a different thread here posted by SuperEtendard was the closest I could get.

 

Source is 'Lehrschrift Hubschrauberbewaffnung, Flugzeugmunition'. I tried to find the document online for Mk103 info, but could only get the list of contents.

 

 

It does note an incendiary effect due to fragments of the hull being melted by the round piercing the armour (this is likely not the exact translation, if anyone can get a closer translation please correct it).

 

Also there's the 140mm penetration value. It also notes that the round has a tendency to splinter if it encounters any kind of additional applique armour.

 

In any case, a round that has this much power behind it I find it hard to believe that it would not retain enough energy after penetrating 45mm of armour to still cause significant damage to anything in its path. It sounds likely that wearing thick padded clothing would be able to protect crew against most of the smaller splinters and fragmentation, but I doubt the same would go for the core of the round. Same for fuel tanks and engine, especially the latter with the more limited armour protection on the T34 engine deck.

 

Oh, and likely they'd have a much harder time to get the amount of rounds on target like we are able to do ingame, let alone aim for specific areas like we do.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Windmills

[Wulf]

This isn't much of an example but have a look from 6.50 at what 30 mm AP rounds do to the interior of a thin skinned vehicle like a humvee.  

Now, if you want to put on a padded jacket and maybe a pair of goggles and sit inside one of these things during a live fire test feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Wulf

[Finkeren]

This isn't much of an example but have a look from 6.50 at what 30 mm AP rounds do to the interior of a thin skinned vehicle like a humvee.

Now, if you want to put on a padded jacket and maybe a pair of goggles and sit inside one of these things during a live fire test feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

Obviously having dozens of 30mm rounds punch through a vehicle and put the other end and then have the entire car thrown into the air by an explosive device is gonna leave a mark.

 

Still, I want to call your attention to one detail: The seat padding. If there had been significant spalling and shards of metal flying all over the place, shouldn’t we expect the seat cushions to be all torn up? Yet there they are, completely intact - if a little dirty - except for the driver’s seat which appears to have taken a direct hit.

[Lusekofte]

Maybe I’ just a horrible shot, but I have never been able to reliably replicate the supposed amazing anti—armor capabilities of the VYa-23. I find them utterly impotent against hard targets.

 

Not a expert on the field, but I can take out two German tanks with mixed ammo until it is all spent. I am not sure if this is historical. But I must say , being no expert in ammo nor armor I am amazed what a FW 190 can do with T 34 too, And the 37 mm is absolute fabolus, so accurate. And effective. 

My main trade is IL 2 and I do not take out more Tanks with it than I du in a JU 87. Remember taking out 1 or two tanks pr missions is by no means historical, I admit it happened, but those times they wrote a book about it. I think we are close to historical results without getting frustrated. If it would take us 5 years to kill 50 tanks I tink we would be fed up  

 

And Rudel as a example is not a good answer 

Edited November 13, 2017 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Hs 129 Panzerjager! by Martin Pegg has several sections devoted to Hs 129 cannon effectiveness. I have not had time to read its entirety, but it did mention that 30 mm tungsten rounds were found to have caused terrible damage to T-34 crew. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

In the 72 training server I could take out 8 Panzer IVs with the full ammo load of the IL-2 (AP belt), and had some rounds left which weren't enough to destroy another one so I rounded up to 8.5 and came up with the 30-35 23mm hits needed to kill a Pz IV. Same procedure with the Hs 129, I could kill 6 Panzer IVs with the MK 103 and had some left, so considered 6.5 and got the 12 30mm hits to kill a Pz IV.

[LukeFF]

The gunpod mount in the Hs 129 has quite a bit of dispersion, you need to fire at close range to hit most of the rounds (don't know if this is accurate or not).

 

It is:

 

We would normally open fire at a distance from the target of between 45 and 60 meters, and from such a close range the 30 to 40 degree firing angle brought the aircraft dangerously close to its target...

 

-Hauptmann Franz Oswald, Hs 129 Panzerjäger!

[Wulf]

Obviously having dozens of 30mm rounds punch through a vehicle and put the other end and then have the entire car thrown into the air by an explosive device is gonna leave a mark.

 

Still, I want to call your attention to one detail: The seat padding. If there had been significant spalling and shards of metal flying all over the place, shouldn’t we expect the seat cushions to be all torn up? Yet there they are, completely intact - if a little dirty - except for the driver’s seat which appears to have taken a direct hit.

 

 

First there were what, 10 or so hits on the vehicle and secondly, the thing wasn't armoured, so therefore no spalling from splintered or molten armour plate entering the crew compartment.  And of cause these are little 30 mm GAU rounds which frankly look like babies compared to the 37 mm BK round.

 

But hey, if you want to put flesh and bone to the test against high velocity steel splinters and liquid metal then that's up to you - but I ain't coming along for the ride.

[=RvE=Windmills]

In the 72 training server I could take out 8 Panzer IVs with the full ammo load of the IL-2 (AP belt), and had some rounds left which weren't enough to destroy another one so I rounded up to 8.5 and came up with the 30-35 23mm hits needed to kill a Pz IV. Same procedure with the Hs 129, I could kill 6 Panzer IVs with the MK 103 and had some left, so considered 6.5 and got the 12 30mm hits to kill a Pz IV.

 

Good info to have, it's hard to do tests without an easy way to set up specific targets.

 

 

When it comes to the Gau-8 rounds its rounds are DU cored, so they have a strong incendiary after armour effect. This is not the case with tungsten, which would exclusively rely on fragments and the remainder of the core.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Windmills

[Gambit21]

Good info to have, it's hard to do tests without an easy way to set up specific targets.

 

It's pretty easy actually.

Give me some specs and I'll setup a tank kill test mission.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Did the same against the T-34s, with the Hs 129 and IL-2. I could kill 6 T-34s with the Hs 129, with no ammo remaining, so it's more or less the same 12 30mm rounds to destroy a T-34 than a Pz IV.

Surprisingly I could kill T-34s with the IL-2 from the side, but it took around 100 rounds to do it (only 3 T-34s with the whole ammo load in the IL-2). T-34's side would be resistant to the 23mm, but looks like it does some little damage and after that many hits it counts as destroyed.

Edited November 14, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[=RvE=Windmills]

It's pretty easy actually.

Give me some specs and I'll setup a tank kill test mission.

 

 

10 or so of each tank type, with a choice of planes I guess? Is it possible to make the plane selectable like in a quick mission or would it be a fixed plane choice?

[HagarTheHorrible]

Penetration is greatly overrated.

 

Why do think there are pictures showing people standng next to tanks with holes in them looking all pleased with themselves? Because it was common ?

 

Tracks are particularly vulnerable, a stopped tank is almost as dead as a completely destroyed tank especially if vulnerable to artillery or aircraft. The crew will probably bail out and hide until things quieten down, even if the damage is reletavely modest.

 

If I were to make a suggestion it would be that Tanks should be knocked out without to much trouble, maybe signified by wisps of smoke for ease of identification, only a few really brewing up completely. If your side is victorious, aided by your efforts in blunting an attack, and you are left in possession of the field then those disabled tanks are added to the kills tally. If your side losses the battle then the enemy salvages and repairs damaged tanks and therefore no kill is awarded.

 

I think many have an unreasonable expectation of what constitutes a kill and why. German armored vehicles were abandoned in Normandy, not from enemy fire but simply because of low moral due the threat of air attack. A view with which I completely concur. If I was attacked, with no adequate way of hitting back I would bugger off too, until the enemy had finished venting it's spleen on the vehicle before I would possibly return to see if anything was salvageable.

[Gambit21]

Here's a quickie IL2 tank kill mission. 3 convoys...lots  of targets.

I'll post it in the missions section at another time when I flesh it out a bit more.

For the moment, it's good for some testing...I'll add some static tanks in the next version in case you want a target that's not moving.

 

I'll swap the German tanks for Russian as soon as you guys tell me what aircraft you want to practice with....Ju-87?

Gambit21_IL2 Kill mission_1.zip

[Gambit21]

Not all spalling is created equal though. The spalling that results from a large high explosive detonation on the outside of the armor (such as a HESH shell) is extremely deadly, because the pieces flying off get their energy from an extremely powerful impulse traveling at several thousands of meters per second and thus they fly around the crew compartment at the speed of rifle bullets. This is basically how the SU-152s dealt with Tinger tanks.

 

Spalling from a simple, non explosive penetrator from another tank going 3000mps is equally deadly, and is how a large number of tanks are actually "killed"

That's my understanding from reading "Death Traps" anyway.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

This isn't much of an example but have a look from 6.50 at what 30 mm AP rounds do to the interior of a thin skinned vehicle like a humvee.  

Now, if you want to put on a padded jacket and maybe a pair of goggles and sit inside one of these things during a live fire test feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

 

 

 

 

There are reasons why we wouldn't look at a video of an MBT from today shooting at another MBT using a 100mm gun and directly relate that to how it must have been when a WW2 tank armed with a 100mm main gun shot at another.

Edited November 14, 2017 by 7.GShAP/Silas