HS129 users: does the Mk103 is underpowered?

[Blackhawk_FR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_103_cannon

 

http://dictionnaire.sensagent.leparisien.fr/MK 103 cannon/en-en/

 

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/mk103.html

 

http://www.info-presse.fr/magazine/aero-journal-magazine-613036.htm#

A french magazine. Their sources: HS129 Panzerjager (Martin Pegg) and Henschel HS129 in action (Bernard Denes).

 

From all these sources, it seems the Mk103 with AP ammo could pierce 75 to 110mm of armor, at 300m and 90° penetration angle.

So in theory, we should be able to pierce the KV1 from rear and also from the side.

On the aerojournal magazine there are also few stories from the pilots saying they could take out a tank with an accurate shot of few rounds only (2-3).

 

Before saying there is a problem with the Mk103 from the game, I wanted to ask to HS129 users if they are able to take out a KV1 tank with only one pass (if yes, how?). Because I tried a lot of times, from different angles, rear and side, at quite a close range (shooting from 300-250 to 150-100m). Impossible to me...

Btw T34 with thiner armor need at least a very, very accurate and long shot to be destroyed.

Edited April 3, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Pict]

You would be better with a P-40 to take out the KV-1...

 

it has 6 x .50 cals and you can bounce them off the road into the KV-1's belly 

Edited April 3, 2018 by Pict

[[DBS]Browning]

Well, the KV1 has 75mm armor, right.

The GAU-8/A can penetrate 76mm of armor at 300 meters and it has modern projectiles that come in at 395 grams at 1,010 m/s.

In comparison, the Mk103 has less advanced projectiles that are only 330 grams at 940 m/s.

 

Given that comparison, I'd take the Mk103's claimed armor penetrating ability with a pinch of salt. I'm sure it can knock out KV1s, but I wouldn't expect it to penetrate reliably.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Browning29th

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

There was some discussion about the effectiveness of anti-tank autocannons in a thread several months ago. It was shown that the game favours large quantities of projectiles (from VYa-23 pair on Il-2) over powerful guns (30 mm and 37 mm) with low fire rates.

 

The penetration seems adequate, but many shots are required to remove the 'hitpoints' from a tank. This often leaves the slow-firing single MK 101, MK 103, and BK 3,7 at a considerable disadvantage. To destroy tanks with a single pass, it's often necessary to open fire early and score many hits.

 

Of course, real tanks are much more than a pool of 'hitpoints'. Until tank damage models are revised, there isn't much that can be done. However, the upcoming Tank Crew game will likely do just that. With detailed tanks as targets, single hits to critical parts may be enough to achieve a 'kill'.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[Asgar]

3 minutes ago, Browning29th said:

Well, the KV1 has 75mm armor, right.

The GAU-8/A can penetrate 76mm of armor at 300 meters and it has modern projectiles that come in at 395 grams at 1,010 m/s.

In comparison, the Mk108 has less advanced projectiles that are only 330 grams at 940 m/s.

 

Given that comparison, I'd take the Mk108's claimed armor penetrating ability with a pinch of salt. I'm sure it can knock out KV1s, but I wouldn't expect it to penetrate reliably.

103 massively different gun, the 108 has a muzzle velocity closer to 540m/s

[[DBS]Browning]

Sorry, Used numbers from 103, but said '108' instead. Post edited.

 

Something that should be considered is that the top armor for tanks is often far, far lighter than the armor at the sides or front and the KV1 is no exception.

There is little doubt that that should be penetrable by the Mk103 reliably.

Edited April 3, 2018 by Browning29th

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, Browning29th said:

Well, the KV1 has 75mm armor, right.

The GAU-8/A can penetrate 76mm of armor at 300 meters and it has modern projectiles that come in at 395 grams at 1,010 m/s.

In comparison, the Mk103 has less advanced projectiles that are only 330 grams at 940 m/s.

 

Given that comparison, I'd take the Mk103's claimed armor penetrating ability with a pinch of salt. I'm sure it can knock out KV1s, but I wouldn't expect it to penetrate reliably.

That figure is with armor sloped back at 30 degrees, Mk103 at the same range and angle manages 40-50mm

 

I wouldn't expect the Mk103 to penetrate the KV-1s 70-75mm sides and rear and have difficulty even with the roof as that was 30mm thick, the Hs would have to be in a pretty steep dive to defeat that.

However I would expect it to be effective vs the T-34 as the sloped sides become unsloped to a Hs-129 diving attack and should be penetrated farely easily

Edited April 3, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Eicio]

1 hour ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

From all these sources, it seems the Mk103 with AP ammo could pierce 75 to 110mm of armor, at 300m and 90° penetration angle.

So in theory, we should be able to pierce the KV1 from rear and also from the side.

On the aerojournal magazine there are also few stories from the pilots saying they could take out a tank with an accurate shot of few rounds only (2-3).

 

Even the kwk 40 from the pz IV could struggle to penetrate a kv1's armor and the armor's slopping wasn't as it's disadvantage compare to a plane, and you can add that a mk 103 didn't have the anti-tank capabilities of the kwk 40.

 

So, to me, it doesn't seem underpowered actually. Anti-tank missions for an aircraft was really tough for limited outcomes, when I fly the hs 129 I always take  2 mg 151/20 and the combination  1 Sc250 and 2 sc50. To kill a train/train station is 1 thousand times easier and is 1 thousand times a better strategic choice. Then with you're canons you can attack soft targets fromp convoys and strongholds.

 

That is to say I do not see the usefulness of big canon pods that will slow you down just to "possibly" knock out a tank, maybe two if you're lucky.

 

Now we'll need more intelligences to know if the canon pods were really used in WWII, more than marginaly at least but I do not think they were, I might be wrong but I believe they found the canons not that effective against tanks or effective enough to justify massive production of such weapons and tactics.

[Makz]

3 часа назад, F/JG300_Faucon сказал:

From all these sources, it seems the Mk103 with AP ammo could pierce 75 to 110mm of armor, at 300m and 90° penetration angle.

So in theory, we should be able to pierce the KV1 from rear and also from the side.

On the aerojournal magazine there are also few stories from the pilots saying they could take out a tank with an accurate shot of few rounds only (2-3).

Pease dont overestimate german weapons. 

The characteristics specified in the documents are given for the conditions of 50/50 penetration for homogeneous armor.

So even under ideal conditions, it could break through the armor or couldn't with 50% probability.

Also take into a count that the tank armor had a surface hardening. 

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Pretty much everything about the Hs 129 is under powered and underwhelming. It's like the Nickleback of BoX (not a jab at the devs by any means, the model is beautiful and the FM seems close to accurate). I cant speak for the historical accuracy of the cannon as I'm no expert, but it does seem frustrating to inflict any kind of damage on the heavier tanks with it.

 

It's a shame really. This aircraft is overall a very good design, but the lack of engine power in game (and I'm sure in real life as well) just makes things very frightening when taking it on a mission. It's a very high risk/low reward aircraft IMHO. Sometimes I try to imagine what this aircraft could have done if it were fitted with a pair of BMW 801's...something tells me it would have made it truly amazing. 

 

My mantra...

 

"Save a life....fly a 110!"

[JtD]

6 hours ago, Eicio said:

Now we'll need more intelligences to know if the canon pods were really used in WWII, more than marginaly at least but I do not think they were, I might be wrong but I believe they found the canons not that effective against tanks or effective enough to justify massive production of such weapons and tactics.

 

Yes, we know it was. The Mk103 pod under the Hs129 was probably the most used German AT configuration in the second half of WW2 and one of the most effective. The Hs129 groups were specialized tank buster groups. If the Germans wanted to take out a train station and do some strafing, they'd strap a bomb under a Fw190.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

A while back, I did some quick missions, wanting to do tank busting with the Hs129, and it gave me KV2's every time.

 

I could blast away at the things all day long, and they would keep chugging right along.

Edited April 4, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[ethelward]

I'd like to add this source (itself pretty well sourced, it seems) to the debate. And according to what's in it, aircraft basically performed a suppressive role, and scored very few actual kills, due to the difficulty to penetrate already mentioned above by other posters.

[JaffaCake]

1 hour ago, ethelward said:

I'd like to add this source (itself pretty well sourced, it seems) to the debate. And according to what's in it, aircraft basically performed a suppressive role, and scored very few actual kills, due to the difficulty to penetrate already mentioned above by other posters.

 

 

Ground attack reports of all sides come under fire for over-claiming, whether it is rocket strikes, bombs or cannons.

 

The problem, however, is not how difficult it was to land the shot on target or how accurate people were during the war, but instead whether mk103 tungsten is in the game and has the specified penetration values.

 

If it takes a 100m distance to tank to get the kill we can do it in the game, whether anyone did it in reality is a different question. But I would hate to see the weapon effectiveness be nerfed "because our reports show that nobody scored a kill with this thing because they were too scared to get the conditions right".

 

7 hours ago, Makz said:

Pease dont overestimate german weapons. 

The characteristics specified in the documents are given for the conditions of 50/50 penetration for homogeneous armor.

So even under ideal conditions, it could break through the armor or couldn't with 50% probability.

Also take into a count that the tank armor had a surface hardening. 

 

That is why there are standardised tests and ratings for penetration. And all "hardening" is pretty easy to account for by just using the factor. Even modern tanks that hardly use steel as armour anymore still give their resistance in "RHS-equivalent thickness"

 

[Wolferl_1791]

14 hours ago, Pict said:

it has 6 x .50 cals and you can bounce them off the road into the KV-1's belly 

 

Only works on Tigers with big fuel trucks behind them. And only if there's a US pilot in the plane.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

8 hours ago, Makz said:

Pease dont overestimate german weapons. 

The characteristics specified in the documents are given for the conditions of 50/50 penetration for homogeneous armor.

So even under ideal conditions, it could break through the armor or couldn't with 50% probability.

Also take into a count that the tank armor had a surface hardening. 

Only nation who used face hardened armor was the Germans, and that was for early to mid Panzer IIIs and IVs. In second half of 1943 StuG III and Pz IV transitioned to single 80mm RHA plate rather then 50+30mm FHA.

And German penetration criteria for 37mm and smaller was 10 consecutive penetrations, which means that to get 10 consecutive penetrations, the probability of each round succeeding must be very high (to get 10 consecutive penetration 50% of the time, each individual round must have the probability of defeating the armour 93% of the time)

 

Americans mainly used Navy criteria 50/50, meaning 50% of the projectile mass passes through 50% of the time.

 

Russians  definition was meant 75% of the projectile mass pass through 80% (CP) or 20% (IP) of the time. This gives a range of 11-15% for perpendicular plate and 12-18% for plate angled back 30 degrees

 

British used a number of criteria as well, listed here

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:british-armour-specifications-and-penetration-critiera&catid=49:other-data&Itemid=61

[Pict]

58 minutes ago, Wolferl_1791 said:

 

Only works on Tigers with big fuel trucks behind them. And only if there's a US pilot in the plane.

 

Yesssir... that ol'.50cal was the tiger hunters weapon of choice...it said so on the disco chanel between YMCA & Hot Chocolate 

[[_FLAPS_]Grim]

I dont use it for tank hunting. But you can destroy quite everything else from armored cars to trucks, trains and arty.

And you have all time in the world to aim and shoot because the duck is so slow...if you have cover.

 

I dont think its underpowered, but you can kill so much more if you dont attack the tanks. 

[Pict]

5 hours ago, Grim said:

I dont use it for tank hunting. But you can destroy quite everything else from armored cars to trucks, trains and arty.

And you have all time in the world to aim and shoot because the duck is so slow...if you have cover.

 

I dont think its underpowered, but you can kill so much more if you dont attack the tanks. 

 

Yes...and by attacking all the support and logistics, the tanks (KV-1's as per the OP) are alone without fuel, ammo, mechanics, or protection from infantry or aircraft who will attack them with ordinance more likely to inflict major damage, like bombs.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Pict

[FTC_Etherlight]

It's never worth it to use cannons to attack the heavy tanks, really. Then again, in most situations where you have a column, most tanks are light/medium and a few heavys inbetween, maybe. So just use those cannons for the lighter and medium variants, much more efficient. Drop a bomb on those heavies.

[Tyberan]

Ive only ever had any luck with it against T-34's and i think that was a fluke.

[CrazyDuck]

19 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Before saying there is a problem with the Mk103 from the game, I wanted to ask to HS129 users if they are able to take out a KV1 tank with only one pass (if yes, how?). Because I tried a lot of times, from different angles, rear and side, at quite a close range (shooting from 300-250 to 150-100m). Impossible to me...

 

That's because it is impossible.

 

You need precisely 24 direct, clean hits with MK103 AP shells on the KV-1 side or rear to achieve a mobility kill only (tank stops and starts smoking), and then additional 8 to make it explode (or wait until it does spontaneously).

 

This means about 4 seconds of uninterrupted fire, landing each shell on the tank.

 

Game doesn't simulate the piercing of different thicknesses of the armor. Each tank has a certain number of hitpoints (depending on the side you attack it from), and you have to reduce them to zero. It simply takes 24 hits to achieve this for KV-1 from the side or rear.

 

[Blackhawk_FR]

Just to make sure, during WWII, Hs129 has been an efficient tank buster: about 3000 tanks destroyed (east front and Afrika). Mk101 was standard in 1942. Mk103 in 1943. And then later bigger cannons like BK37 or 75mm.

 

In some campaigns and mission (as during the war) you (they) sometimes have no choices: You have to destroy a tank column to protect your AF for example (TAW). 

And btw, it's a game. If I like tank busting, I don't know why I should avoid it because it's a tough job  I find it much more fun and rewarding than bombing soft targets (to me).

 

I'll try again in the game against the KV1, with slower approaches, different angles, may be with very steep dives but it seems not so effective and very risky.

 

 

6 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

That's because it is impossible.

 

You need precisely 24 direct, clean hits with MK103 AP shells on the KV-1 side or rear to achieve a mobility kill only (tank stops and starts smoking), and then additional 8 to make it explode (or wait until it does spontaneously).

 

This means about 4 seconds of uninterrupted fire, landing each shell on the tank.

 

Game doesn't simulate the piercing of different thicknesses of the armor. Each tank has a certain number of hitpoints (depending on the side you attack it from), and you have to reduce them to zero. It simply takes 24 hits to achieve this for KV-1 from the side or rear.

 

 

Interesting, thanks.

Edited April 4, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[[DBS]Browning]

46 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Just to make sure, during WWII, Hs129 has been an efficient tank buster: about 3000 tanks destroyed (east front and Afrika).

 

Gonna need a source for that. That's more than three tanks per Hs129.

[Blackhawk_FR]

12 minutes ago, Browning29th said:

 

Gonna need a source for that. That's more than three tanks per Hs129.

 

20 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

http://www.info-presse.fr/magazine/aero-journal-magazine-613036.htm#

A french magazine. Their sources: HS129 Panzerjager (Martin Pegg) and Henschel HS129 in action (Bernard Denes).

 

[[DBS]Browning]

Where did they get that number from?

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Browning29th said:

Gonna need a source for that. That's more than three tanks per Hs129.

 

Yes...and what is the definition of "tank" too?

 

How many of them were KV-1's or similar heavy armor?

How many light "tanks"? etc...

[PantsPilot]

To be fair the Hs.129 wasn't a particularly successful aircraft, and a bit of an emergency gap filler for the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front, when faced with Stalin's mass production of tanks which rolled off the factory production lines much faster than the Germans could kill them. Like a lot of Germanic planes it's been afforded almost cult status in the recent combat flight sim world, largely because it's German, can carry big guns, and well looks kind of sexy. The Ju-87G was a more successful panzer-knacker with it's dual 3.7cm AT gun, and even that was largely down to Rudel's memoirs, the accuracy of which we can never be 100% certain. Neither could operate successfully without fighter cover. Even allowing for Rudel's score the Luftwaffe hardly scraped the paint off the surface of Stalin war machine compared to the German ground forces. Keep in perspective.

[Blackhawk_FR]

1 hour ago, Browning29th said:

Where did they get that number from?

 

23 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

http://www.info-presse.fr/magazine/aero-journal-magazine-613036.htm#

A french magazine. Their sources: HS129 Panzerjager (Martin Pegg) and Henschel HS129 in action (Bernard Denes).

 

 

After a second read, it's not "about" 3000 tanks destroyed, but "close to 3000 tanks destroyed" (so may be 2800-2900). 

That's still an impressive number, as they say.

Edited April 4, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Eicio]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

 

Yes...and what is the definition of "tank" too?

 

How many of them were KV-1's or similar heavy armor?

How many light "tanks"? etc...

 

Even if the 3 000 were only t-70 it'd still be quite impressive/unbelievable.

[PatrickAWlson]

1 hour ago, Eicio said:

 

Even if the 3 000 were only t-70 it'd still be quite impressive/unbelievable.

 

My guess is that the 3000 comes from pilot claims, not from research that correlates claims with actual losses.

[[DBS]Browning]

Yes. I wasn't asking where the magazine got the numbers from, but where Martin Pegg or Bernard Denes got the number from.

Unless the turret comes flying off or the whole thing burns, it's not really possible for pilots to make accurate assessments of  how much damage has been done to a tank.

[Eicio]

54 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

My guess is that the 3000 comes from pilot claims, not from research that correlates claims with actual losses.

 

You mean like the allied bomber's gunners that shot one fighters and each of them was like "whoa I killed a fighter" and then command said "impressive ! We killed 123 fighters on this day !"

[CrazyDuck]

On 3. 4. 2018 at 9:42 PM, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Before saying there is a problem with the Mk103 from the game, I wanted to ask to HS129 users if they are able to take out a KV1 tank with only one pass (if yes, how?). Because I tried a lot of times, from different angles, rear and side, at quite a close range (shooting from 300-250 to 150-100m). Impossible to me...

 

6 hours ago, CrazyDuck said:

That's because it is impossible.

 

I retreat my comment and stand corrected - it is possible to do it. I've managed to kill a KV-1 in a single pass and here are screenshots how:

 

1. Tank setup

 

2. Approach (note the tank above the left engine)

 

3. Moment of truth:

 

Killing the tank in a single pass and living to tell about it, now that's another story. 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by CrazyDuck

[LukeFF]

37 minutes ago, CrazyDuck said:

I retreat my comment and stand corrected - it is possible to do it. I've managed to kill a KV-1 in a single pass and here are screenshots how:

 

I've been waiting for someone to find the highly-secret Soviet Alpine Tank Corps. 

[GridiroN]

I flew the HS129 a couple days ago. I used all 80 rounds and didn't penetrate a Kv1 from rear or side.

[CrazyDuck]

1 minute ago, GridiroN said:

I flew the HS129 a couple days ago. I used all 80 rounds and didn't penetrate a Kv1 from rear or side.

 

Very hard to do indeed. KV-1 needs exactly 24 hits from the side or rear from MK103 to start smoking (and consequently blow up if you wait long enough). That's about 30% hit ratio with 80 rounds to begin with.

 

[Max_Damage]

19 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Just to make sure, during WWII, Hs129 has been an efficient tank buster: about 3000 tanks destroyed (east front and Afrika). Mk101 was standard in 1942. Mk103 in 1943. And then later bigger cannons like BK37 or 75mm.

 

In some campaigns and mission (as during the war) you (they) sometimes have no choices: You have to destroy a tank column to protect your AF for example (TAW). 

And btw, it's a game. If I like tank busting, I don't know why I should avoid it because it's a tough job  I find it much more fun and rewarding than bombing soft targets (to me).

 

I'll try again in the game against the KV1, with slower approaches, different angles, may be with very steep dives but it seems not so effective and very risky.

 

 

 

Interesting, thanks.

Wow that is obviously an extreme case of propaganda you got there. You can clearly see in game why this plane couldnt acheive anything close to this. You have three extremely unfavorable dice rolls to overcome. First you need to hit which happens not that often. Then you need to penetrate which is extremely unlikely. And the penetration needs to deal some damage which just doesnt happen with 30mm ammo.

 

Btw IRL it was mostly used with mk101 and without sabot ammo. So low rate of fire and 30 shots.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Max_Damage

[Asgar]

I'm doing fairly well with the MK 103, only thing bothering my is that you can't fire it seperatly, i still hope we get an updated grouping of the guns MGs + MG 151 and MK 103 seperated from that

[Blackhawk_FR]

30 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

Wow that is obviously an extreme case of propaganda you got there. You can clearly see in game why this plane couldnt acheive anything close to this. You have three extremely unfavorable dice rolls to overcome. First you need to hit which happens not that often. Then you need to penetrate which is extremely unlikely. And the penetration needs to deal some damage which just doesnt happen with 30mm ammo.

 

Btw IRL it was mostly used with mk101 and without sabot ammo. So low rate of fire and 30 shots.

 

... Where do you get that from?  Extreme propaganda? So your point of view is also extreme.

As I said, it's not 3000 but close to 3000. And even if it comes from a "propaganda source", and that it's more close to 2000 or 1500 tanks destroyed (whatever), stories/memories from soldiers on the frontline (germans and russians) proove that Hs129 was far from being ineffective against tanks.

 

In the game (and also IRL for good pilots), it's not so hard to hit your target, with some trainings. Btw the slow speed of Hs129 is helpful for that. 

Then, it's far from being unlikely to penetrate your target (except KV1). IRL, from all I read, it's the same. 

Mk103 was the common anti tank weapon of HS129 in 43-44. Mk101 was mostly used in 42-43.

As soon as an AP shell penetrate your target, you DO make damages inside the tank.

Edited April 5, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon