Michael Emrys Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by Warmaker: Screw air support. For the cost of one VERY expensive, WILDCARD support unit you could have gotten a Panther. Or maybe 4-5 regular PaK40's?Or a couple of medium to heavy arty modules, which, depending on what you need them for, will probably be more useful and a lot less dangerous to your own side. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): It isn't as though the German combat formations were saying, "hey guys, aircraft only actually kill about one in ten vehicles so just ignore them." Post battle analysis too often fails entirely to find the reality of what happend during the actual fighting. But PRO interrogations of panzer Crews noted Crews felt perfectly safe in their tanks during aerial attacks and the problem was with "green" crewmembers who with only great difficulties could be restrained from bailing out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 I have made another 3 test each had 4 veteran j-129 B2 against 9 T-34 43 (late), clear weather open steppe, breeze and without flak fire. Something very strange happened only 2 of 12 (3x4) Junkers drop their 6x550lb bombs, all others seems to abort their drop , or drop 6 very little bombs, There is a bug here? the airplane weapon´s for this model are 20mm and 8mm machineguns and 6x550lb bomb load. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 should i be heading for the trees? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 OTHER MEANS: WHAT´S THE MATTER WITH YOU??!!!! :mad: You have a lot of problems with your last pbem game. DO THE TURN, AND SHUT UP!!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rum Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by TheCrow: Before 16 strafes with veteran crew I got a lot of impacts but only three became immobile, and only one partial penetration give me a crew hit. Was the stuka´s 37mm cannon so ineffective vs T-34? Im i getting you right, ONE stuka made 16 strafes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 A quick comment on aircraft friendly fire. I agree that, in action as a whole, it was nowhere near as common as we see in CMBB. If it were, I doubt that there would have been as many aircraft deployed in WWII. That said, I think it could well be realistic in terms of friendly fire a the point of engagement during action. I would expect almost no friendly fire on missions designed to take out convoys and such behind the lines or on prep bombardment, but I would think that it would be pretty damn common in a meeting engagement with a fluid frond and parties separated by as little as 100m. In short, I think it is realistic for the games most of us play, but unrealistic for the conflict as a whole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 29, 2003 Author Share Posted August 29, 2003 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TheCrow: Before 16 strafes with veteran crew I got a lot of impacts but only three became immobile, and only one partial penetration give me a crew hit. Was the stuka´s 37mm cannon so ineffective vs T-34? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im i getting you right, ONE stuka made 16 strafes? 8 veteran CREWS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambronne Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I am beginning to wonder if the folks who complain about too much friendly fire from the fly boys may not have a point. I haven't seen enough statistics, either from the RW or the game, to take a position on this yet, but I'm starting to wonder if BFC didn't turn up the volume on this one just a tad too high. [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppe Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 "You may have been reading too much Rudel." LOL.....now thats comedy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 29, 2003 Share Posted August 29, 2003 OTHER MEANS: WHAT´S THE MATTER WITH YOU??!!!! :mad: flu. blech. You have a lot of problems with your last pbem game. DO THE TURN, AND SHUT UP!!!!!!! so was that 4 or 5 Stugs on fire in the last turn? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Originally posted by Slappy: A quick comment on aircraft friendly fire. I agree that, in action as a whole, it was nowhere near as common as we see in CMBB. If it were, I doubt that there would have been as many aircraft deployed in WWII. That said, I think it could well be realistic in terms of friendly fire a the point of engagement during action. I would expect almost no friendly fire on missions designed to take out convoys and such behind the lines or on prep bombardment, but I would think that it would be pretty damn common in a meeting engagement with a fluid frond and parties separated by as little as 100m. In short, I think it is realistic for the games most of us play, but unrealistic for the conflict as a whole. Slappy, I agree with what you wrote. But what bothers me, and I think others here is when you get bombed when you are still several hundred meters from the enemy positions. I'm not saying that should never happen, but it shouldn't happen all the time. Just last night I set up a test. A company of tanks, a company of infantry, and four Stukas. The ground units did not leave their set up areas. I ran the test 15 times. In all but 3, the Stukas bombed their own troops at least once. At least twice they came back and strafed as well. This strikes me as just a little excessive, even if part of it can be explained away as one of those statistical flukes. Afterthought: I forgot to mention that the reason this is particularly troubling is that I especially chose the Stuka because it was as close to a precision-guided munition as anyone came in a WW II airplane. They weren't dropping bombs from 30,000 feet or hundreds of miles per hour. They were slow planes diving near vertically from 15,000 feet with plenty of time before release and pull out to identify their targets and abort the drop if anything looked funny. Michael [ August 29, 2003, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 I think "friendly fire" is nearly as common today as it was back in WWII, precision munitions be damned. They only make the mistakes more costly (deaths instead of injuries or just a scare). I distincly remember a blue-on-blue from Gulf War 1 where an Apache blasted a Scout Bradley and a GSR(Ground Suveillance Radar) team in a M-113. Anyone who's seen documentaries about Desert Storm has probably seen the gun video. That GSR team was from a different company in my Bn., so I got quite a few details about the whole thing. They weren't mixed up or in a shootout with any Iraqis; the nearest ones were kilometers away. The pilot of the Apache(the Apache Bn. commander, in the air against direct orders of the commanding Gen.) had out of date info on the location of friendlies and fired away without waiting for confirmation of friendly locations. Both vehicles were total losses and there were several dead and wounded. This was just one incident of many during GW1 and since. I think that CAS friendly fire during WWII would be at least as prevalent, especially when the forces are so close (less than 2km). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 IW, I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I just don't believe that it was happening constantly. Incidents of FF get remembered and reported because nobody believes they "ought" to happen. I used to think the same thing was applying when people reported it happening in the game. I never used airpower much myself, once in BO and once previously in BB. Now that I decided to try it again, I can see what people are hollering about. If it were happening historically at anything like the rate I am seeing, the whole idea of close support would have been dropped immediately for the duration. Clearly it wasn't. Now unless my experiences represent some really freaky outlier, there appears to be a problem. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 TheCrow, The Ju-87G has a total of twelve rounds (six per gun because with seven per gun the Bk 37, an adaptation of the 3.7 cm Flak 18 wouldn't feed properly in the air). My memory's hazy, but I distinctly recall that the gun had tungsten ammo provided, marked "only for use against tanks," and I believe there was also HE or HEI in the mix. My source was a briefing by Jim Steuard, then publisher of AFV-G2 magazine and formerly an ordnance and armor sergeant. He spoke and read German and had the actual German ammo manuals, not to mention the relevant volumes of Chinn's formerly classified series THE MACHINE GUN, parts of which covered aircraft cannon up through the Bk 75 (Pak 40 converted for aircraft use). Contrary to what you might think, the Ju-87G did not attack in a vertical dive but in a shallow, jinking weave, about all the massive and high drag ordnance load would permit, even with the oxygen system stripped out. Targets on the Soviet tanks were the engine compartment and fuel drums. Ground fire was a problem, since the plane's maneuverability was so hindered by the armament, but even worse losses were sustained in "virtual attrition" when pilots exhausted from flying the heavy, unresponsive aircraft crashed on landing. Hope this helps and that rexford provides some new info. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Everybody who has IL-2 and did some bombing missions know its HARD to identify enemy tanks,even when they are a few hundred meters from each other. The tanks in IL-2 are modelled ok, but when you are at 2000 feet and with lets say 250 mph, you see only some dark dots. Edit: In real life you dont see red or blue icons hehehe. When you cut the icons in IL-2 you know HOW hard it is, i bombed friendly tanks many times You need VERY accurate info, or you have a good chance to bomb your own forces. I think that attacks did not occur much when tanks were that close to each other, did they?? Monty [ August 30, 2003, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Monty ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 30, 2003 Author Share Posted August 30, 2003 Thank you John Ketler. But this don´t convince me, about disappointing fire perfomance of stuka G-1. Specially if they fire tugsten rounds, I had not seen penetrating hits over T-34 20mm top armor. Other means: I only see one stug in flames. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 TheCrow, You're welcome. May I suggest pinging rexford and Jeff Duquette to see what they may have to offer on the matter? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 31, 2003 Author Share Posted August 31, 2003 It´s easy to understand, I thought: it´s difficult to believe to me than StuKa G-1 cannons can´t penetrate T-34/43 top armor. I made some test and armor flanking and one partial penetration were my best results. I don´t have knowledges enought to say what´s happens here, cause of that i wrotte this topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 The effeciency of the Stukas and specially the JU87G in CMBB is a bad joke. The 37mm cannons were way enough to penetrate the upper side of the turrets of T34s. I noticed in a few scenarios that the accuracy of the older Ju87D is as good as from an IL2! Stukas were absolutely deadly against tanks but what we have is, that even an IL2 is more dangerous... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 31, 2003 Author Share Posted August 31, 2003 I have made two more test, one with four vet. St-G1, without good results, thier cannos didn´t penetrate T-34 armor. Another one with two vet. Ju-123 b3, This airplane has been a wonderful tank buster. they destroyed eight over nine tanks (3 sherman-76, 3 T-34/85, and 2 T-34/43), the other one became immobile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by TheCrow: It´s easy to understand, I thought: it´s difficult to believe to me than StuKa G-1 cannons can´t penetrate T-34/43 top armor.Are you taking into consideration that the hits against the top armor are most likely striking at a very oblique angle and from much farther away than a 37mm PaK would be effective against a similar thickness of armor? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Are you taking into consideration that the hits against the top armor are most likely striking at a very oblique angle and from much farther away than a 37mm PaK would be effective against a similar thickness of armor? Michael BK 3,7cm gun is much more powerful than the 3,7cm PaK. BK APCR shot will penetrate up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees, this is halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees. For comparsion GAU-8/A 30x173: 207,000 joules BK 37x263: 263,000 joules Former is heavier than the WWII round and penetrates 10-15% better due to use of DU as opposed to tungsten. [ August 31, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCrow Posted August 31, 2003 Author Share Posted August 31, 2003 Perhaps 20mm at 45º or 60º. I don´t have penetration data of this 37mm gun, but I think that weapon could penetrate this armor without problem, specially if it had tungsten rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Originally posted by TheCrow: I don´t have penetration data of this 37mm gun, but I think that weapon could penetrate this armor without problem, specially if it had tungsten rounds. Well, there you go. TheCrow has no data, but he thinks the gun could penetrate. BTS, please fix or do sumfink. Talk about the <big>ME</big> generation. Rexford - all these years you've been wasting your time. You don't need to research all this stuff, just think something and it becomes reality. [ August 31, 2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.