Scipio Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 BTW, why does the smoke trace use this weird polygons and not the 'normal' white smoke puffs? [ October 22, 2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: BTW, why does the smoke trace use this weird polygons and not the 'normal' white smoke puffs?Aren't the normal "smoke puffs" bitmaps, or sprites, as they were once called? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by Switch_Back: ...the fact that it was VERY rare for any kind of penetration to occur...Mainly due to the fact that it was EXTREMELY RARE to achieve a direct hit with rockets. In fact, post-battle operational research teams found that at most a handful of tanks were destroyed by ALL CAUSES from aircraft. The true value of air attack against armored forces lay not in direct attack against the tanks and other AFVs themselves, but against their soft-skinned support vehicles. Deprive the armored forces of fuel, ammo, and spare parts and and they quickly turn into static junk heaps. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by Switch_Back: Myself being a big enthusiast of WW2 aircraft and their weaponry I can safely say that despite the fact that it was VERY rare for any kind of penetration to occur, the blast from the warhead in close proximity to the tank, or a direct hit was enouugh to- 1. rip the tracks apart. 2. immobolize the engine. ( direct hit only ) 3. render the gun useless.( direct hit only ) 4. Cause internal flaking. ( direct hit only ) 5. Kill unbuttoned crew members. Also in some circumstances it was possible for the rocket following its trajectory to acquire a good top penetration hit, due to the obvious lighter armor there. But as the aircraft where mainly to just provide some kind of SUPPORT to the infantry and armor on the ground, any kind of immobolization or killing of crew members was surely welcomed by the ground forces. It is also true that rockets did arc like this due to the propellant as mentioned before, but pilots who had used the rockets in sorties beforehand learnt quite quickly how to place a good shot onto the top of a tank using the curvature of the rocket arc. :cool: Anyone have anything to add?Must be why gun kills were higher in number of tanks killed in Normandy as shown in the ORS reports. The British in trials on aircraft attacks on inert tanks in flat fields calculated a grand 10% hit chance with rockets. And that is why the decision was made for HE warheads as opposed to shaped charge ones. You’ll also note that the Germans only went with rockets on their FW190s in 45 after the failure in mounting high velocity 3cm and 3,7cm guns. The Russians also found that there were immense accuracy and weight penalties in wing mounting anti tank guns in the IL2s. The Rocket was built and fielded because it was decided it was better than nothing at all. You can't compensate by too much due to problems in propellent brurning unevenly and the associated changes to the centre of gravity, in flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by Bastables: And that is why the decision was made for HE warheads as opposed to shaped charge ones.Was the alternative to HE a shaped charge? I thought it was a solid kinetic warhead, but I might have misunderstood. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted October 23, 2002 Author Share Posted October 23, 2002 They are diffenitely HE in the game. Several times they landed right next to my tanks but did no damage, other then killing some TC's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Everything flying through the air is affected by gravity to fly a "ballistic" path like this. Rockets are relatively low velocity projectiles, and so their vertical displacement is greater over a given distance than high velocity projectiles such as AT guns. It's exactly teh same erason why howitzers are less accurate than longer guns. as for effectiveness - by far and away hte greatest effect of tactical a/c on ht eWestern front (CMBO area) was in scaring the be-jeezuz out of tank crews and having them abandon perfectly good running tanks for no aparent reason!! Tank crews felt helpless and exposed to air attack - as soldiers throuoghout history have always done when confromted by an opponent who they cannot fight back against. Many crews felt that their tank was just a big unmanouvreable target inviting fire, and they were better off out of it. It's much the same reasoning (in the opposite sense) as to why a tank crew might stay in an immobilised vehicle that was only taking small arms fire. But then they didn't have decent AT cannon like the Sturmoviks did, and in Africa when the Allies did have AT cannon on Hurricanes the effect was much more direct!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: Everything flying through the air is affected by gravity to fly a "ballistic" path like this. Rockets are relatively low velocity projectiles, and so their vertical displacement is greater over a given distance than high velocity projectiles such as AT guns.You haven't been paying attention. I don't know how the Soviets did it, and not too familiar with the German technique either, so I make no assertions regarding them. But I have seen a fair amount of gun camera footage of rockets being fired from Allied fighter-bombers. They attacked in very steep dives. Therefore, the trajectories of their rockets were nearly straight, since gravity would be mostly just pulling them along their course. Got it now? Now as I say, I make no assertions regarding either the Soviets or the Germans, but since they weren't dummies, it would come as no shock to me to discover that they noticed the same things about rocket trajectories that their Western counterparts did and adjusted their attack tactics accordingly. But maybe not. That is all still unproven as far as I am concerned. It's exactly teh same erason why howitzers are less accurate than longer guns.It isn't clear what you mean by that statement, but in terms of how howitzers' accuracy is measured, that is false. Howitzers and mortars, because they are high-angle weapons have small, nearly circular beaten zones. High-velocity, flat trajectory weapons have elongated elliptical beaten zones that are always larger and usually much larger. A slight error in elevation for howitzer will produce a small deviation in range. The same error in a high-velocity gun may produce a considerable deviation in range. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Michael I wasn't posting in reply to anything you wrote, but, for the record, I do not believe that fighter bombers, etc attacked in 70 degree dives. IIRC (from reading a few years ago now) and from gun camera footage that gets shown every now and then, a 30-45 degree dive would be normal, and that is far from the direction that gravity pulls a rockt in. As for howitzer accuracy - howitzers are not high angle weapons - they are ABLE to be fired at high angles and to achieve decent range they HAVE to be fired at higher angles. But they can and were also fired "direct", and it is in this role that they had less accuracy than longer guns firing at higher velocities. This is directly analobgous to rockets because both are low velocity projectiles being fired directly at a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts