birdstrike Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Regarding the interface, to simulate pre-planned airstrikes or roaming fighter patrols, perhaps we could get the ability to designate frontlines, or target zones which are assigned to a scenario before the battle starts (perhaps as part of scenario design in the editor?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 No Not worth the time and effort because it's generally not relevant. Free flying aircraft shouldn't be around a CM tactical battlefield at all, in theory, because there's no good way to designate a meaningful frontline to a pilot who is flying from hundreds of miles away with, if he's lucky, a basic map. Conditions on the ground were generally too fluid to keep track of in a meaningful way. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Don't know but in real life there is gun cam footage of P-47s (probably) setting a tiger's engine on fire by bouncing the shots off the ground and into the underside of the engine (I'm skeptical of this claim though, it's probably just hitting the fuel tanks). Given the high detail of the damage and armor system in the CMx2 engine (individual parts have their own armor instead of just armor "areas") and detailed ballistics it could be possible to do that or atleast have various weak points where bullets can get in. For instance the engine of the tiger is in a bullet proof casing too thick for .5 bullets to go through but there are fuel tanks next to it that have less protection, this should be able to be modeled in the engine if I understand what BFC has said about it right. I'm more than a bit dubious that any .50cal bullet that bounces off a ROAD is then going to penetrate 20mm of STEEL PLATE...misshapen, tumbling, at an extremely shallow angle. It doesn't make any logical sense. I reckon any claims of bouncing rounds off roads and knocking out tanks are fantasy. Trucks and halftracks maybe. Rounds through an engine grille on top maybe. Setting fire to additional fuel being carried on the back of the tank sure. Setting fire to equipment/tents/baggage/camouflage netting on the back of the tank, sure. Knocking out the tank, extremely doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 If a P-47 strafed a Tiger and the pilot (or maybe another pilot in the same flight) saw flames coming from the rear of the Tiger, perhaps it was that the P-47's eight .50-cal MGs shredded the radiators and/or punctured the grille on top, either of which could (in my understanding) cause the engine to catch fire. In any case, fighter pilots -- whether they're dogfighting with 109s or strafing Tigers -- are apt to exaggerate things when it comes to kills scored and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Its hard to tell from the air, even looking at guncam footage, what damage was inflicted on ground vehicles. Here is some footage of Rudel in action on the OstFront against Soviet Armour. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w&feature=related You will also notice that most kills occur in wide open terrain where it is easier to spot enemy vehicles which was not the case in most of normandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 But... will 0.50 cals take out Tigers? lengthy analyses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I believe this is the footage Flanker 15 is referring to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM&feature=related it is hard to tell what causes the fire or even what type of tank it is (is it a Tiger?). It also looks like the pilot had to make multiple passes to cause the fire. One point I would like to make again is that the tank is caught in the open on a road in daylight, ideal conditions for the P-47, but not typical of what you would encounter on a battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 But... will 0.50 cals take out Tigers? lengthy analyses pic of Riker facepalm shutting up now Lemme guess... ".50-cal versus Tiger" is one of the myriad ad nauseam debate topics which have each gone through the ringer multiple times in the course of the BFC forum's history? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slug88 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 Lemme guess... ".50-cal versus Tiger" is one of the myriad ad nauseam debate topics which have each gone through the ringer multiple times in the course of the BFC forum's history? Hell, forget the BFC forum's history, many good men were lost debating this on the IL2 forums years ago. I think there's even a commemorative plaque somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm more than a bit dubious that any .50cal bullet that bounces off a ROAD is then going to penetrate 20mm of STEEL PLATE...misshapen, tumbling, at an extremely shallow angle. It doesn't make any logical sense. Quite right. The actual mechanism by which P-47s, etc, destroyed tanks is that the 50 cal rounds pass through the open commanders hatch, then rattle around inside causing all sorts of carnage and destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 But... will 0.50 cals take out Tigers? Only if they bounce them off the ground first. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Quite right. The actual mechanism by which P-47s, etc, destroyed tanks is that the 50 cal rounds pass through the open commanders hatch, then rattle around inside causing all sorts of carnage and destruction. The actual mechanism of destruction has nothing directly to do with the bullets, which are a mere distraction. What actually happens is that the high octane gremlins that were previously attached to the airplane and causing all sorts of problems there have patriotically transferred themselves to the tank with the resulting mayhem. This was all covered thoroughly by Masters & Johnson in their landmark work "High Octane Gremlins Carry the War to the Enemy" published in the journal Fairies, Banshees and Stuff. Unfortunately, this masterpiece of research has been overshadowed by the controversy surrounding their later flawed work on the female orgasm. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 ... aaaaand I think that about wraps it up for any possible further usefulness to be derived from this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Whilst making the Tiger for CM Normandy I was interested to note that if you stand on the deck of a tiger you can actually see the fuel tanks (and radiatiors) through the rear deck engine covers. As such I personally dont find it hard to believe some sort of shrapnel from a burst of 8 .50 cal MGs has a chance to find its way in there and puncture either. Most WW2 tanks seem to be quite vulnerable in this respect. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The Tiger 1 has fuel tanks under the ventilator inputs on the rear deck. Furthermore, the fuel lines run on top of the engine. Spielberger has the drawings. /end thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 Thanks gents! I think our work is done here, so I'm going to lock this one up until someone starts to explain who Masters & Johnson are Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts