Gun Ammo

[Sverre]

Hi, in the F-5 we can choose between HEI, CM and AP rounds, but what ammo type fits best for A-A, A-G etc? I couldn't find any info on it in the manual.

 

Thanks.

[Ktulu2]

A2A :

Wings are easy to pierce, but a small hole isn't too problematic, so you want something to set those wing tanks on fire, so Highly explosive/incendiary.

 

For A2G :

depends on the target, if you are taking out soft target (cars&trucks) either CM or HEI

If you don't know/have mixed target/are against the average armored target, go with CM.

If you know you'll face 20 tanks, take AP.

[nomdeplume]

HEI should be more effective for air-to-air, as punching a nice little hole through an aircraft (AP rounds) is less likely to do crippling damage.

 

HEI is also best against thin-skinned ground targets like trucks. AP is most useful against tanks and other heavily armored ground units.

 

CM is mostly AP with some HEI (4:1), and is reasonably effective against everything. As a general rule for A-A missions I think HEI-only would make sense as even a few hits with high explosive should do significant damage to fragile things like aircraft. For A-G missions where you might be facing BMPs or tanks (and you want to shoot them with your guns rather than just drop some bombs and disappear) then combat mix would be the way to go.

[Sverre]

Got it, thanks for the answers guys :thumbup:

[OutOnTheOP]

HEI should be more effective for air-to-air, as punching a nice little hole through an aircraft (AP rounds) is less likely to do crippling damage.

 

HEI is also best against thin-skinned ground targets like trucks. AP is most useful against tanks and other heavily armored ground units.

 

CM is mostly AP with some HEI (4:1), and is reasonably effective against everything. As a general rule for A-A missions I think HEI-only would make sense as even a few hits with high explosive should do significant damage to fragile things like aircraft. For A-G missions where you might be facing BMPs or tanks (and you want to shoot them with your guns rather than just drop some bombs and disappear) then combat mix would be the way to go.

 

Are you sure combat mix in the F-5E is 4:1 AP:HEI? Combat mix is just a generic term used to refer to the standard mix used on any given aircraft. As the F-5E uses a small-caliber autocannon primarily in the air-to-air role, I would expect it's combat mix to be significantly more HEI and HEI-T. CM is 4:1 or 5:1 AP-heavy on the A-10 because the primary role of that aircraft is ground attack of armored and lightly armored vehicles. Combat mix on an F-15 or F-16 is, if I recall, exclusively HEI and/or SAPHEI

 

Ultimately, there are not terribly many targets that 20mm API can kill, but against which 20mm HEI are ineffective (or even less effective than 20mm API). HEI is better against aircraft and unarmored ground targets, and both are ineffective against anything more heavily armored than a BMP (certainly neither will kill a tank). BMP/ BTR/ ZSU23 type targets are about all you would use 20mm API against. Granted, there are plenty of those target types on a modern (or 70's-90's Cold War) battlefield. Against the top armor of any of those (particularly the BTRs), 20mm HEI could still work, but be fairly inefficient.

 

Anyone know where to look it up in the game code?

Edited August 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Fri13]

HEI is better against aircraft and unarmored ground targets, and both are ineffective against anything more heavily armored than a BMP (certainly neither will kill a tank). BMP/ BTR/ ZSU23 type targets are about all you would use 20mm API against. Granted, there are plenty of those target types on a modern (or 70's-90's Cold War) battlefield. Against the top armor of any of those (particularly the BTRs), 20mm HEI could still work, but be fairly inefficient.

 

Just remember that "Tank" definition is only a tracked armored vehicle with a armament. So example BMP-1 or a M113 with a HMG are counted as tanks.

But then different story is what kind tank something is, like old WW2 era definitions of light/medium/heavy tank, or after WW2 like Main Battle Tank like T-54/55 or T-62 and BMP-1 or BMP-2 or many AFV has tracks and are tanks but not MBT.

 

And many AFV are protected against 12.7mm but not even 12.7mm AP ammunition or even 7.62 AP and many is even less protected against 14.5mm (that can be found on many BTR vehicle).

 

And compared a 20mm cannon round to HMG calibers (12.7/14.5mm) it is totally different in its class, especially with a AP ammunition.

 

Example M2 Bradley will not withstand anything bigger than 7.62mm handgun caliber weapon, even from the front armor. BTR-60 and BTR-70 were designed to withstand a 7.62mm but it was BTR-80 that brought armor protection against 12.7mm and that only to front arch and turret front.

Likely BTR-82 or BTR-90 withstands 12.7mm, but likely just a few shots from front and sides.

 

So when you actually come with 20mm HE against any tank or APC lesser armor than MBT offers a 20mm will go nicely through, if not with first hit then at least second or third. And first causing spalling (if not having anti-spalling shielding).

 

And regarding the main battle tanks, 20mm AP round is serious threat to rear armor and engine block. And if not hitting those, you get seriously damages to optics, radios, cannon etc.

 

So flying with a F-5E and shooting ground targets, it is serious damage dealer.

 

And F-5E (like any other module as well) would radically benefit from semi-believable damage modeling in the ground units like those optics, radios, cannon, reactive armors, fuel tanks, track wheels etc.

 

It would take combat simulation totally different level when ground units would get the acceptable damage modeling. Same thing would be when AI aircraft would get same thing, as suddenly 12.7-20mm calibers (and artillery/bomb fragments) would become more useful than those are now.

[OutOnTheOP]

Just remember that "Tank" definition is only a tracked armored vehicle with a armament. So example BMP-1 or a M113 with a HMG are counted as tanks.

But then different story is what kind tank something is, like old WW2 era definitions of light/medium/heavy tank, or after WW2 like Main Battle Tank like T-54/55 or T-62 and BMP-1 or BMP-2 or many AFV has tracks and are tanks but not MBT.

 

 

It would take combat simulation totally different level when ground units would get the acceptable damage modeling. Same thing would be when AI aircraft would get same thing, as suddenly 12.7-20mm calibers (and artillery/bomb fragments) would become more useful than those are now.

 

Would I be incorrect to assume english is not your native language? I think you may have some misconceptions that appear to me to be due to some translation issues: namely, that a BMP is not considered, in english-speaking countries, to be a "tank". It is an armored fighting vehicle, more specifically an infantry fighting vehicle, but most certainly not a tank. An M113, regardless of armament fittings, is not a tank. A tank is a tracked, armored vehicle whose sole purpose is mounted maneuver warfare against other ground units (including other tanks), and which uses a high-caliber cannon as primary armament. Simply having armor and tracks and a gun does not make a vehicle a tank.

 

As to the M2 Bradley series... no. It was designed initially to be proof against 14.5mm HMG fire from all angles, but was quickly (in the late 80s) upgraded with applique armor to be proof against 30mm all-round. The Bradley as depicted in DCS is in fact the up-armored variant.

 

I entirely disagree with your assertion that 20mm AP is useful against a proper tank, even including a T54/55. Even the 30mm GAU8 AP round is marginal against the T54 and T62, and it's much, much higher energy than the 20mm M39 AP rounds (20mm M53 AP has only 50% probability of penetration of only 6.3mm RHA at zero degree slope at 1000 meters, versus some 59mm penetration of a 30 degree sloped plate at 1000 meters for the GAU8 ). Even the BMP-1, which is quite poorly armored even for an IFV, has 6 to 33mm armor protection, and 20mm AP would be marginal against it. Large numbers of hits from relatively close range would kill it, but it wouldn't be particularly effective. The original, short-lived un-up-armored base version of the Bradley had 13mm steel armor over a base hull of aluminum. The newer versions have increased that significantly (an extra 20-30mm steel on top of the 13mm steel standoff plates and aluminum of the original variant). While weaker on the top, I do not believe it is under 6mm RHAe.

 

While you could damage sights and antenna on a proper tank with 20mm, you'd probably be more likely to do so with HE than AP, as even a hit *near* a sight or vision block would be likely to significantly damage them. They are, after all, just glass. Very thick glass, certainly, but even superficial scratches and "spiderweb" fractures will render them all but useless (assuming, of course, that the crew doesn't see the aircraft coming and close the gunsight armored cover before the attack). Rear armor on any MBT in use since the '60s will deflect 20mm API from any sane firing range (IE, any range that doesn't involve flying the F-5 into terrain during the pass), and most MBT are completely proof against 20mm at *any* range at *any* angle.

 

Long story short, you just spent an awful lot of words saying exactly what I already did: that 20mm AP is useful against light armor like a BTR or BMP.

Edited August 9, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Fri13]

A tank is a tracked, armored vehicle whose sole purpose is mounted maneuver warfare against other ground units (including other tanks), and which uses a high-caliber cannon as primary armament. Simply having armor and tracks and a gun does not make a vehicle a tank.

 

 

A tank by a definition through the history has been just that simple thing, none requires that it is used against other vehicles or have a high caliber weapon.

 

Definition is:

1) Tracked

2) Armored

3) Armed

 

Nothing else. A M113 is a tank when you mount a HMG on it (7.62mm or 5.56mm even) but it isnt a tank if it is unarmed (like a medical transportation vehicle). Nothing requires that vehicle needs to have a cannon, or armor withstanding a cannon etc. Just that it has armor protecting against handguns, tracked for a mobility and weapon against infantry.

 

The definition is very simple and loose, but still fairly demanding. Like someone can split hairs is example a Strela-10 a tank or not, but as it is not capable engage infantry... It isn't. Or is a half-track with a MG a tank? Yes, as tracks are there for mobility. How about like a ZSU-57-2 or ZSU-23-4? Tanks...

 

The other definitions like AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle) or such are just to group more to specific ones, like "APC" doesn't define does vehicle need to have a tracks or wheels (or something else like screws) or even armament (BTR-xx is a APC, but not a tank as it has wheels). And that again is requiring more accurate defining where example armored Humvee with a weapon is set as it cant carry enough troops to be a troop carrier, no tracks so not a tank etc. So more accurate definitions terms became in to need, so like "AFV" that combines many other types as well under it.

 

The definition "tank" is historical and very loose. It was big change in combat because idea of combining tracks, armor and weapon so it can deal infantry and protect crew and infantry behind it against enemy infantry and be able deal enemy infantry.

Then in time there became need it to be able deal a other tanks as well. And more definition became to classify those by differences like a light/medium/heavy/superheavy tanks.

 

But the point is "a tank" is as defining as is "aircraft" and it has own sub-definitions like a "fixed-wing aircraft" and "rotary-wing aircraft" and yet both are part of "aircrafts", like a Graft Zeppelin is, even when it doesn't have wings or rotary disk to stay in float (but for controlling). Or a "AA" that includes both "AAA"/"SPAAG" as well "SAM" (here we need to remember that a "gun" is used for cannon as well for a smaller caliber guns like ZPU-4 with a 4x 14.5mm HMG. And A in "triple-A" means "Artillery" and artillery requires a Cannon, that has definition of 20mm or higher caliber. And definition of "a tank" doesn't define caliber at all but just being armed and capable engage infantry).

 

And the simple mistake people do is that they think that a MBT is the tank and nothing else is because they connect big cannons and thick armor to that.

One reason for it might be that tank crews terminology "a tank" is misused instead "armor" depending what is a threat to crew itself after identification and gets a priority in combat as even if cant destroy enemy tank, it is a highest threat to infantry.

 

This is important (but so often overlooked) What those definitions really means, as they will have the information for what purpose the units, tools, vehicles etc are meant to.

 

Virtual pilots should be remembering it as there are other definitions for combat fixed-wing aircrafts like a "fighter-bomber", "multirole", "interceptor", "bomber" and "air-superiority fighter" and so on. And yet for average person the is just a "fighter jet", a "bomber" and "helicopter".

 

Does it matter among average users they don't know accurate definitions and means behind them? No.

Until someone goes and try to use a close air support aircraft against something that is designed primarily against other aircrafts....

 

Like a F-5, it is multi-purpose light fighter jet with a accurate 20mm cannons and capability to carry armor piercing ammunition, that are capable to penetrate most tanks armor from any direction, but less affective against main battle tanks. Even a normal HEI ammunition is causing a serious damage if not destruction for most tanks and other combat vehicles.

 

And this is one reason why combat aircrafts like a A-10 still matters as the 30mm is deadly for almost anything, even if some would require specific attack direction or a more accurate hitting. Why we don't see anymore someone attaching a 105mm cannon to aircraft.

[WinterH]

Just remember that "Tank" definition is only a tracked armored vehicle with a armament. So example BMP-1 or a M113 with a HMG are counted as tanks.

But then different story is what kind tank something is, like old WW2 era definitions of light/medium/heavy tank, or after WW2 like Main Battle Tank like T-54/55 or T-62 and BMP-1 or BMP-2 or many AFV has tracks and are tanks but not MBT.

 

And many AFV are protected against 12.7mm but not even 12.7mm AP ammunition or even 7.62 AP and many is even less protected against 14.5mm (that can be found on many BTR vehicle).

 

And compared a 20mm cannon round to HMG calibers (12.7/14.5mm) it is totally different in its class, especially with a AP ammunition.

 

Example M2 Bradley will not withstand anything bigger than 7.62mm handgun caliber weapon, even from the front armor. BTR-60 and BTR-70 were designed to withstand a 7.62mm but it was BTR-80 that brought armor protection against 12.7mm and that only to front arch and turret front.

Likely BTR-82 or BTR-90 withstands 12.7mm, but likely just a few shots from front and sides.

 

So when you actually come with 20mm HE against any tank or APC lesser armor than MBT offers a 20mm will go nicely through, if not with first hit then at least second or third. And first causing spalling (if not having anti-spalling shielding).

 

And regarding the main battle tanks, 20mm AP round is serious threat to rear armor and engine block. And if not hitting those, you get seriously damages to optics, radios, cannon etc.

 

So flying with a F-5E and shooting ground targets, it is serious damage dealer.

 

And F-5E (like any other module as well) would radically benefit from semi-believable damage modeling in the ground units like those optics, radios, cannon, reactive armors, fuel tanks, track wheels etc.

 

It would take combat simulation totally different level when ground units would get the acceptable damage modeling. Same thing would be when AI aircraft would get same thing, as suddenly 12.7-20mm calibers (and artillery/bomb fragments) would become more useful than those are now.

Distinction between a tank and IFV is pretty clear in my opinion. A tank is heavily armored and can shake off any projectile smaller than proper big bore cannon shells, and can even withstand some of those cannon shells, and has such a cannon itself as main armament. An IFV on the other hand has any mixture of autocannons grenade launchers and guided missiles, as main armament, in addition to their machine guns. Their armor can only withstand some autocannon shells. They also have infantry transportation duties unlike a tank. APC category usually has more transporation capability, but often less protection and less firepower.

 

Then there are all sorts of specialist vehicles like air defence, at missile carriers, self propelled artillery etc, which are predominantly based on IFV type chassis. Rarely, they are based on a tank chassis but even then it is very rare for their turret to be halfway as protected as a tank's, therefore reducing their survivability.

 

So, a reasonable distinction between tank and "not tank" exists, and is fairly clear, and about 90 percent of "not tank" ones are fair game for 20mm AP shells.

 

For M2 Bradley being easy to crack, reality is quite the opposite. M2 and M3 Bradley are among the most heavily protected IFVs ever. This is reflected on DCS too. Which brings us to another point, 20mm AP shells not being much better than HE ones. Try in DCS a full HE vs full AP load against heavier IFVs, like BMP3 or Bradleys, you'll see HE ones will often not even register as a hit on log as they'll fail to make an impression, and when they do register, they do negligible damage compared to AP ones.

 

Now, some of IFVs may indeed slightly blur the lines. Bradley are well protected, but even the worst tank is still better protected than them, and they don't have tank type fire power. BMP3 on the other hand, has almost tank like fire power, arguably even heavier against some types of targets like infantry or light armor. But they lack the protection of a tank. Finally there are some newer IFVs like CV90. I do personally think they kind of are resurgence of light tanks in a sense, but we don't have them in DCS currently.

[OutOnTheOP]

Now, some of IFVs may indeed slightly blur the lines. Bradley are well protected, but even the worst tank is still better protected than them, and they don't have tank type fire power. BMP3 on the other hand, has almost tank like fire power, arguably even heavier against some types of targets like infantry or light armor. But they lack the protection of a tank. Finally there are some newer IFVs like CV90. I do personally think they kind of are resurgence of light tanks in a sense, but we don't have them in DCS currently.

 

But even then, they are easily differentiated by role: a tank exists for mounted maneuver combat as a primary weapon system on it's own. An IFV, even a BMP-3 or CV90, exist to transport infantry and provide fire support to the infantry on the battlefield.

 

The ones that really blur the lines are the Merkava (which can be used to transport infantry internally, but it primarily used in the traditional tank role) and vehicles like the Centauro and Stryker MGS, which aren't heavily armored enough to properly count as tanks (never mind the wheels), and whose role, like the BMP-3, is primarily infantry fire support, rather than mounted maneuver warfare.

 

Not sure I'd say "90%" of not-tank AFVs on the modern battlefield are fair game for 20mm API, though: The BTR is, but even a BMP-1, possibly the least well armored IFV, is almost impervious to it at realistic strafing distances. Bradley, Marder, Pizarro/Ulan, CV90 series, or pretty much any western tracked IFV is almost completely impervious to 20mm API at any range. Most SP artillery are right on the cusp of where a 20mm *might* penetrate, but are entirely likely not to. 20mm just isn't a very good round to use against any kind of AFV.

 

In fact, against rolled homogeneous armor at 1000m, .50 caliber M8 API actually penetrates better than 20mm M53 API, believe it or not: 8mm at 1200m for the .50 cal, versus only 6.3mm at 1000m for the 20mm. The 20mm just isn't very aerodynamic: it is light-for-caliber because of a large incendiary filling (almost half the volume) and is a fairly blunt shape. At the muzzle it should penetrate somewhat better, but at any distance, .50 cal API actually surpasses it. .50 cal SLAP blows it out the water, with 19mm penetration at 1500m. The 20mm M53 API only penetrates 20mm at 100 meters; the .50 SLAP maintains that penetration FIFTEEN TIMES farther away (http://docslide.us/documents/20mm-m50-series-m53-api-m55-tp-m56-hei.html). The velocity chart on the same page indicates that the 20mm M53 API also loses velocity mighty fast; by 1000 meters downrange, the .50 cal M8 API is already significantly faster than it is.

 

So at strafing ranges, don't expect 20mm M53 API to do much more than you would expect out of a .50 cal. It may be marginally heavier and carrying marginally more energy, but it also has a much larger frontal area, which means it needs to expend that much more energy punching that much larger a hole through the armor plate. The 20mm M53 is just about twice the projectile weight of the .50 cal M8, so at 1000 meters it has twice the energy of the .50 cal M8, *but* 20mm M53 *also* is two and a half times the frontal surface area (2*pi*square of the radius), and therefore requires roughly two and a half times the energy to push a hole through the same thickness of armor. As a result, beyond maybe 700-800 meters, the .50 penetrates armor better (assuming rolled homogeneous armor, not low-density, high-thickness materials like sand, wood, or masonry, against which the 20mm would perform better due to higher inertia).

 

20mm API *might* get the job done against light armor like a BMP, but don't count on it.

Edited August 9, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

A tank by a definition through the history has been just that simple thing, none requires that it is used against other vehicles or have a high caliber weapon.

 

Nothing else. A M113 is a tank when you mount a HMG on it (7.62mm or 5.56mm even) but it isnt a tank if it is unarmed (like a medical transportation vehicle). Nothing requires that vehicle needs to have a cannon, or armor withstanding a cannon etc. Just that it has armor protecting against handguns, tracked for a mobility and weapon against infantry.

 

Er, no. And again, I am going to assume you are not a native english-speaker, as you do not seem to understand the definition of "handgun". In modern english, "handgun" means a pistol; a small sidearm that can be employed with one hand and carried in a holster. I think you are referring to "small arms", which are generally considered to be man-portable guns up to 12.7 or 14.5mm caliber.

 

a Cannon, that has definition of 20mm or higher caliber. And definition of "a tank" doesn't define caliber at all but just being armed and capable engage infantry.

 

By strict modern US military definition, a cannon is a high-velocity gun, larger than small-arms, that can employ explosive projectiles. The MG151/15 was a cannon and was 15mm. Such small calibers are rarely used because they can't carry large enough explosive payload to be effective.

 

And the simple mistake people do is that they think that a MBT is the tank and nothing else is because they connect big cannons and thick armor to that.

 

One reason for it might be that tank crews terminology "a tank" is misused instead "armor" depending what is a threat to crew itself after identification and gets a priority in combat as even if cant destroy enemy tank, it is a highest threat to infantry.

 

Again, you are incorrectly conflating "tank" and "armored fighting vehicle". Not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks, but all tanks are armored fighting vehicles. IFVs are not tanks, because their main role is carrying and providing fire support to infantry, not mounted maneuver warfare. APCs are not tanks, because their main role is transporting infantry to the battlefield. Mobile SAM and SPAAG are not tanks, because their main role is air defense, not mobile mounted warfare. SPHs are not tanks, because their main role is indirect fire support. And none of those are tanks, because they are not armored to protect against all (or the vast majority of) battlefield anti-armor weapons.

 

 

 

a F-5, it is multi-purpose light fighter jet with a accurate 20mm cannons and capability to carry armor piercing ammunition, that are capable to penetrate most tanks armor from any direction, but less affective against main battle tanks. Even a normal HEI ammunition is causing a serious damage if not destruction for most tanks and other combat vehicles.

 

No, it is not. Neither 20mm API nor HEI will cause disabling damage to a tank, nor will it regularly, predictably disable most IFVs or SPHs. You might break some vision blocks, but the crew has spares inside that they can replace without having to leave the vehicle, and even if you are so lucky as to disable the gunner's primary sight, almost all tanks since 1960s have a backup sight consisting of a simple telescope sight mounted coaxially to the gun, usually in the mantlet. Many IFVs have the same (and additional simple iron sight backups used from an open hatch for many IFVs). So you might, if lucky, slightly degrade their main gun accuracy, but they would not be mission-ineffective.

 

Why we don't see anymore someone attaching a 105mm cannon to aircraft.

 

AC-130 would like to speak to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

 

Or Hs129-B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129

 

Or B-25G. Or Ju88P. Large-caliber cannon have been mounted on plenty of aircraft. They're really not all that effective most of the time. Frankly, no airborne cannon of any type has ever been particularly effective against tanks. In modern times, there's much better ways for aircraft to kill tanks than to try to strafe them

Edited August 9, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Fri13]

By strict modern US military definition, a cannon is a high-velocity gun, larger than small-arms, that can employ explosive projectiles. The MG151/15 was a cannon and was 15mm. Such small calibers are rarely used because they can't carry large enough explosive payload to be effective.

 

That is then US military own thing, as common 20mm is for the requirement caliber to be a cannon.

 

 

Again, you are incorrectly conflating "tank" and "armored fighting vehicle". Not all armored fighting vehicles are tanks, but all tanks are armored fighting vehicles.

I didn't say they are same thing. I said that tanks belongs to AFV category. That is stupid thing when someone comes and say "20mm fighter cannon can't kill tanks" because definition of "a tank" fits all kind armored fighting vehicles.

 

IFVs are not tanks, because their main role is carrying and providing fire support to infantry, not mounted maneuver warfare.

1) Armored

2) Tracked

3) Armed

 

Hence it is a tank. Tanks are not there against other tanks. Many are capable to engage other tanks, but the main purpose of every tank is to support infantry. Even latest MBT are there only to support infantry. They are just far more suitable to engage other tanks as well, because they need to protect infantry.

 

APCs are not tanks, because their main role is transporting infantry to the battlefield.

If it is wheeled and not tracked, but armed, then it isn't a tank. It is APC mainly but as well its main category is AFV if it is armed APC (not all are).

 

Mobile SAM and SPAAG are not tanks, because their main role is air defense, not mobile mounted warfare.

Definition of a "tank" doesn't count is the vehicle only capable engage other ground troops. A ZPU-23-4 "Afghan" was example such. Removed radar and purpose was solely mobile mounted warfare. Just like other ZPU-23-4 were capable for that.

 

But the definition of a "tank" doesn't count what armament you really have. But I think many would require it to have a weapon to be capable engage infantry, that a missile doesn't do, but if it has mounted a MG, then it is a tank. Just like MT-LB is a tank (armored, tracked, armed with 7.62mm) as well Strela-10 is but added the missile system for other main purpose.

 

A same chassis (tracked and armored) can be used for multiple purposes from APC, SAM, IFV and other AFV purposes. But as well for non-AFV purposes just by removing armament, like for medic or transportation, pioneering or such purposes. After that it isn't a tank neither, as it doesn't meet the tank requirements (missing armament). And this is something as MT-LB (while being multipurpose vehicle) can be destroyed easily with 20mm cannon or even 12.7mm, that it is capable to destroy tanks with those calibers, or not.

 

SPHs are not tanks, because their main role is indirect fire support. And none of those are tanks, because they are not armored to protect against all (or the vast majority of) battlefield anti-armor weapons.

The armor requirement is only against small caliber fire like 7.62 or lower. The tank definition doesn't require armor to withstand a 120mm M829 penetrator or even a 20mm or 30mm or 40mm etc. Only to protect the crew from a small arms.

 

Lets just look what older RPG-7 variants and older ATGM are doing to latest MBT.... Disabling them, penetrating armors (entering to crew compartments), so if we would follow your own definition, there would not be a single tank what so ever. As there are so many AT weapons that are capable to destroy what ever there is, question is just "when" it happens. A simple Molotov cocktail is enough to destroy a modern MBT. A simple IED made from a 155mm shell does it too.

 

20mm fired repeatedly to same area cause problems, comes it from a fighter jet or from a another tank or just from a AT-rifle. Question is where you hit the target and what you get. It is very unlikely that you will get crew killed, but you can easily get mobility kill, blind or simply damage MBT so much that it is lost cause and required to be destroyed or recovered.

(Remember, we are not talking about 20mm in F-5E II capable to penetrate front armor of latest MBT or even such old as T-55 tower armor) but lots of damage gets done with 20mm.

 

No, it is not. Neither 20mm API nor HEI will cause disabling damage to a tank, nor will it regularly, predictably disable most IFVs or SPHs. You might break some vision blocks, but the crew has spares inside that they can replace without having to leave the vehicle, and even if you are so lucky as to disable the gunner's primary sight, almost all tanks since 1960s have a backup sight consisting of a simple telescope sight mounted coaxially to the gun, usually in the mantlet. Many IFVs have the same (and additional simple iron sight backups used from an open hatch for many IFVs). So you might, if lucky, slightly degrade their main gun accuracy, but they would not be mission-ineffective.

A tank (remember definition is very loose) is very easily disabled with 20mm. A modern MBT (very defining one) can as well be disabled easily with 20mm.

You don't penetrate the armor, but there are lots of very weak parts from engine exhaust blocks, tracks, tires and not just the vision blocks but as well for the armament. A twisted barrel is twisted barrel and unusable.

Broken track causes MBT not to go anywhere, and no one is coming to repair you when you are directly under fire. Being blind makes you ineffective in combat and you don't start to replace your prisms when under fire.

 

A 20mm from F-5E II is very usable if you can stop a MBT from executing its tasks. You don't need to penetrate the armor, or kill the crew. If you just stop the MBT, that is enough. A platoon of 4 MBT is incapable to continue once you have taken 1 out and damaged other so it is crippled. And to take that one out is easy as all what you need is to take out the tracks or engine. To cripple the other is easy as you just need to disable vision or communication.

 

And it doesn't matter at all that you can easily recover and repair the MBT later on, but in the combat when platoon loses 25-50% of its operational capability, that is it. You can't advance and move on the fight.

 

And F-5E II with its ammunition is more than capable to cause serious damages, but not now in DCS as we don't have any kind modeling to ground units than percentage of whole unit. And it is one to spread the myths that small caliber cannons or even artillery is incapable to destroy tanks. While all kind tanks can be easily destroyed with 20mm, and artillery can destroy or at least immobilize MBT fairly easily (Check example old report "Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can't Kill Armor" http://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo and remember that while armors has been improved and new AFV designed etc, as well artillery has received more of improvements and so has AT weapons).

 

AC-130 would like to speak to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130

 

Or Hs129-B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129

 

Or B-25G. Or Ju88P. Large-caliber cannon have been mounted on plenty of aircraft. They're really not all that effective most of the time. Frankly, no airborne cannon of any type has ever been particularly effective against tanks. In modern times, there's much better ways for aircraft to kill tanks than to try to strafe them

Yes, I know all those and I was referring to them. But as you can see, armies ain't there really running to design and implement those again.

I love the idea of 105mm cannon in aircraft capable just to circle the area and give support (that is reason why I mentioned it) but problem just is that 105mm is less needed than example 20mm or 30mm is from a helicopter or a tank or even from a fighter.

 

And this just makes F-5E II cannon useful even when it is just 20mm, as it can destroy or immobilize so many kind targets if you just get good change.

In air it does matter a lot do you have a AP or HEI, but still a 20mm AP makes such a hole that you don't easily repair the aircraft.

[Fri13]

So at strafing ranges, don't expect 20mm M53 API to do much more than you would expect out of a .50 cal. It may be marginally heavier and carrying marginally more energy, but it also has a much larger frontal area, which means it needs to expend that much more energy punching that much larger a hole through the armor plate.

 

That is the effectiveness of 20mm over 12.7mm as you don't always want to punch through but just bent or twist metal.

Every caliber and type has its strength and weakness.

 

Once I read the report of one infantry firing a enemy with M249 over 50 shots, and get killed by same enemy because he didn't die as the bullets went nicely through the upper body and left seconds for the enemy fire his weapon.

 

Sometimes you want to penetrate, sometimes you just want to punch hard.

As enough punching often can cause more serious damages than lots of holes.

 

Like in a air, a 12.7mm hole is just 12.7mm hole. But 23mm AP that push a 15-30cm hole to you, it is 15-30cm hole and you don't repair that easily, if ever and you have a lost aircraft (even when you landed it and counted as "not lost in combat").

 

Same thing comes in the armored targets. It is easier to bent the armor than punch through it. And firing rapidly multiple hits to same area, weakens the armor and gets it bending.

 

And this is why the 20-30mm is commonly used caliber in fighters as they are better than 12.7mm for causing damage, but far more effective than 37mm or higher calibers (Mig-15Bis, P-39 Aircobra, Ju87G with pair of 37mm, Hurricane pair of 40mm, Me-262 50mm, "Tsetse" with 57mm, B-25G with 75mm cannon, Ju-88 with 88mm cannon).

 

Or going to crazier ideas like the Draken with two 19-round Bofors 75mm air-to-air rockets to be used against other aircrafts. And a 75mm rocket hitting you in a head-on or chase would have been serious. But firing quickly 20-30mm to same area is more effective in many ways.

[Chrinik]

To get back on topic, I like Combat Mix, it´s primarily HEI-HEI-T-AP if I recall, and the API, while not good against "wings" as stated before, everyone forgets that the rear of the fuselage typically mounts juicy engines, which HEI can damage if shrapnell gets in, but AP smashes the engine apart and sets it on fire much easier.

 

Engines are not build to have solid slugs fly through them XD

[Sarge55]

That is then US military own thing, as common 20mm is for the requirement caliber to be a cannon.

 

 

I didn't say they are same thing. I said that tanks belongs to AFV category. That is stupid thing when someone comes and say "20mm fighter cannon can't kill tanks" because definition of "a tank" fits all kind armored fighting vehicles.

 

1) Armored

2) Tracked

3) Armed

 

Hence it is a tank. Tanks are not there against other tanks. Many are capable to engage other tanks, but the main purpose of every tank is to support infantry. Even latest MBT are there only to support infantry. They are just far more suitable to engage other tanks as well, because they need to protect infantry.

 

If it is wheeled and not tracked, but armed, then it isn't a tank. It is APC mainly but as well its main category is AFV if it is armed APC (not all are).

 

Definition of a "tank" doesn't count is the vehicle only capable engage other ground troops. A ZPU-23-4 "Afghan" was example such. Removed radar and purpose was solely mobile mounted warfare. Just like other ZPU-23-4 were capable for that.

 

But the definition of a "tank" doesn't count what armament you really have. But I think many would require it to have a weapon to be capable engage infantry, that a missile doesn't do, but if it has mounted a MG, then it is a tank. Just like MT-LB is a tank (armored, tracked, armed with 7.62mm) as well Strela-10 is but added the missile system for other main purpose.

 

A same chassis (tracked and armored) can be used for multiple purposes from APC, SAM, IFV and other AFV purposes. But as well for non-AFV purposes just by removing armament, like for medic or transportation, pioneering or such purposes. After that it isn't a tank neither, as it doesn't meet the tank requirements (missing armament). And this is something as MT-LB (while being multipurpose vehicle) can be destroyed easily with 20mm cannon or even 12.7mm, that it is capable to destroy tanks with those calibers, or not.

 

The armor requirement is only against small caliber fire like 7.62 or lower. The tank definition doesn't require armor to withstand a 120mm M829 penetrator or even a 20mm or 30mm or 40mm etc. Only to protect the crew from a small arms.

 

Lets just look what older RPG-7 variants and older ATGM are doing to latest MBT.... Disabling them, penetrating armors (entering to crew compartments), so if we would follow your own definition, there would not be a single tank what so ever. As there are so many AT weapons that are capable to destroy what ever there is, question is just "when" it happens. A simple Molotov cocktail is enough to destroy a modern MBT. A simple IED made from a 155mm shell does it too.

 

20mm fired repeatedly to same area cause problems, comes it from a fighter jet or from a another tank or just from a AT-rifle. Question is where you hit the target and what you get. It is very unlikely that you will get crew killed, but you can easily get mobility kill, blind or simply damage MBT so much that it is lost cause and required to be destroyed or recovered.

(Remember, we are not talking about 20mm in F-5E II capable to penetrate front armor of latest MBT or even such old as T-55 tower armor) but lots of damage gets done with 20mm.

 

A tank (remember definition is very loose) is very easily disabled with 20mm. A modern MBT (very defining one) can as well be disabled easily with 20mm.

You don't penetrate the armor, but there are lots of very weak parts from engine exhaust blocks, tracks, tires and not just the vision blocks but as well for the armament. A twisted barrel is twisted barrel and unusable.

Broken track causes MBT not to go anywhere, and no one is coming to repair you when you are directly under fire. Being blind makes you ineffective in combat and you don't start to replace your prisms when under fire.

 

A 20mm from F-5E II is very usable if you can stop a MBT from executing its tasks. You don't need to penetrate the armor, or kill the crew. If you just stop the MBT, that is enough. A platoon of 4 MBT is incapable to continue once you have taken 1 out and damaged other so it is crippled. And to take that one out is easy as all what you need is to take out the tracks or engine. To cripple the other is easy as you just need to disable vision or communication.

 

And it doesn't matter at all that you can easily recover and repair the MBT later on, but in the combat when platoon loses 25-50% of its operational capability, that is it. You can't advance and move on the fight.

 

And F-5E II with its ammunition is more than capable to cause serious damages, but not now in DCS as we don't have any kind modeling to ground units than percentage of whole unit. And it is one to spread the myths that small caliber cannons or even artillery is incapable to destroy tanks. While all kind tanks can be easily destroyed with 20mm, and artillery can destroy or at least immobilize MBT fairly easily (Check example old report "Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can't Kill Armor" http://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo and remember that while armors has been improved and new AFV designed etc, as well artillery has received more of improvements and so has AT weapons).

 

Yes, I know all those and I was referring to them. But as you can see, armies ain't there really running to design and implement those again.

I love the idea of 105mm cannon in aircraft capable just to circle the area and give support (that is reason why I mentioned it) but problem just is that 105mm is less needed than example 20mm or 30mm is from a helicopter or a tank or even from a fighter.

 

And this just makes F-5E II cannon useful even when it is just 20mm, as it can destroy or immobilize so many kind targets if you just get good change.

In air it does matter a lot do you have a AP or HEI, but still a 20mm AP makes such a hole that you don't easily repair the aircraft.

 

:doh:

[Jugdriver]

To get back on topic, I like Combat Mix, it´s primarily HEI-HEI-T-AP if I recall, and the API, while not good against "wings" as stated before, everyone forgets that the rear of the fuselage typically mounts juicy engines, which HEI can damage if shrapnell gets in, but AP smashes the engine apart and sets it on fire much easier.

 

Engines are not build to have solid slugs fly through them XD

 

Yeah I am using the Combat Mix as well, the Combat Mix tore up an SU-25 in BF a week ago.

 

JD

AKA_MattE

[OutOnTheOP]

Yeah I am using the Combat Mix as well, the Combat Mix tore up an SU-25 in BF a week ago.

 

Having tested both CM and HEI versus AI aircraft, I'm not entirely certain there is a massive difference in damage between the two, *but* the 20mm does seem to me to be grossly underpowered against aircraft at the moment.

 

It is possible this is simply an artifact of the AI SFMs being largely unaffected by damage, but it seemed to regularly take 30-40 hits to down a MiG-21 or Hawk. That's an excessive amount of hits to bring down those aircraft. 10-20 would probably be more in line with reality.

 

I think the issue may be compounded by the somewhat under-accurate M39s currently modeled. The gun is supposed to fire with 8 mils of dispersion according to the manual, but in-game, it seems to be something closer to 20-30 mils of dispersion (judging by comparison with the width of the 50-mil sight reticle). This makes it pretty difficult to get multiple hits on a target at anything beyond bad-breath distances. I suppose on the bright side, it also makes it easier to get *some* hits with sub-optimal reticle placement, since the pattern covers a larger area.

Edited August 13, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Jugdriver]

I was online against the SU25. First burst took out his right engine, second burst put him into the ground, I was close :)

 

As for Dispersion, it does seem very wide, I was attacking ground targets and it was like a shotgun. Handy for ground attack but would certainly hinder A2A.

 

JD

AKA_MattE