Would you support this idea ?: to make Spitfire a real beast, a tank killer...

[bestwishes]

Hi, I have the Spitfire and I love it, there is one problem though: having no bomb or rocket, it's weak, specially when it comes to air to ground shooting....:

 

Would you support this idea ?:

what if DCS would change the damage modell a bit: if we could use APMKIII ammo, that would penetrate 50mm of armour from 350meters, using that, Spitfire would become a real beast, a real WWII ground attack airplane, a serious tank killer... (could kill a t55 from top and rear, also from sides). APMKIII ammo was widely used in WW2 from 1943, so this modification would not be unrealistic. (in the real world, APMKIII ammo could be shot from the cannons of the Spitfire that we have now in the game right now......at least according to some sources from the net.).

 

 

Many thanks:

BG

[philstyle]

There are sources for the Mk 3 AP round, namley the publication

AIR 2 8688, AVIA 22 456-514. However I don't have access to any Spitfire-specific documents to hand.

The AIR 2 8688 publication has production volumes for the AP round as follows:

Penetration data for the round comes fromt he same publication (which is an Air Publication)

[probad]

ive seen that too, but we need better than this

APMKIII ammo could be shot from the cannons of the Spitfire that we have now in the game right now......at least according to some sources from the net.

 

else we ought to head to the other side to play a certain mouseaim airplane game

 

also should point out with consideration to the state of dcs ai unit damage modelling the vaunted qualities of this round will unlikely see the imagined results unless it is equally mis-modelled to compensate (and i dont think we want to dig the grave any deeper); secondly, if there is already a snag or shift in prioritization delaying implementation of already planned a-g ordinance, what makes you think the research and implementation of an unplanned piece of ordinance would necessarily arrive sooner?

 

im not against it if it was historically accurate but right now this just reeks of a singleminded pursuit of a personal fantasy with ignorance and disregard to actual development of the module, and doesnt make this proposition easier to support. at least you can try to help grease the wheels by providing better information to validate its historical operational relevance.

Edited November 22, 2017 by probad

[javelina1]

doesn't strike me as being able to do much against Krupp Stahl.... Especially if you're coming in at a high angle, and you'd firing at a much greater distance.

[HotTom]

Stick to soft skin targets such as trucks. Deprive the enemy of beans and bullets and fuel. It's called "interdiction" and it's a valid and historical use of fighter aircraft.

 

Interdiction: the action of intercepting and preventing the movement of a prohibited commodity or person.

 

Tank busting is a myth.

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

 

I do wish we had some trains to shoot up. Also a valid historical mission.

Edited November 22, 2017 by HotTom

[philstyle]

Stick to soft skin targets such as trucks. .

 

Assuming that server mission makers will provide these kinds of targets. I stopped bothering with ground-attack onilne in the spit after finding only armour in the missions that people were putting up.

[wavn]

For that, we need the Typhoon or Tempest (with rockets).

In "The Big Show" of Pierre Clostermann, I read, that the Typhoons were the star of the R.A.F. during the Normandy landings.

They even rescued Patton and his 3th army with Sherman tanks from slaughtering by the German Tiger tanks.

The Typhoons had an enormous firepower of 20 mm cannons and until 12 heavy rockets armed with hollow charges for piercing armor.

Edited November 23, 2017 by wavn

[rel4y]

I think you should read the link two posts above you. Pierre Clostermann wrote a few nice books, but also made heavy use of artistic liberties.

Edited November 23, 2017 by rel4y

[philstyle]

I think you should read the link two posts above you. Pierre Clostermann wrote a few nice books, but also made heavy use of artistic liberties.

 

 

 

It's a very interesting read indeed. In fact, it should throw a signifciant portion of WW2 combat flight simming on its head!

 

 

The number of missions that people make which are, essentially, predicated on the idea that aircraft can and should take out tanks is very high. All sims are guilty of this.

 

 

It also seems this isn't just an "allies" issue either. It's just damned hard to both "hit" and destroy a tank with aerial weapons of the time.

 

 

There are also some "simulators" which need to think a bit more seriously about how vulnerable their armour is. The material by "Priory_of_Sion" in that 2014 article, if accurate, paints a very different picture of tank survivabilty than our games do!

[DD_Fenrir]

I have a nice little tome called Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945 by G.F.Wallace

 

I don't have it to hand but was leafing through it recently.

 

The upshot is that whilst the Mk.III round ws indeed developed and produced, in 1943 it was deemed the least effective of all the anti-tank weapons, especially as it had been originally specified in 1941 due to concerns about a lack of airbourne anti-tank capabilty in the desert war; the thickness of German tank armour had increased to such an extent in the years following it's development that it served to render the round practically useless.

 

Historically by the time of Normandy a 50/50 mix of a mixture of HE/I and SAP/I was standardised as the ammo belt for the 20mm Hispano.

 

So, no, I would not like to see an ahistorical ammo loadout enabled to satisfy an ahistorical capability in an aircraft that never busted a tank! I'm happy to wait on our bomb-load out - whenever that may finally get here...

 

I would argue that what is needed is more suitable targets in the Asset Pack; towed field gun artillery positions, half-tracks and radio command vehicles for example would provide a greater range of applicable Spitfire/Mustang targets.

 

As for thinning out the German tanks in DCS to allow the Allies a chance? Better mission design - tying the german tanks reload into the presence of nearby stockpiles or stores vehicles. And some way of "scaring" the AI with bomb or rocket attack into inactivity or retreat to simulate disabled/abandoned/scared tank crews.

Edited November 23, 2017 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_Fenrir]

Assuming that server mission makers will provide these kinds of targets. I stopped bothering with ground-attack onilne in the spit after finding only armour in the missions that people were putting up.

 

And they're always bloody Tigers or Panthers! Not that we can do anything against a Mk.IV with the Spit currently, but the fact that the IV was the German tank deployed in the greatest numbers in Normandy get's overlooked in favour of the sex-appeal of it's more muscular breatheren.

 

Oh well...

[philstyle]

I would argue that what is needed is more suitable targets in the Asset Pack; towed field gun artillery positions, half-tracks and radio command vehicles for example would provide a greater range of applicable Spitfire/Mustang targets.

 

As for thinning out the German tanks in DCS to allow the Allies a chance? Better mission design - tying the german tanks reload into the presence of nearby stockpiles or stores vehicles. And some way of "scaring" the AI with bomb or rocket attack into inactivity or retreat to simulate disabled/abandoned/scared tank crews.

 

 

 

100 points awarded to you Sir!

 

 

Mission design plays a huge role in fleshing this out I think. Simply plopping a row of 5 tiger tanks or Panzer IVs on the map is lazy.

A Wehrmacht tank Brigade (ideal 1939 composition) migth comprise 280 to 320 tanks. These would be supported (to make up the panzer division) by around 50 AT guns, 20 arty pieces, 10 AA guns and 100 armoured vehicles.

Thats 1 other "big piece of kit" for every two tanks; and that's in a dedicated Armoured unit.

Accross an entire army, the ratio of tanks to other big bits of army stuff is considerably smaller, even in a "mechanized" army of WW2.

 

 

A couple of 4-tank panzer (or allied equivalent) platoons would ideally be matched with 10 or so other light "targets" on an online map in order to better reflect this and to ensure that ground attack can steal yield results without the need for super-weapons and potentially unrealistic tank-busting missions.

[WildBillKelsoe]

I would like the Stuka for tank busting. Its made just for this.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[philstyle]

I would like the Stuka for tank busting. Its made just for this.

 

 

 

The data linked in posts above suggests that none of the birds were really any good at this task, in reality.

 

 

German (and everyone else's) claims about the number of tanks destroyed by aircraft were vast over-estimates.

e.g. Rudel caimed that he personally killed 12 tanks with the Ju-87 G-1 (the Stuka with the 37mm cannons) on a single day during the battle of kursk, which resultied in the establishment of the "tank busting" stuka squadrons. But his claims are almost certainly nonsense. Soviet losses were nowhere near LW claims during that battle. This pattern repeats by forces from all sides, in all threatres. Normandy estimates are overclaims by 10:1.

[wavn]

Clostermann describes it very to the point with data and squandron nrs. on page 157:

 

"During the course of 8 August alone, Patton lost sixty tanks.

Next morning, the American High Command sent an SOS to the R.A.F. requesting a massive and immediate intervention by the Typhoons.

 

21 Wing at once dispatched No's 174 and 181; 124 Wing followed and notably 123, which comprised two famous squadrons: 609, which had been absorbed by the Belgians and 198, commanded by a Frenchman,the celebrated Major Ezzano, who later attained the rank equivalent to Air Chief Marshal.

By the evening of 7 August, eighty-four German heavy tanks had been knocked out and countly vehicles abandoned by crews cowering under the fury of the attacks"

 

These are facts !

[philstyle]

Clostermann describes it very to the point with data and squandron nrs. on page 157:

 

"During the course of 8 August alone, Patton lost sixty tanks.

Next morning, the American High Command sent an SOS to the R.A.F. requesting a massive and immediate intervention by the Typhoons.

21 Wing at once dispatched No's 174 and 181; 124 Wing followed and notably 123, which comprised two famous squadrons: 609, which had been absorbed by the Belgians and 198, commanded by a Frenchman,the celebrated Major Ezzano, who later attained the rank equivalent to Air Chief Marshal. By the evening of 7 August, eighty-four German heavy tanks had been knocked out and countly vehicles abandoned by crews cowering under the fury of the attacks"

These are facts !

 

 

 

"Clostermann describes it" is indeed a fact.

However, "it actually happened the way he says is happened" is not a fact.

 

 

Between the 7th and 10th August, the 2nd Tactical Air Force of claimed to have destroyed 120-140 tanks. However the axis only lost 46 tanks in total to ALL causes on those days, and only 9 of those losses could be attributed to aircraft.

In the whole normandy campaign (June 6th to the Falaise pocket in mid August) only 100 german tank losses can be attributed to allied air attacks.

 

 

So Closterman claims that 84 German heavy tanks were knocked out by just two wings of typhoons in a day?

Nonsense. Only 9 were destroyed by aircraft by the entire allied air forces in france in that time.

 

 

Source: Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in North-Western Europe 1944–1945: Myths and Realities, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 14, no. 2 (June, 1991)

[rel4y]

It's a very interesting read indeed. In fact, it should throw a signifciant portion of WW2 combat flight simming on its head!

 

 

The number of missions that people make which are, essentially, predicated on the idea that aircraft can and should take out tanks is very high. All sims are guilty of this.

 

 

It also seems this isn't just an "allies" issue either. It's just damned hard to both "hit" and destroy a tank with aerial weapons of the time.

 

 

There are also some "simulators" which need to think a bit more seriously about how vulnerable their armour is. The material by "Priory_of_Sion" in that 2014 article, if accurate, paints a very different picture of tank survivabilty than our games do!

 

100% agreed, it is simply ridiculus to knock out a half a tank battalion with a single fighter.

 

+1 to your last comment.

[wavn]

It may depend from which perspective the story is written: I can imagine that:

- the Americans didn't like the story of Clostermann (R.A.F.): reason: the famous Patton needed support of the Brittish after all...???

- the Germans didn't like the Story: reason: their Tigers were so vulnarable to these Typhoons and they had no adequate assistance (anti aircraft defence) in time.......?????

 

These may lead to different stories / nummers of casualties.

 

to rel4y: sure not 1 fighter, but several wings :)

 

The statement, that I wanted to make was: these Typhoons / Tempests were more adequate for battling the German tanks then the Spitfires :)

Edited November 23, 2017 by wavn

[rel4y]

The Brits did the assessment after the battle..?!

 

Let me guess, they wanted to make the germans and american look better to hide how vulnerable those tanks were to RAF fighters and Patton was happy that he didnt need support of the tommys after all.

 

All depends on the perspective I guess. Just kidding. :D

 

Let me cite a few important parts:

 

A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. [...] Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions.

Near La Baleine, France Typhoons conducted 99 sorties on a German Armored Column consisting of ~50 tanks. The pilots claimed to have KO’d 17 of the tanks. The British Army’s No. 2 ORS investigated the area and found that there was a total of 9 tanks, 2 of which were actually destroyed by rockets or just 11% of the original claim. Around Mortain the US and British pilots claimed to have destroyed/probably destroyed a total of 120 tanks. The actual number of destroyed AFVs in the area is close to 45 tanks, only 9 seemed to be victims of airstrikes or 7% of the original claim.

Edited November 23, 2017 by rel4y

[WildBillKelsoe]

so if a Panzer or Sherman sustained a direct hit from a rocket or bomb, the thin armor on top would "trampoline" the bombs to the sides you mean? Have you seen the A-10 knocking the humvee with a bomb? why would a tank require 3500 bombs? A tank can go dysfunctional from the impact even a non direct hit is sufficient to unchain the treads and cave the armor from the shockwave. Any unlucky tanker on the side will lose teeth from that effect, and usually its the loader.. if not his life...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DD_Fenrir]

why would a tank require 3500 bombs?

 

3500 bombs dropped in the general direction of a tank - not dropped on...

 

This is not a matter of weapon effectiveness, it's accuracy. Sure a 500lb-er travelling at ~500mph is gonna ruin any tanks day. The problem is getting it to hit the tank in the 1st place.

 

ETO procedure for dive bombing was to start the run somewhere between 6,000 to 8,000ft and release at around the 3,000ft mark.

 

No bomb sight; no wind drift calculation; no altimeter error correction; no target elevation data. You're doing this by eye with a shed ton of variables.

 

It therefore comes as no suprise to me that attempting to hit a target less than 200ft square - more often than not whilst someone has the audacity to be firing anything from 7.6mm to 88mm projectiles at you - is not going to be an exercise blessed with success in the majority of cases.

 

Tanks were notoriously resistant to blast damage - this is why tankers carry AP shots for shooting tanks and HE shots for use against infantry or Anti-tank guns - so a near miss is going to have to be extremely close and very lucky to even damage let alone disable a tank.

[Scrape]

In addition to the aforementioned calculations I'll add another that most books don't cover. The bomb release was not accurate. Bombs often were released into the slip stream of its parent aircraft. Currently the ejector pistons on current bomb racks consistently push bombs away. During WWII this small but very important function had not been perfected. Thus the first second or two of the bomb's flight was yet another variable that a pilot had no way of predicting.

[HotTom]

Assuming that server mission makers will provide these kinds of targets. I stopped bothering with ground-attack onilne in the spit after finding only armour in the missions that people were putting up.

 

Here's a hint, Phil: If you are interested in flying historical missions, avoid on line flying. Always. Forever. (mic drop :cry:)

 

Why is there even argument here? Spitfires (and Tempests and Typhoons and P-47s) did not ever destroy tanks. Period. Go after trains and trucks. That's what they really did.

 

Come back AFTER you have read this: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

 

Both bombs and rockets were utterly abysmal in terms of accuracy. A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions.

Edited November 24, 2017 by HotTom

[wavn]

Well, one way or another: I should like the possibility to give the Panzers a punch on their head (read: disable them) with a Typhoon / Tempest with rockets (offcourse: if they have AAA, this is a dangerous undertaking);

Afterall: yes, this is a simulation but I like the gaming side even so :)

Edited November 25, 2017 by wavn