DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Art-J]

Jesus Christ.

 

Lord Almighty.

 

I've just read two last pages and cringed.

 

Gentlemen, please don't wake up gruesome demons of the past - I still remember a clusterfeck-mammoth-of-a-thread on Ubi forums back in the days of original Il-2 about "killing Tiger tanks by ricochetting bullets into their bellies". Some of us who came to DCS from Il-2 and are old enough to remmember it as well, still consider it to be a traumatic experience :).

 

A thread started by quoting an honest account of a WWII pilot who said he did that... but given the fact that for both US and Brit pilots over Normandy everything with tracks was a "Tiger", plus the question of angled armour parameterers as shown above, plus confirmed blatant overclaiming about number of tanks in Normandy destroyed by airplanes, all these factors made the ricochetting theory highely improbable, at least in relation to main battle tanks. Let's leave it at that before creating another "Ubizoo-style" thread here as well :D (SitH would close it immediately anyway).

[Solty]

Jesus Christ.

 

Lord Almighty.

 

I've just read two last pages and cringed.

 

Gentlemen, please don't wake up gruesome demons of the past - I still remember a clusterfeck-mammoth-of-a-thread on Ubi forums back in the days of original Il-2 about "killing Tiger tanks by ricochetting bullets into their bellies". Some of us who came to DCS from Il-2 and are old enough to remmember it as well, still consider it to be a traumatic experience :).

 

A thread started by quoting an honest account of a WWII pilot who said he did that... but given the fact that for both US and Brit pilots over Normandy everything with tracks was a "Tiger", plus the question of angled armour parameterers as shown above, plus confirmed blatant overclaiming about number of tanks in Normandy destroyed by airplanes, all these factors made the ricochetting theory highely improbable, at least in relation to main battle tanks. Let's leave it at that before creating another "Ubizoo-style" thread here as well :D (SitH would close it immediately anyway).

Well, I saw the same discussion in WT, and on the DCS forums I saw a guy that claimed that .50cal bullet would bounce of human skin at 500m, so this no longer puts me in a state of shock:smilewink:

[Captain Orso]

Tiger deck and belly armour is 25mm.

 

True. I misread that.

 

To get a belly shot on the Panther a very acute angle would be required increasing the thickness to 50mm or more. Never mind hitting the road would deform the bullet and velocity would decrease.

 

One thing you are forgetting is that with every hit, the proximity of the hit on the armor becomes increasingly compromised, and this is not even considering that as the war continued, armor quality continued to drop through limits in raw materials and "errors" in production, which were often very erratic and noticeable on the battlefield.

 

I'm not saying that an outright kill is likely. It's been awhile since I'd researched these things.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Jesus Christ.

 

Lord Almighty.

 

I've just read two last pages and cringed.

 

Gentlemen, please don't wake up gruesome demons of the past - I still remember a clusterfeck-mammoth-of-a-thread on Ubi forums back in the days of original Il-2 about "killing Tiger tanks by ricochetting bullets into their bellies". Some of us who came to DCS from Il-2 and are old enough to remmember it as well, still consider it to be a traumatic experience :).

 

A thread started by quoting an honest account of a WWII pilot who said he did that... but given the fact that for both US and Brit pilots over Normandy everything with tracks was a "Tiger", plus the question of angled armour parameterers as shown above, plus confirmed blatant overclaiming about number of tanks in Normandy destroyed by airplanes, all these factors made the ricochetting theory highely improbable, at least in relation to main battle tanks. Let's leave it at that before creating another "Ubizoo-style" thread here as well :D (SitH would close it immediately anyway).

:lol: :lol: :lol: Quite true :thumbup:. And this isn't even the P-47 thread, but Spitfire… A Spitfire killing Tigers, yeah… :music_whistling:

 

 

S!

[Krupi]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Quite true :thumbup:. And this isn't even the P-47 thread, but Spitfire… A Spitfire killing Tigers, yeah… :music_whistling:

 

 

S!

 

Just going to leave these here.... :smilewink:

 

 

 

Joking obviously, however I have my fingers crossed that we will get rockets like 74 squadron had I need :D

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Just going to leave these here.... :smilewink:

:lol: :thumbup:. Thought about it, but people were talking about using guns, you know. Anyway rockets weren't a very accurate weapon, isn't it?

 

 

S!

[NeilWillis]

You don't always have to destroy a tank to take it out of the battle. 100% of tank commanders at that time had their head and shoulders exposed to effectively see around them. The presence of an air threat will reduce their effectiveness drastically, if only by forcing them to button up. Combined arms actions were the order of the day, with infantry supporting armour, air cover pinning down both reinforcements, and preventing effective fire and movement on the ground.

 

To destroy a Tiger just requires it to be outflanked. Even a Tiger Moth with a gun would be sufficient threat to enable that to happen. A few bursts of .303 is all it takes to make the tank commander duck and cover. And yes, 2TAF were in close contact with ground forces, so co-ordinating such an action was more than feasible. With the kind of air supremacy held by the allies before during and after D-Day, armour was always a sitting duck, even the heavy and medium tanks that were available to the German army. Ask any wartime tank commander.

[Davee]

So this one is used in the movie BoB, is it the correct version with paint and externals? I hope to build a 1:32 scale model.

[ATTACH]150730[/ATTACH]

 

My understanding is that the IX version was not yet available during the BOB. This is misleading. II certainly was.

[Davee]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Quite true :thumbup:. And this isn't even the P-47 thread, but Spitfire… A Spitfire killing Tigers, yeah… :music_whistling:

 

 

S!

 

Now Typhoon and Tempest - a different story. 4x20mm AP. + rockets.

 

Sure would like to see either one in DCS.

[Kev2go]

Both the Tiger I and Tiger II has only thin armor on their top-sides and belly.

 

If you could get a decent shot with a fairly high angle of attack you could penetrate the top armor with the .50 cal M2, let alone with a 20mm canon.

 

Also, if you caught a panzer on a road, you could ricochet bullets off the road onto the belly and get penetrations.

 

I'm not sure about the .303 rounds.

 

 

with a 50 cal. depending on the belt types ( in ww i think it was 23-26mm worth of penetration)... you might, barely.. as the tigers have 26mm of roof armor, any angled attack the effective thickness increases, so youd need need to dive straight down at pretty much 90 degrees to do so. also taking into consideration at what range? its shot at. a bullet looses its velocity over distance, so depending on the distnace the 50s might have even less effective penetration than what i listed.

 

I read the tiger 2 is thicker, at 40mm thick turret roof armor.

 

Side armor is 80-82mm thick.

 

303 are weaker than 50s so those certainly wont get through.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Kev2go

[Solty]

Now Typhoon and Tempest - a different story. 4x20mm AP. + rockets.

 

Sure would like to see either one in DCS.

Rockets, yes. Cannons? Same as on the Spitfire. Nothing special. You need a bit more punching power to do something to a heavy tank like the PzVI Tiger.

[DB 605]

Now Typhoon and Tempest - a different story. 4x20mm AP. + rockets.

 

Sure would like to see either one in DCS.

 

DCS level Tempest...drool. How i wish we could have it instead of Spit IX. Or them both.

[IronJockel]

DCS level Tempest...drool. How i wish we could have it instead of Spit IX. Or them both.

Who wouldn't prefer a British version of the 190 over a spit?

[Yo-Yo]

Both the Tiger I and Tiger II has only thin armor on their top-sides and belly.

 

If you could get a decent shot with a fairly high angle of attack you could penetrate the top armor with the .50 cal M2, let alone with a 20mm canon.

 

Also, if you caught a panzer on a road, you could ricochet bullets off the road onto the belly and get penetrations.

 

I'm not sure about the .303 rounds.

 

What????

[klem]

My understanding is that the IX version was not yet available during the BOB. This is misleading. II certainly was.

 

It was a MkIX that was used in making the film BoB. We hadn't seen "Back to the Future" .. .. ermmmm.... back then.

 

Of course with a wormhole and a DeLorean anything can happen :)

[HiJack]

My understanding is that the IX version was not yet available during the BOB. This is misleading. II certainly was.

 

This aircraft was used in the MOVIE BoB. So it is a star, and it is the one we are getting from ED as far as this thread can confirm :D

[Solty]

What????

 

I know right?:smilewink:

 

Really though. Shooting a heavy tank with .50cals or 20mm is futile. Sure some damage like throwing off a track, damaging optics, hitting crew or throw their tools out of the tool box is plausible xD. Also it will rustle their jimmies and there are known cases of tank crews bailing out, but it is unlikely.

 

Shooting at tanks with MGs and 20mm cannons is waste of time and ammo.

 

I wouldn't even try it on the Box Panzer aka PzIV.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Solty

[NeilWillis]

It was a MkIX that was used in making the film BoB. We hadn't seen "Back to the Future" .. .. ermmmm.... back then.

 

Of course with a wormhole and a DeLorean anything can happen :)

 

Yeah, but at 88MPH, the Spitfire would probably be virtually uncontrollable?

[LeCuvier]

Cannon rounds from any WW 2 fighter aircraft would hit the top armor at an angle much less than 90°; they would simply bounce off.

Bombs from a fighter? They would possibly get the Panzergrenadiers outside the tank but not the tank itself.

It takes a good attack aircraft like the JU-87 Stuka to bomb tanks with sufficient precision. The Stuka could dive almost vertically which gave it sufficient precision.

Or many bombers carpet-bombing the tank concentration like in Normandy.

[Krupi]

Cannon rounds from any WW 2 fighter aircraft would hit the top armor at an angle much less than 90°; they would simply bounce off.

Bombs from a fighter? They would possibly get the Panzergrenadiers outside the tank but not the tank itself.

It takes a good attack aircraft like the JU-87 Stuka to bomb tanks with sufficient precision. The Stuka could dive almost vertically which gave it sufficient precision.

Or many bombers carpet-bombing the tank concentration like in Normandy.

 

I suggest you read up on the Cab Rank system employed by the Desert Air Force and subsequently used by the 2TAF in Normandy :D

 

The system was developed once the Allies had pretty much achieved air superiority and were therefore free to be used in such a system.

 

In summary it can be described as the precursor to close support aircraft.

[MAD-MM]

Germany develop Hs-129 and Ju-87 G2-G3 with early war experience, that big bombs like SC-250 only knock out at tank only with direct hit. Close Range hit's did not substantial damage to the tank.

Was nearly impossible with dive bomb Stukas to score a direct hit.

Success was given later also with Rockets and Cluster bombs.

Germany fire from HS-129 with his MK-103 long Barrel APCR 30 mm Tungsten Carbide Rounds to penetrate at normal combat Range enemy Tanks, with alloy hull to prevent initial shock and shatter the tungsten core and ricochet.

The I-Net says M2 amour Piercing without Tracer 500 m 19 mm Penetration, would be nearly impossible to penetrate Panther roof Top with 15 mm.

[Zunzun]

Why shooting the tank when you can destroy the transport bringing its fuel and ammo?

[Art-J]

Useful or not, I'd love to see this British 3" rocket modelled, 'cause we're generally lacking in WWII A-G munitions department.

[klem]

I suggest you read up on the Cab Rank system employed by the Desert Air Force and subsequently used by the 2TAF in Normandy :D

 

The system was developed once the Allies had pretty much achieved air superiority and were therefore free to be used in such a system.

 

In summary it can be described as the precursor to close support aircraft.

 

In fairness, tank kills were by rockets although not as high in number as folklore claims although broken tracks stopped them. However, the rockets and the cannons certainly tore up the other vehicles and often forced the army to abandon their vehicles/convoys which had pretty much the required effect as the softer troop and support vehicles were then wiped out.

[LeCuvier]

Why shooting the tank when you can destroy the transport bringing its fuel and ammo?

that's a much smarter approach and we know it worked!