Armor question -1 reply

Please wait...

Skipster

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

29th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,068 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I know that the MG's on any plane will take out a jeep, but what about tanks? I assume the .30 cals will do nothing, but what about the .50 cal and 20mm? Will they damage tanks at all? Just light tanks? Also, is the top of a tank more vulnerable as IRL?




Rafterman

Rule#1: Bring a Bigger Gun!

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

594 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Some planes do damage some tanks. I've had my challenger eaten up on Alamein. I'm sure some of the experts can tell you exactly what planes damage which tanks.

And yes, IRL in most cases a tank's top armor is weaker than its side armor. This is why on maps like Arnhem and others, it's much better getting a PIAT shot from above on a German tank.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

yes they would but also the plane ammunition isnt designed for penetrating tank armor afaik.




MelanchOli

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

31st March 2004

0 Uploads

303 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
D-Fensyes they would but also the plane ammunition isnt designed for penetrating tank armor afaik.

You're right, normally air plane ammo is some sort of high-explosive (HE) or incendiary. The point of aircraft ammunition AFAIK is to tear an airplane's rather fragile structure apart (best achieved by an explosion within) or set the engines or the plane on fire (achieved by incendiary).

AP shells, which are usually pointed to achieve the armor-piercing effect (and, if they have a HE core, need a certain impact to explode), wouldn't make sense in an airplane really because they would just penetrate on one side and leave the plane on the other. And unless you hit a crew member, an engine, ammo, the bombs or any other vital system, that shell won't do any real damage to the plane at all.

EDIT: Forgot the conclusion: Altogether, if air planes are able to penetrate a tank's armor, it's either "by chance" in case of fighters or intentionally in case of ground-support planes. Fighters, as I said, aren't normally armed with AP ammo, but their HE ammo - if of large enough caliber and / or muzzle velocity - might penetrate the armor nevertheless. Even more as air planes can attack a tank's weakest point. But still, you'd need to be quite lucky to kill a tank with a fighter. Ground support planes are different, of course. They are designed to carry bombs (not interesting here) or heavy cannons or guns. The most famous examples are probably the Ju87G "Kanonenvogel" with two 37 (?) mm guns and the HS127 with a 75 mm gun. Such large caliber wasn't always needed, though. The P39 "Airacobra" had a number of 30 and 20 mm guns AFAIK and was quite successful as a ground support plane. Same for the ME110, which was a failure as a fighter and also largely successful as a ground support plane.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago

MelanchOliYou're right, normally air plane ammo is some sort of high-explosive (HE) or incendiary. The point of aircraft ammunition AFAIK is to tear an airplane's rather fragile structure apart (best achieved by an explosion within) or set the engines or the plane on fire (achieved by incendiary).

AP shells, which are usually pointed to achieve the armor-piercing effect (and, if they have a HE core, need a certain impact to explode), wouldn't make sense in an airplane really because they would just penetrate on one side and leave the plane on the other. And unless you hit a crew member, an engine, ammo, the bombs or any other vital system, that shell won't do any real damage to the plane at all.

Well, at least the Finns put mixed ammo types into the belts. Included were both AP and incendiary AP rounds. Remember that the planes were armored too, if not very heavily. But for example against bombers you didn't do crap with HE ammo. And trying to take out an IL-2 from behind with HE... :lol: Even with 12,7mm AP rounds trying to punch through the back of the IL-2 was usually a futile effort, you had to saw of the damn thing's wings instead.

Basically 12,7mm wasn't of any use against tanks. Even with AP rounds. 20mm cannon on the other hand could penetrate light tanks from the top, at least with a bit of luck.




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

MelanchOliYou're right, normally air plane ammo is some sort of high-explosive (HE) or incendiary. The point of aircraft ammunition AFAIK is to tear an airplane's rather fragile structure apart (best achieved by an explosion within) or set the engines or the plane on fire (achieved by incendiary).

AP shells, which are usually pointed to achieve the armor-piercing effect (and, if they have a HE core, need a certain impact to explode), wouldn't make sense in an airplane really because they would just penetrate on one side and leave the plane on the other. And unless you hit a crew member, an engine, ammo, the bombs or any other vital system, that shell won't do any real damage to the plane at all.

EDIT: Forgot the conclusion: Altogether, if air planes are able to penetrate a tank's armor, it's either "by chance" in case of fighters or intentionally in case of ground-support planes. Fighters, as I said, aren't normally armed with AP ammo, but their HE ammo - if of large enough caliber and / or muzzle velocity - might penetrate the armor nevertheless. Even more as air planes can attack a tank's weakest point. But still, you'd need to be quite lucky to kill a tank with a fighter. Ground support planes are different, of course. They are designed to carry bombs (not interesting here) or heavy cannons or guns. The most famous examples are probably the Ju87G "Kanonenvogel" with two 37 (?) mm guns and the HS127 with a 75 mm gun. Such large caliber wasn't always needed, though. The P39 "Airacobra" had a number of 30 and 20 mm guns AFAIK and was quite successful as a ground support plane. Same for the ME110, which was a failure as a fighter and also largely successful as a ground support plane.

Not true. Every fighter armed with machineguns or cannon used AP ammo quite commonly. Usual ammo loads included Tracer, Ball, Incendiary, HE and AP but not necessarily in that order and sometimes repeated before the next tracer. AP ammo was produced in all calibers from rifle upward and was effective in penetrating vital aircraft parts like engines, hydraulics and fuel tanks. Cannon, such as 20mm was even more effective against vehicles, including up to Medium tanks because their top armour was thin enough to be pentrated by that caliber.

Further we should never discount the effectiveness of rounds that do not penetrate or only explode on the outside of the tank. External damage to the running gear and sights can put a tank out of action. Additionally even if the round doesn't penetrate it might cause a piece of metal to spall, called spalling, off the inside surface of the armour plate. Richochetting, at high velocity, around the interior causing injury (occassioning death), damage and/or igniting ammunition. Engine covers of even the heaviest tanks like the Tiger and King Tiger were prone to penetration by 20mm AP.

Should FH allow 20mm from aircraft to kill tanks?

No because it would defeat the purpose of having a tank or even the aircraft having 1 bomb.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago

In FH:

.50 cal (12.7mm) will penetrate Stuart backs, Panzer IIs, Crusaders, PanzerIVd backs, Panzer IVF-H tops, Ha-Gos, and Top/Backs of Chi-Has, also the back/sides of BT-7s.

20mm harms the exact same spots as .50 cal, but does more damage.

23mm IL-2 ammo harms any Russian and any German tank from above if you fire directly down into it. It wont harm it greatly but it will hurt. If its on fire, a few rounds will destroy it.

30mm BF-109g will harm the back/top of Shermans but is INCREDIBLY weak and does almost no damage.

Most planes dont use anything smaller then .50 cal, but some have 7.62/7.92 mgs. Those only hurt the back of a Panzer IV turret.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

30mm Bf109K you mean? I used it on oder river today and even planes seemed to survive a few hits




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago
D-Fens30mm Bf109K you mean? I used it on oder river today and even planes seemed to survive a few hits

The most common 30mm on the Bf109 series was the Mk 108 which fired almoast exclusively a HE shell which was devestating to aircraft and should do very little to a tank.

However due to supply problems most Bf109's that were supposed to get a 30mm cannon actually got a 20mm MG151, very similar gun as in the PzII.

Even fewer 109's got the Mk.103 30mm cannon which could fire a very nasty 30mm AP round which could penetrate about 60mm of armor. Most 109's carried HE ammo for anti bomber missions.