For MudMovers: What kind of tanks cannot be destroyed with Mk103?

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Luno13

The AB's were mostly meant for ground troops and installations, I think.

Nope.

AB's were just cases to drop safely a lot of different ordnance's.

The first being the butterfly bombs,(represented on AB250, a terror weapon dropped over britain) cluster of anti personnel SC types, Anti tank bomblets, (represented on AB500), incendiary (AB1000)

Before these AB cases were available, the pilots have the scary job of carrying a lot of bomblets with no time fuses, and already armed on their belly. (actually, this is the case of PTAB's)

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by RPS69

Nope.

AB's were just cases to drop safely a lot of different ordnance's.

The first being the butterfly bombs,(represented on AB250, a terror weapon dropped over britain) cluster of anti personnel SC types, Anti tank bomblets, (represented on AB500), incendiary (AB1000)

Before these AB cases were available, the pilots have the scary job of carrying a lot of bomblets with no time fuses, and already armed on their belly. (actually, this is the case of PTAB's)

Ah ok, didn't know that, thanks.

How unsafe were the "loose" bomblets? Could they go off if the plane shook on a bad takeoff, or if flown in turbulence? Or were they vulnerable to enemy fire?

[TinyTim]

Another point worth considering in my humble opinion is that in reality an Mk 103 salvo could incapacitate a tank without destroying it (like in "piercing the armor, killing the crew and detonating its ammo load"). Optics, weapons, tracks etc. were all quite vulnerable to high calibre autocanon fire (and they still are nowadays!). Unfortunately it's 1 or 0 in IL-2 and you have to actually pierce the armor in order to knock the tank out or it stays fully capable no matter how much lead you throw at it.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by TinyTim

Another point worth considering in my humble opinion is that in reality an Mk 103 salvo could incapacitate a tank without destroying it (like in "piercing the armor, killing the crew and detonating its ammo load"). Optics, weapons, tracks etc. were all quite vulnerable to high calibre autocanon fire (and they still are nowadays!). Unfortunately it's 1 or 0 in IL-2 and you have to actually pierce the armor in order to knock the tank out or it stays fully capable no matter how much lead you throw at it.

Piercing the armor meant blow up the tank. Remember, they had no sophisticated fire suppression systems. Tungsten gets glowing hot when it penetrates(it's pyrophoric) teel - if it enters the crewcompartment: Bang.

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by swiss

Piercing the armor meant blow up the tank. Remember, they had no sophisticated fire suppression systems. Tungsten gets glowing hot when it penetrates(it's pyrophoric) teel - if it enters the crewcompartment: Bang.

The point is that in the real world you do not need to cook a tank to take it out of action you can disable it or force the crew to abandon it. Taking out a track, disabling the turret, knocking out the engine are all historically achievable without piercing the armor.

However, as pointed out at the start of the thread, the IL2 damage model for armor is very simplistic and in the game its either destroy the tank completely or nothing happens at all.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by Luno13

Ah ok, didn't know that, thanks.

How unsafe were the "loose" bomblets? Could they go off if the plane shook on a bad takeoff, or if flown in turbulence? Or were they vulnerable to enemy fire?

1)They actually go off
2)No idea about turbulence
3)They were, as they were already armed.

Truly! Pilots disliked them a lot!

On the other hand, tanks damage model is actually a box with a cylinder over it. Each side of the box have a single armor value, and the cylinder is always the frontal armor of the turret... Tanks turrets on il2 are VERY tough!

Still, theoretically, in game accepts destroying tougher armor by hitting it repetitively an x number of times depending on gun caliber. There are no HP's here.

Truth being, is that IL2 has too many planes from a programmers point of view, and keeping balance in between all of them is a hell of a job.

[RPS69]

Tested the AB's on 4.11

AB 250, really not for AT use
AB500, equal as in UP, works fine. (Not that UP is a reference, just that on 4.09 they were useless)
AB1000, also works as AT, this is also different from UP.

[RPS69]

Tested the AB's on 4.11

AB 250, really not for AT use (funy effect!)
AB500, equal as in UP, works fine. (Not that UP is a reference, just that on 4.09 they were useless)
AB1000, also works as AT, this is also different from UP.

[DKoor]

Thanx for testing...
I see some stuff are changed.

[RPS69]

Originally Posted by DKoor

Thanx for testing...
I see some stuff are changed.

Just for the record, my test range was with KV1's