Yak-9T - incredible firepower (or maybe incredible tank's lack of armor?)

[swiss]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

So while in real life it is usually necessary to hit a tank many times with small projectiles until some serious effects are achieved

Uhhh - no.
What makes you think that is the case?

That is where the changes need to be made -NOT EVERY PENETRATING PROJECTILE KILLS.

Again: You can disable an AFV without penetrating it by damaging the engine(protected only by light armor) or the tracks.
Anything that goes into the crew compartment means sudden, painful death for most of the crew - and that is the only goal of armor piercing ammunition: To kill the crew.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by swiss

Uhhh - no.
What makes you think that is the case?

A SMALL round penetrating will not have a large spalling effect -especially if we talk about rounds, that lost most of their energy for penetrating, which will be the case for most aircraft fired rounds. And a SMALL round, that lost lots of energy is not going to bounce around inside the tank a lot.

Originally Posted by swiss

Again: You can disable an AFV without penetrating it by damaging the engine(protected only by light armor) or the tracks.

Yes, but you need LARGE rounds for that (~75mm+ -and then even HE rounds can destroy tanks), a .50cal is not going to cause spalling. And tracks, I doubt that even large rounds could damage most tank tracks - if not by fluke hits at the connecting bolt heads.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

A SMALL round penetrating will not have a large spalling effect -especially if we talk about rounds, that lost most of their energy for penetrating, which will be the case for most aircraft fired rounds. And a SMALL round, that lost lots of energy is not going to bounce around inside the tank a lot.

Bounce?
It's not about bouncing.
I've seen a a t54 where a flechette went right through it, entering the turret on one side, leaving the hull on the other side just above the tracks.
Leaving just two tiny holes the diameter of a thumb, yet the crew would have 0 chance of survival.
Any penetrator will tear off metal from the exit hole. Those are tiny fragments, with razor sharp edges, at very high speed.
And the best: They are super hot, able to ignite the hydraulics in your tank.

Yes, but you need LARGE rounds for that (~75mm+ -and then even HE rounds can destroy tanks),

answered above.

a .50cal is not going to cause spalling.
And tracks, I doubt that even large rounds could damage most tank tracks - if not by fluke hits at the connecting bolt heads.

I never claimed a .50 can cause spalling(although it will go right through an m113 btw, lol), or disable tracks.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by swiss

Bounce?
It's not about bouncing.
I've seen a a t54 where a flechette went right through it, entering the turret on one side, leaving the hull on the other side just above the tracks.
Leaving just two tiny holes the diameter of a thumb, yet the crew would have 0 chance of survival.
Any penetrator will tear off metal from the exit hole. Those are tiny fragments, with razor sharp edges, at very high speed.
And the best: They are super hot, able to ignite the hydraulics in your tank.

You are talking about high energy kinetic penetrators, which has not much to do with rounds fired by aircraft IMHO -the speed and the missile weight are far from anything a wwII aircraft sports. And a round that went right through a T-54 will have had a huge energy surplus after penetrating, and if I am corrcet also partially fragmented and ignited -and that should have killed crew and/or inginted charges. I seroiusly doubt that usual aircraft rounds wil have similar effects -if I am correct in the assumption that neither DU nor tungsten carbide found widespread use (though the Ju87G used WC rounds), and the smaller the calibre, the less spalling should occur.

Originally Posted by swiss

I never claimed a .50 can cause spalling(although it will go right through an m113 btw, lol), or disable tracks.

But we are talking about effects aircraft bullets can do to tanks, not tank vs. tank gunnery. Tank vs. tank is a different issue IMHO, because of the much greater bullet velocities and masses involved. And if we talk tank vs. tank, then you are right that a penetration should in most cases fatal to the hit AFV -and that even non penetrating hits can do serious damage.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

But we are talking about effects aircraft bullets can do to tanks, not tank vs. tank gunnery.

Not sure I understand what you want.
Anything smaller than 20mm cannot penetrate tanks, 37mm can, and the latter is everything but small caliber.

Btw: iirec Rudel mentioned setting some T34 on fire with 20mm guns, but only because of the tanks external fuel tank.

[majorfailure]

Originally Posted by swiss

Not sure I understand what you want.
Anything smaller than 20mm cannot penetrate tanks, 37mm can, and the latter is everything but small caliber.

Japanese tanks can be killed by bullets as small as .50cal.
And what I want is some armor model that takes bullet size (or better remaining bullet energy after penetration-then for APHE the additlional chemical energy could be used, too) into account. So that not every penetrating hit is a kill.

Originally Posted by swiss

Btw: iirec Rudel mentioned setting some T34 on fire with 20mm guns, but only because of the tanks external fuel tank.

Hmm, T-34 did use diesel fuel, that does not burn instanteneusly, must have been a lucky hit.

[swiss]

Hmm, T-34 did use diesel fuel, that does not burn instantaneously, must have been a lucky hit.

An idea that crossed my mind too, then again phosphorus can light pretty much everything.
Feel free to download your very own copy of "stuka pilot".

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Japanese tanks can be killed by bullets as small as .50cal.

Not just Japanese AFV. Lots of light/early war AFV should be vulnerable to 0.50 caliber AP rounds.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

And what I want is some armor model that takes bullet size (or better remaining bullet energy after penetration-then for APHE the additlional chemical energy could be used, too) into account. So that not every penetrating hit is a kill.

This is a good addition to my proposed damage model where you have an intermediate "damaged" stage for AFV.

Projectile size is a pretty good substitute for complex math about shell composition, angle of attack, fragmentation, fuse reliability and all the rest of it when determining whether a hit does no practical damage, serious damage or kills a vehicle.

Originally Posted by majorfailure

Hmm, T-34 did use diesel fuel, that does not burn instanteneusly, must have been a lucky hit.

Or an explosive or incendiary round.