True, T34 were highly vulnerable targets for a BK 3.7, but in ideal conditions, that is: at short range and at 90°. If T34 were so much easy prey for the BK, and in general for small calibre weapons, Russians would have stopped producing and fielding them.
Ballistics and technicalities aside, we are talking about effectiveness of guns mounted on WWII airplanes. As historical evidences suggests, contrary to flamboyant victory claims, WWII planes were moderately effective against soft skinned vehicles, and not much against tanks. Because they could only use small calibre cannons with limited ammunition loads and with primitive gun sights; because they had poor performances and even poorer handling qualities; because they flew at low level, often in heavy turbulence; because they faced murderous anti aircraft fire.
All that being said, topic is about anti tank operations with our simmer’s plane types, and the Ju87G in particular. I don’t think that by making cannons more destructive we would obtain better realism. On the contrary: realism would require less effective weapons. I can’t find better words than those written by Pursuivant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuivant
Currently, I think that cannons are reasonably well balanced. If you use them right they can be lethal, even against the heavy tanks. Really good virtual Stuka pilots can achieve kill percentages which would make Rudel look like a rookie by comparison, but which would also get them killed in real life.
The trick to using the Stuka G, or any other "panzerknacker", effectively, is attack from the rear at a steep angle, and then shoot when you're very close to the target. If you aren't pulling out of your dive at treetop level, you're doing it wrong.
|
12-11-2015, 10:36 PM
Threaded Mode