WT Ground Forces của dân WoT :))

pip8184 nói:
direct hit khó quá, vừa phải né máy bay vừa phải tránh đạn mặt đất
Click to expand...

nếu không muốn direct hit mới ăn được thì dùng RS-132 ấy!

không cần direct hit vẫn ăn được 1 số con medium tank trở xuống. Tuy nhiên phải trúng khá gần tăng địch mới tiêu diệt được à :))
 
haibeo3 nói:
nếu không muốn direct hit mới ăn được thì dùng RS-132 ấy!

không cần direct hit vẫn ăn được 1 số con medium tank trở xuống. Tuy nhiên phải trúng khá gần tăng địch mới tiêu diệt được à :))
Click to expand...

Để tối về thử, căn bản là bổ xuống phóng 4 quả nổ tung tóe mà con pz4 nó đếu chết nên chán bay lên tọng rocket vào mấy con stuka, mỗi con 1 quả
 
pip8184 nói:
hôm qua chơi RB với máy bay và con zis 30, zis 30 4 kill mà máy bay được có 2 kill. Tại mình ko biết gì, vác con chaika vào bắn rocket chẳng thằng nào chết còn bọn nó toàn mang stuka bom 500kg vào 1 hit 2 kill. Thiệt thòi vcc.
Click to expand...

Ngoài đời đúng thế còn gì, máy bay CAS toàn giết dc có khoảng 7% tank trong 1 trận vì rocket và bom thả phải direct hit mới giết dc tank, súng máy cannon thì gần như vô dụng
Why Were Tanks Such Difficult Targets For Aircraft During WWII?

AFVs, particularly medium or heavy tanks, were probably the most difficult targets for aircraft to attack in WWII. Given the more realistic historical assessments detailed (above) for Normandy and Kursk, objective analysis shows why aircraft attempting to attack armour in WWII faced several major hurdles.
During WWII, aircraft with unguided weapons were relatively inaccurate. To a lesser extent this is the case even today and there is no comparison with modern combat aircraft with guided weapons. Against soft targets this was not as critical because bombs and rockets deployed by WWII aircraft were area weapons. Even so, small soft targets such as entrenched AT guns were difficult for WWII aircraft to destroy. Small pinpoint targets, like a moving tank, were very hard to hit because tanks required a direct hit with an AT weapon or a near miss with a very large air launched weapon to destroy it. Even much larger moving targets such as ships were difficult to hit by modern standards. This inaccuracy stems from the nature of aircraft and the state of guided weapon technology at that time. In practical terms this meant that for an average fighter-bomber conducting a strafing attack, the tank remained in the gun sight for approximately a 10th of a second! Even if the pilot was to point his aircraft straight at the tank, a difficult and dangerous manoeuvre against a heavily protected target like a tank spearhead, he would have had at most a few seconds to aim his cannon, MGs, rockets or bombs.

Land based vehicles could carry enough ammunition to sustain approximately an hour of combat, but aircraft could not. Aircraft carried very limited ammunition for their permanently mounted weapons such as cannon, and obviously carried relatively limited numbers of individual air launched weapons i.e. bombs and rockets. This meant they could only attack the target for a very limited time compared to land based weapon systems. Even late in WWII, aircraft only carried sufficient ammunition for 1-4 passes on the target.

Most aircraft mounted automatic weapons were not designed for sustained fire. Apart from ammunition considerations, these weapons quickly overheated and would likely jam if fired for more than a few seconds at a time. Most often they were fired in shorter bursts suited to air to air combat.

Aircraft mounted weapons spent much less time in service (i.e. actually exerting their lethality), then ground based weapons due to overall aircraft malfunctions. This is in addition to the weapon’s Reliability Factor (RL), which only considers the inherent reliability of the weapon itself.

Aircraft were not suited to carry large calibre and high muzzle velocity AT weapons. This was due to the weight of the weapon with more than a few rounds of ammunition and the very severe recoil stresses placed on the airframe. The largest AT weapons placed on WWII aircraft were the 75mm Pak40L guns on the Henschel Hs 129B-3 and the Junkers Ju 88P-1. Neither aircraft was particularly successful with the ‘monster gun’ really proving too much for the airframes. The Hs 129B-1/2 with 30-37mm AT guns was more successful, while Ju 88P remained one of the few unsuccessful developments of the basic Ju 88 design. It is worth mentioning the relatively successful Ju87G-1, armed with two 37mm BK (Flak 18) AT guns. This modification provided the obsolescent Ju 87 with a new lease of life late in WWII. It is interesting to not the Hs 129B-3 carried only four 75mm rounds while the Ju87G-1 carried only 12 37mm rounds. Good examples of the very limited amount of ammunition carried for aircraft mounted weapon, discussed above.

During WWII, the large majority of aircraft attacking tanks with aircraft mounted weapons used 20mm cannon or simply HMGs. These include aircraft such as the Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Typhoon, Hawker Tempest, De Havilland Mosquito, most Ilyushin Il-2s and Il-10s (some had 37mm cannon), Yakovlev Yak-7/9, Petlyakov Pe-2/3bis, Lockheed P38 Lightning, North American P51 Mustang, and the Republic P47 Thunderbolt. The average 20mm cannon with standard ammunition had great difficulty penetrating the 12-15mm top armour on the Pz IV H, and almost no chance against the 16mm top armour on the Panther and the 25mm top armour on the Tiger I, even if they managed to hit them! The reader should also bear in mind that on average the strike angle of cannon shells on the top of AFVs was usually in the region of 30 to 60 degrees, because aircraft could not attack vertically downwards (the Ju 87 Stuka came closest to this ideal attack angle, which also dramatically increases the accuracy of any air launched ordnance). In general 20mm cannon only inflicted superficial damage on even light tanks, with the most severe damage being penetrations through the top engine grill covers and damage to the engines. Unless the battlefield situation dictated that these tanks became operational total losses (eg, abandoned due to retreat), then they were usually quickly repaired and returned to service.

The lack of a suitable anti-tank armament meant all these aircraft had to rely on much less accurate air launched weapons (i.e. rockets and bombs) to kill late war German tanks. Late war rockets and heavy bombs were capable of destroying a medium tank, but were considerably less accurate than the already inaccurate fire from cannon and MGs. Against a Panther or Tiger tank, nothing short of a direct hit was going to even have a chance of destroying them.

AFVs and tanks were usually found in forward combat units and ‘spearhead’ attack formations. These units often had light and medium flak units protecting them which consisted of 20-37mm mobile flak guns. Even in 1941 during Operation Barbarossa, German panzer divisions had integral light flak units with the panzer regiments. This made tank targets extremely dangerous to attack compared to most other ground targets. In addition, aircraft attacking tanks were required to attack at low level, well in reach of light flak guns. The flak also meant fighter-bombers were less able to fly using a nice straight attack approach, and were often thrown about by exploding flak shells, further reducing their accuracy. Indeed it seems that air attacks on tanks protected by flak were more dangerous to the aircraft than the tanks. The 1 726 fighter-bombers lost from the 2nd Tactical Air Force and the 9th United States Air Force over Normandy in 1944 is testament to how lethal light flak can be.(25)

Weather and visibility were major considerations for all air operations. This was especially true for aircraft attempting low level attacks against armour without any form of all weather equipment enjoyed by modern day combat aircraft.
Click to expand...
Considering the Germans lost around 1 500 tanks, tank destroyers and assault guns in the Normandy campaign, less than 7% were lost directly to air attack.
Click to expand...
The vast majority, around 95%, of tank losses are due to enemy AT guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and infantry assault, or simply abandoned as operational losses. Total German fully tracked AFV losses on the East Front from 1941 to 1945 amounted to approximately 32 800 AFVs. At most 7% were destroyed by direct air attack, which amounts to approximately 2 300 German fully tracked AFV lost to direct air attack, a portion of which would be lost to other aircraft types such as the Petlyakov Pe-2. From 22nd June 1941 to war's end, 23 600 Il-2 and Il-10 ground attack aircraft were irrecoverably lost.(21) Whatever these aircraft were doing to pay such a high price it wasn’t destroying German tanks. If that was there primary target, then over 10 Il-2s and Il-10s were irrecoverably lost for every German fully tracked AFV that was completely destroyed by direct air attack on the East Front during WWII.
Click to expand...
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters4.html
 
Chỉnh sửa cuối:
rocket đó giờ chỉ thấy bắn bo,bẻ là hiểu quả.....cứ set range nổ 200-400m,còn lại thì hên xui,75mm trên con Hs còn phát thọt phát ko khi bắn tank,ba cái "tăm tre bay" cũng chỉ là muỗi đốt inox.
Với các bé tank cứ tình yêu 250kg,500kg là đẹp,còn thích áp đảo hoàn toàn thì 1k kg :))
 
pip8184 nói:
Nói chung từ giờ đếu mang rocket vào mix battle nữa, phế vãi lều
Click to expand...
RS-82/132 ăn plane sướng vãi ra mà thím bảo phế là dư lào :6cool_surrender:
IL-2M head-on, tặng hết 8 quả RS-132, nếu nó chưa chết thì lôi gunner ra xử :1cool_byebye:
hơn 60% kill plane toàn bằng rocket :5cool_still_dreamin
 
Đề nghị mấy ông bàn về máy bay ở đây sang topic bên WT mà thảo luận, ở đây chỉ bàn tank thôi
 
mix batte chỉ có từ RB trở đi thôi,mà trị plane thì nhiều thứ trị đc lắm,thấp thì có bf 109 load canon pod vào,mọi thể loại từ Il 2 tới Il 4 hay Tu nó diệt đc hết,đó là anti air,còn đã đánh ground thì nên load bom cho hiệu quả
 
Xách xe phòng không vào Kuban conquest bắn rớt 4 con máy bay AI là bỏ túi dc 1100 điểm và hơn 10k tiền =)))
 
Bắn dc, kiếm chỗ thò thụt bắn 1 burst ngang hông là gần như cháy hết các thể loại tier 2 trở xuống. Xách con flak 37mm đi troll hơi bị sướng, nhất là vào Ash River với Jungle, có nhiều góc bắn lén khá là bựa
 
Chỉnh sửa cuối:
Mặt bắn cũng dc, ta làm hoài, nhưng mà lâu hơn, phang hông thì dễ cháy xe giết nó lẹ hơn
 
Guest_4brkfast_*


Thanks
Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:54 PM
*
POPULAR
Anybody willing to discuss unhistorical flight models needs to read this.

First and foremost I will say that I am part of the Flight Model Development Team and have been since it's first creation back in September.

I am one of the people calculating and measuring the models and how the aircraft fly.

All of my work, all of the team's work, all of the hours spent researching, measuring and calculating can for the most part be seen in Historic and Full real battle with joystick, throttle and rudder pedal use, as they have been designed for proper flight controls and -not- for a mouse. Flying with a mouse is possible, it's possible to replicate a joystick properly, but mouse instructor and mouse aim completely ruins and destroys the basic parameters of flight and air combat.

I think most of the players understand this, that Arcade is what it is, arcade. However, I am seeing comparison reports, thoughts about unhistorical flight models in arcade mode. Arcade doesn't use the months of work the Flight Model team has put into the game, it uses boosted controls, boosted acceleration among many other unrealistic and unhistorical things that are completely outside the FM team's work, especially with mouse aim and instructor.

Bạn Việt Anh bảo mình trẻ trâu bên WT , phát ngôn của mình ăn đầy gạch . Bạn tốt bụng cho mình xin cái link !!!
 
crazykiller nói:
RS-82/132 ăn plane sướng vãi ra mà thím bảo phế là dư lào :6cool_surrender:
IL-2M head-on, tặng hết 8 quả RS-132, nếu nó chưa chết thì lôi gunner ra xử :1cool_byebye:
hơn 60% kill plane toàn bằng rocket :5cool_still_dreamin
Click to expand...

.... 2 quả rocket làm 2 con stuka, nhưng mà bắn tank nó đếu hiệu quả

- - - Updated - - -

StiME nói:
Guest_4brkfast_*


Thanks
Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:54 PM
*
POPULAR
Anybody willing to discuss unhistorical flight models needs to read this.

First and foremost I will say that I am part of the Flight Model Development Team and have been since it's first creation back in September.

I am one of the people calculating and measuring the models and how the aircraft fly.

All of my work, all of the team's work, all of the hours spent researching, measuring and calculating can for the most part be seen in Historic and Full real battle with joystick, throttle and rudder pedal use, as they have been designed for proper flight controls and -not- for a mouse. Flying with a mouse is possible, it's possible to replicate a joystick properly, but mouse instructor and mouse aim completely ruins and destroys the basic parameters of flight and air combat.

I think most of the players understand this, that Arcade is what it is, arcade. However, I am seeing comparison reports, thoughts about unhistorical flight models in arcade mode. Arcade doesn't use the months of work the Flight Model team has put into the game, it uses boosted controls, boosted acceleration among many other unrealistic and unhistorical things that are completely outside the FM team's work, especially with mouse aim and instructor.

Bạn Việt Anh bảo mình trẻ trâu bên WT , phát ngôn của mình ăn đầy gạch . Bạn tốt bụng cho mình xin cái link !!!
Click to expand...
Chẳng thấy 1 dòng nào về Damage Model, lại càng ko thấy GF đâu?

- - - Updated - - -

lantis999 nói:
rocket đó giờ chỉ thấy bắn bo,bẻ là hiểu quả.....cứ set range nổ 200-400m,còn lại thì hên xui,75mm trên con Hs còn phát thọt phát ko khi bắn tank,ba cái "tăm tre bay" cũng chỉ là muỗi đốt inox.
Với các bé tank cứ tình yêu 250kg,500kg là đẹp,còn thích áp đảo hoàn toàn thì 1k kg :))
Click to expand...

Đúng cmnr, tăm tre bay muỗi đốt inox từ giờ ko xài trong mix battle nữa
 
Tính năng , thông số và số lượng modul khác nhau thì khi ăn hit , DM vẫn giống nhau được hả ??
 
StiME nói:
Tính năng , thông số và số lượng modul khác nhau thì khi ăn hit , DM vẫn giống nhau được hả ??
Click to expand...

kiếm dùm ta mấy cáI đó trong cái mà ku trích dẫn đi =))))))
Chưa kể thằng viết cáI ấy nó viết về flight model nha ku, có phân biệt dc với damage model ko vậy?
Và ta sợ cái logic A<>B => C<>D của nhiều ông trong nàY lắm rồi nhá...

PS:
Damage model có nghĩa là mô phỏng thiệt hại
Flight model là mô phỏng bay
 
Chỉnh sửa cuối:
Có lão chim khỏe ở chỗ trận nào có máy may lão ăn hết ko chừa 1 con, còn ko có lão chả ai bắn nên máy bay nó cứ lượn lờ trên đầu bực cả mình :3cool_angry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top