56 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Ruben Faust, on 21 June 2017 - 11:45 PM, said:

The siren is toggled with L.

So far my best match was 3ml, 2mpl, and a machine gun. About 700, though I feel the lack of a big ac isn't true urbie.

Well then, I committed heresy by putting 2 ERLLs and a machine gun.

As for the lights and siren, I have them looping on a macro, although it still needs some tweaking.

Edited by Mystere, 22 June 2017 - 12:39 PM.

[Dino Might]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 June 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

I'm well aware what it was designed for (as I noted it's one of my favorites of the era), and it's strengths and weaknesses.

I would love to see someone do a comparative analysis on the 87G vs the P-38 in ground attack roles, And one could toss the P47 though TBH it's 50 cals were all but useless against actual tank armor of the era. The Ilyushin IL-2 w/NS-37 pods would make an interesting comparative, though I think most aircraft tank kills were from bombs and later, maybe rockets than cannon. Pity the XP-58 Chain Lightning never got operational....

Yeah I find the ground attack role more interesting than the air to air fighter stuff for some reason.

Strike/CAS is definitely an interesting role, and it's a very involved and challenging skillset. I'm still more interested in the dogfights, myself, but I like both types of aircraft.

DCS is a great platform right now for WWII fighters. They are expanding the WWII unit set, but currently there is only the P-51D with rockets and bombs for ground attack. No dedicated bombers yet. The FW-190D-9 does have its air-to-air rockets, however. Kind of fun.

Edited by Dino Might, 22 June 2017 - 12:50 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

rustyrat, on 22 June 2017 - 12:33 PM, said:

Urbies are OP!!!

Im sitting in assault machine of destruction, double gauss hits, lasers zap... The lil lizard keeps on rmocking me, and blasting with the siren turned to max :-/

Working as intended!

Mystere, on 22 June 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Well then, I committed heresy by putting 2 ERLLs and a machine gun.

As for the lights and siren, I have them looping on a macro, although it still needs some tweaking.

you and heresy are generally in the same breath anyhow, sooooooo.................

[CrisisCannon]

Finally got around to grabbing this 30t goof, as well as actually seeing them in matches at last! The first urbie I bought before surprised me pleasantly, the K9 is just a blast itself.

Edited by CrisisCannon, 22 June 2017 - 02:14 PM.

[Cyrion]

Ended up as the last man standing. 1 v 7. Well. . .I got 4 of 'em.

Don't know why the screenshot says I'm alive. It was Skirmish and I very obviously got blasted into next week at the end.

Edited by Cyrion, 22 June 2017 - 07:23 PM.

[Insanity09]

I love urbies as a general rule.
In theory I like the K-9. I just wish the siren was used more on the enemy, and less on the friendly team. It does turn off.

[Foxfire kadrpg]

I had one match where I caught an LRM Atlas out of position (He didn't even have an Autocannon!)

I managed to step infront of him, chipping him to death with 5 pulse lasers, all the while toggling the sirens.

best $10 I've spent in a while.

[Fox With A Shotgun]

Monkey Lover, on 22 June 2017 - 10:27 AM, said:

5mpl with the full armor tree has been good to me. It's an easy tier 2 light. The model, lights and camo push it to one of my favorite mechs.

New tech coming might make it even better

Can you imagine Urbie with 4 LPPCs? It's like an infinite-ammo, low-weight AC20.

[LordNothing]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 June 2017 - 12:21 PM, said:

I'm well aware what it was designed for (as I noted it's one of my favorites of the era), and it's strengths and weaknesses.

I would love to see someone do a comparative analysis on the 87G vs the P-38 in ground attack roles, And one could toss the P47 though TBH it's 50 cals were all but useless against actual tank armor of the era. The Ilyushin IL-2 w/NS-37 pods would make an interesting comparative, though I think most aircraft tank kills were from bombs and later, maybe rockets than cannon. Pity the XP-58 Chain Lightning never got operational....

Yeah I find the ground attack role more interesting than the air to air fighter stuff for some reason.

p 38 had that annoying little issue where its engines would stall in a dive. not exactly the best thing to happen durring a bombing run. something about its turbochargers not being able to handle the rapidly changing air pressure. i think they just came in at a shallower angle and dropped higher up. of course its not a purpose build dive bomber like the stuka. its better at cas for sure. the p47 for sure was king in this role, it probibly does one hell of a strafing run, great for mowing down enemy soldiers on the ground. p38 was probibly better at killing tanks, it has that 20mm gun, though not quite sure how it did against armor. i had to look up the il2, mostly because i know didley squat about russian air power in ww2. 20, 23, and 37 mm canons oh my! tank buster for sure. no wonder blitzkrieg tactics didnt work in soviet russia.

Edited by LordNothing, 22 June 2017 - 08:57 PM.

[stealthraccoon]

Fox With A Shotgun, on 22 June 2017 - 08:27 PM, said:

Can you imagine Urbie with 4 LPPCs? It's like an infinite-ammo, low-weight AC20.

I gotta have a SnubPPC in the chest, but I fully intend to add 2LPPC for some range (and an HMG, because I'm going to be putting those on EVERYTHING).

Edited by stealthraccoon, 22 June 2017 - 08:55 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

LordNothing, on 22 June 2017 - 08:53 PM, said:

p 38 had that annoying little issue where its engines would stall in a dive. not exactly the best thing to happen durring a bombing run. something about its turbochargers not being able to handle the rapidly changing air pressure. i think they just came in at a shallower angle and dropped higher up. of course its not a purpose build dive bomber like the stuka. its better at cas for sure. the p47 for sure was king in this role, it probibly does one hell of a strafing run, great for mowing down enemy soldiers on the ground. p38 was probibly better at killing tanks, it has that 20mm gun, though not quite sure how it did against armor. i had to look up the il2, mostly because i know didley squat about russian air power in ww2. 20, 23, and 37 mm canons oh my! tank buster for sure. no wonder blitzkrieg tactics didnt work in soviet russia.

Honestly most reports showed even the 20mm was less than great against German armor... might be a reason it was most notable for it's work in the Pacific Theater.

[Dino Might]

Aircraft vs tanks was pretty insignificant overall in WWII. None of the guns would do appreciable damage, and bombs and rockets were terribly inaccurate vs. even stationary tanks, let alone moving ones.

Certainly, there were some mobility kills, but those numbers are probably much lower than reported. What I suspect is that many half-tracks and trucks were counted as tanks.

Aircraft did very little actual tank busting.

ETA: To clarify, aircraft vs. other vehicles was very effective at removing tanks from the battlefield. Fuel transports, logistics, light armored vehicles, etc. Those could be destroyed or incapacitated with guns and near hits from other ordnance, and the tanks relied on those vehicles, supplies, and troops to support.

Edited by Dino Might, 23 June 2017 - 05:56 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dino Might, on 23 June 2017 - 05:46 AM, said:

Aircraft vs tanks was pretty insignificant overall in WWII. None of the guns would do appreciable damage, and bombs and rockets were terribly inaccurate vs. even stationary tanks, let alone moving ones.

Certainly, there were some mobility kills, but those numbers are probably much lower than reported. What I suspect is that many half-tracks and trucks were counted as tanks.

Aircraft did very little actual tank busting.

ETA: To clarify, aircraft vs. other vehicles was very effective at removing tanks from the battlefield. Fuel transports, logistics, light armored vehicles, etc. Those could be destroyed or incapacitated with guns and near hits from other ordnance, and the tanks relied on those vehicles, supplies, and troops to support.

Don't tell Hans-Ulrich Rudel that. 519 tank kills. Well...OK, since he was a die hard true believer in all the racial purity bullcrap, tell him whatever you like (if he wasn't a;ready dead), but apparently some planes and pilots pulled it off pretty well. But I'd agree there was no true A10 or Frogfoot analogs. But I'd say the Ju-87G was the closest to truly achieving it. Though IIRC it only had 12 rounds per 37mm cannon.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 June 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

you and heresy are generally in the same breath anyhow, sooooooo.................

[Dino Might]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 June 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

Don't tell Hans-Ulrich Rudel that. 519 tank kills. Well...OK, since he was a die hard true believer in all the racial purity bullcrap, tell him whatever you like (if he wasn't a;ready dead), but apparently some planes and pilots pulled it off pretty well. But I'd agree there was no true A10 or Frogfoot analogs. But I'd say the Ju-87G was the closest to truly achieving it. Though IIRC it only had 12 rounds per 37mm cannon.

Those numbers, in my opinion, are grossly inflated. How many were corroborated, and by whom? Remember, the propaganda machine was in full tilt to establish these larger than life aces. Also, how many of the tanks were actually tanks? Could a Stuka pilot routinely identify all ground vehicles he was engaging accurately to know if it was a tank or a half track or a truck? I bet not. I'm guessing most of the confirmation came from the tail gunner, who is similarly limited in ability to identify and ascertain effect of the strike. Lastly, when said "tank" stops after being shot at, is that a kill? Did he even hit it? There's a fair bit of judgment involved, and given the numbers of tanks often destroyed in normal engagements, as well as the numbers credited to ground forces vs air forces, I suspect that the 500+ number is pretty far off the truth.

Example study explains some causes of inaccuracy in the claimed numbers:
http://tankarchives....-of-claims.html

Even with all the glory tales of the A-10, its 30mm cannon is best used against soft targets and light armored vehicles. Anything beyond mid 20th century MBTs will not be destroyed by 30mm rounds. They may be incapacitations, but not destruction.

Edited by Dino Might, 23 June 2017 - 10:52 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dino Might, on 23 June 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Those numbers, in my opinion, are grossly inflated. How many were corroborated, and by whom? Remember, the propaganda machine was in full tilt to establish these larger than life aces. Also, how many of the tanks were actually tanks? Could a Stuka pilot routinely identify all ground vehicles he was engaging accurately to know if it was a tank or a half track or a truck? I bet not. I'm guessing most of the confirmation came from the tail gunner, who is similarly limited in ability to identify and ascertain effect of the strike. Lastly, when said "tank" stops after being shot at, is that a kill? Did he even hit it? There's a fair bit of judgment involved, and given the numbers of tanks often destroyed in normal engagements, as well as the numbers credited to ground forces vs air forces, I suspect that the 500+ number is pretty far off the truth.

Example study explains some causes of inaccuracy in the claimed numbers:
http://tankarchives....-of-claims.html

Even with all the glory tales of the A-10, its 30mm cannon is best used against soft targets and light armored vehicles. Anything beyond mid 20th century MBTs will not be destroyed by 30mm rounds. They may be incapacitations, but not destruction.

even if "grossly inflated" lets go crazy and say they were exaggerated times 10, that would still be 52 tanks killed by one oguy. And while there may have been some exaggeration, I highly doubt he was able to make 460 tank Kills.

And to be bluntly honest there is more evidence apparently of his making the kills than of your assertion he didn't. Propaganda can go both ways.

It's actually noted that while the German Tanks were impervious to .50s, and even the upper armor was enough to stop the 20mm (usually, though the engine compartment, drive wheels and even fuel tanks weren't all as heavily armored, depending on model) that the 37mm was signifigantly more poweful round, and outside of the T-34 most of the other Allied tanks didn't have near the armor of late war German tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BK_3,7
https://ww2-weapons.com/3-7cm-pak-36/

So at 500m, the 3.7 was capable of penetrating 40mm at a 30 degree angle. The (obviously dead on would be much greater penetration). The T34 which was a big, slow tank, had 16mm on top of the turret, and 20mm on top of the hull, of armor. (compared to 40-44mm top armor on the Tiger II)

Simply put, the 37mm even at a 45 degree angle or worse would have no issue penetrating the the top armor of Soviet Tanks. And the usual dive methodology was quite steep.

So TBH, while there likely was some inflation, I can't agree with your surmise that the Stuka was somehow incapable of it's anti tank role.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 June 2017 - 11:21 AM.

[Dino Might]

But they'd have to hit, and hit in the right place. Including M-kills and F-kills, I still consider the numbers to be grossly inflated (simply because the number of actual tank losses usually don't add up to the kill claims).

I agree that the Stuka could definitely kill tanks, but many aircraft simply didn't end up killing that many tanks. If I were to choose what I wanted to use to kill a tank in WWII, an aircraft would not be what I selected, just based on the numbers.