Aircraft

[Kermit 0]

Sorry about the double post. Pitviper, there is no A-10 in any of AaronAsh's mods that I have seen. Can you link me to it?

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I get the feeling that majority of you think that MBTs are a piece-of-cake-to-destroy. They are bloody 60 ton pieces of machinery designed to take a hell of a punishment. I wish you viewed them with a little more respect. Even when a round penetrates its armor the tank is not immediately "annihilated" as you often say. Unless the round hits a vital system, or the crew then the tank will be just fine, having only obtained a hole in its armor. <span id='postcolor'>

I've read from many sources that the kinetic energy from the round hitting the target is so great that the interior of the tank is raised to a few 100 degrees Celsius and that the crew would be killed by the heat. Only one penitrating hit is needed to kill the crew. Obviously it would have to be a hit on the turret and penitrate the crew compartment, but that's why use a rapid fire cannon instead of a slower rate of fire, to satrate the taret.

COLINMAN

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ June 03 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought HEAT was High Explosive Anti-Tank. So wouldnt that mean unlike OFP that a HEAT round is what you would want to use against a tank in RL?<span id='postcolor'>

It is High explosive anti tank.But dont let 'high explosive' fool you.Theres a big chunk of aluminum, or some thing in the front of the round, but the HEAt round hits so hard that the chunk of aluminum, acts like a fluid and it just cuts thru the armor like a cutting torch.Sabot is more better at destroying a tank the a HEAT, that is, if the tank has really good armor.But HEAT is the most used, Against T-72's. All though just correct some of the info, im in a real hurry.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some of you are forgetting that the Avenger cannon fires DPU armor piercing rounds.  Those things can go through *anything*.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well i kinda am starting to belive it.Cause that gun can fire about 10-20 rounds a sec and if it where a 120mm gun, then it would only take 4 rounds to destroy a tank easily.Its just the 20 rounds a second is making up for the really slow 10 rounds per minute on an M1A1.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Oh, ok, I thought it was just ofp physics that made the heat round weak against armor

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 03 2002,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hit_Sqd_Maximus @ June 03 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought HEAT was High Explosive Anti-Tank. So wouldnt that mean unlike OFP that a HEAT round is what you would want to use against a tank in RL?<span id='postcolor'>

It is High explosive anti tank.But dont let 'high explosive' fool you.Theres a big chunk of aluminum, or some thing in the front of the round, but the HEAt round hits so hard that the chunk of aluminum, acts like a fluid and it just cuts thru the armor like a cutting torch.Sabot is more better at destroying a tank the a HEAT, that is, if the tank has really good armor.But HEAT is the most used, Against T-72's. All though just correct some of the info, im in a real hurry. <span id='postcolor'>

Heres how it is. a HEAT round is capable of penetrating conventional armor, in fact, think of AT missile as a HEAT round, as they use the same basic concept. However, with the advent of Explosive-Reactive armor, HEAT rounds have fallen out of favor in use against MBTs- besides that, HEAT rounds are usually slower than SABOT rounds and the trajectory is less reliable. But HEAT rounds are still effective against tanks like the T72, so long as ERA is not in use. Also, HEAT rounds rip APCs and other softer armor apart.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've read from many sources that the kinetic energy from the round hitting the target is so great that the interior of the tank is raised to a few 100 degrees Celsius and that the crew would be killed by the heat. <span id='postcolor'>

Also the constant pounding of the rounds could kill the crew.I remeber reading that in Veitnam, or it might be the Korean war(i cant remeber which war)But an Uh-1 only had rockets, and they spotted a tank, which was really a tuff tank, so the Uh-1 fired all its rockets at it, but didnt destory the tank, but he killed the crew, cause of the constant pounding or the rockets, and the tank never reached its destination, and the US live happily ever after.The End.

[SKULLS_Viper 0]

I've heard that Tow's with double war heads isnt enough to destory an M1A1 or A2, but the Russian have designed a triple war head Tow which is able to destoy an M1A1-A2.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SKULLS_Viper @ June 03 2002,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've read from many sources that the kinetic energy from the round hitting the target is so great that the interior of the tank is raised to a few 100 degrees Celsius and that the crew would be killed by the heat. <span id='postcolor'>

Also the constant pounding of the rounds could kill the crew.I remeber reading that in Veitnam, or it might be the Korean war(i cant remeber which war)But an Uh-1 only had rockets, and they spotted a tank, which was really a tuff tank, so the Uh-1 fired all its rockets at it, but didnt destory the tank, but he killed the crew, cause of the constant pounding or the rockets, and the tank never reached its destination, and the US live happily ever after.The End. <span id='postcolor'>

sometimes armor "flakes" off under heavy attack, and this has the potential to send hot shards of metal at high speeds through a cramped area. Thats probably what killed the tank crews

[m79 0]

So is it possible to model ERA in OFP?

I really dislike to accumulative dammage system ofp has.

I finished of a tank the other day with a burst from my 16.

[Benze 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 30mm Vulcan mounted on the A-10 Thunderbolt will not, I repeat WILL NOT penetrate the armor of a battle tank. <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry. You did call it a vulcan.

There's something you arn't understanding. The rounds don't have to penetrate at all (even when fired at the top of the tank, where they will all penetrate). If you have 50 bullets lodged in the top of your tank, the whoke roof will spall on top of you.

And the Gulf War proved the effectiveness of it. It tore through MBTs, no matter what armour they had.

[advocatexxx 0]

Okay first of all yes, the Avenger can fire at very high rates, but keep in mind that despite the fact it has 7 barrels, such high rates still cause massive heat buildup.  After a 2-second burst the gun needs about a minute to cool off.  Besides if you're shooting from 1 kilometer away it's not likely you will hit the target where you want despite Avenger's impressive accuracy.

Sabot round will fuse armor elements and cause them to heat up greatly, but the heated armor elements will hardly be enough to raise the interior temperature so that the crew would cook and die.  I mean Jesus kids, use some basic physics.  Ever been to a dry sauna ?  You can sit there for 20 minutes in hot-ass temperatures, so it's not like you cook instantly and die.  Besides, M1A2, Leopard 2A6 and other modern battle tanks have air conditioning/filtration system.  

It's the sharpnel from the cut steel and other metal elements that go flying off after a Sabot round has penetrated the armor that end up quite likely killing the crew, not the small rise in temperature.

If a tank is hit with 20 30mm API rounds from the Avenger they will likely hit on angle, so they'll have more armor to penetrate.  Tank crews wear helmets and uniforms.  Those 30mm rounds don't have much energy left after they penetrate that 60mm armor or whatever the thickness of a tank armor is on its sides/top (i'm not mentioning a particular model of a tank so fill in the blanks).  Thus those rounds either hit a vital area or a crew member directly.  Other than that the little "debree" the pierced armor elements produce are hardly enough to KILL a crewmember.  Those metal pieces are hardly shaped well enough or powerful enough to serve as a bullet.

Avenger relies on close-range/maximum firepower in order to be effective.  After the pilot acquires a target he no doubt attacks it until he's close enough to estimate he'll have an accurate shot which will guarantee all the bullets he fires to hit the tank.

Just because those 30mm rounds are armor piercing doesn't mean they'll shred the tank into pieces if one or two of them hits it, I mean don't be ridiculous.

Think of the tank as a giant, house-sized watermelon and the Avenger as a regular M60 machine gun.  Now you will hardly cause any damage by shooting one or two, but if you empty the 100-round magazine into a small area of the watermelon you might end up causing vast damage to it, not otherwise.

Also, don't forget that A-10s in Desert Storm were battling T-54 and T-72 tanks, which by modern standards are hardly acceptable.

T-90, M1A2, Leopard 2A6 and others will take a lot more punishment from the Avenger and might require the pilot to make 2 or more runs to actually disable it.

[Aaron Kane 0]

Well it tore right through my moms Nissan Pathfinder!

[Kermit 0]

Advocate, until you learn more about kinetic energy and other physics bullshit, and until you learn how bullets behave, please stop. Just stop.

A tank isn't that far from the size of a regular watermelon when compared with a .223 round (not the .308 round you were talking about, though). If that .223 round was DPU, it would totally annihilate a watermelon of any realistic size. But that watermelons are not tanks filled with munitions and fuel manned by humans. Also, you cannot make size comparisons like that, because at different sizes things have different properties (example: if we were bug sized we could walk on water)

Now, a sauna is maybe a hundred degrees, right? Okay, the heat we are talking about in the tanks is several hundred degrees. The melting point of lead, the easiest metal to melt, is somewhere around six hundred or eight hundred degrees. Now if I understand correctly, the Uranium turns to an almost plasma-like state upon impact. You don't know what a small caliber bullet can do when it impacts, do you? Well, learn. And I'll tell you, a large bullet, even though less than an inch in diameter, will make a hole that is several feet wide by the time it has traveled a few feet. Remember, we're also talking about a melting bullet, not just a mushrooming one.

Someone else get to him, please. I cannot speak. Preferrably a chemist or something, or someone with military experience.

[Benze 0]

Hmm. I've tried. He keeps calling me "bud" and making up physics.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

He speaks the truth. The Soviets actually were protesting American use of DPU rounds with the Avenger weapon system, ostencibly on the grounds that it was use of a nuclear weapon, but more likely because the things turned tanks and their crews into crispy critters at an alarmingly efficient rate. And with the numerous compromises made in the integrity of the fuel system and ammo storage made in the T80 series (the auto loader system requires that one live round is always exposed in the crew cabin, and there is a main fuel line nested at the neck between the turret and the main body; this is disregarding the optional fitting of external fuel tanks),  it is easy prey for the Avenger, especially when DPU rounds are used. During the Gulf War, tanks that fell victim to the Avenger cannon were almost always destroyed in gruesome ways. All the moving parts (including the hatches) would fuse together, the fuel and ammo would cook off, and the crew would be instantly immolated. American personnel couldnt even touch the destroyed tanks (I mean the ones that werent burning like the funeral pyres they were) for several days, as the DPU does have the plasma effect that Kermit talked about.

AFAIK, when a DPU round hits armour, it does the standard slap & collapse effects that all ballistic projectiles experience. However, coupled with the unique properties of depleted uranium, it creates an armor peircing quality that makes tankers wish they hadnt been born. This quality, coupled with the Avenger cannons high cyclic rate, allows the A10 to be about the most effective armor killing machine in the air.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm. I've tried. He keeps calling me "bud" and making up physics.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL

Satchel has provided facts, Advocate is just speculating.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tank crews wear helmets and uniforms. Those 30mm rounds don't have much energy left after they penetrate that 60mm armor or whatever the thickness of a tank armor is on its sides/top (i'm not mentioning a particular model of a tank so fill in the blanks). Thus those rounds either hit a vital area or a crew member directly. Other than that the little "debree" the pierced armor elements produce are hardly enough to KILL a crewmember. Those metal pieces are hardly shaped well enough or powerful enough to serve as a bullet<span id='postcolor'>

LOL @ advocate, you just lost your credibility. Were you just making this up as you go along?

When any projectile passes through the armour of a tank, it creates alot of friction. The friction created is enough to cause the tanks' armour to melt. If ANYTHING (30mm x 173 AP included) is strong enough to penetrate the armour of a MBT, it is a sure bet that the round will be accompanied by hundreds or thousands of tiny molten pieces of metal traveling at supersonic speeds into the hull of a tank.

Tyler

[Warin 0]

Aww guys, leave poor advocate alone. His specialty is Quantum/Astro physics... not this confusing weapons stuff!

This site has some before and after pics of an M-60 tank, and an animated gif made up of frames showing the effect of this monster.

From the aforementioned page:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its shells travel at Mach 3; from 4,000ft (1,220m) they are on target in 1.2 seconds. This means that the movement of an MBT is irrelevant to the aiming problem; to the A-10, all ground targets are fixed. Because of the flat trajectory of the shells, too, the distance to the target does not have to be accurately estimated or measured. Within the normal maximum range, the trajectory is a straight line in front of the aircraft, represented by a fixed dot on the head-up display. <span id='postcolor'>

Advocate, that pretty much eliminates your whole argument about two runs on the target, and the range needed to make an attack. A-10 sees tank, A-10 kills tank. Not every time... but I'd rather be in the A-10 than the Tank in a test of this

[Tex -USMC- 0]

yeah, Im telling you, armored warfare is probably one of the most gruesome kinds of warfare, when it comes to creative ways one can be killed. And when your equipment and tactics are obsolete, armored warfare is little better than suicide. I was watching a documentary on the armor operations of Desert Storm, and a tank er was describing the actual combat. The Americans were slaughterin the Iraquis, wholesale. The T72s and the T80s didnt stand a chance. Most had their turrets blown sky high, with secondary explosions from ammo and fuel occurring shortly after. Anyways, shortly after this engagement, this guy filed for conscientious objectors status; because he just couldnt participate in a slaughter on that scale and still look at himself in the mirror.

The flak jackets and what not that tank crews have are irrelevant when compared with the kind of forces that go into effect when projectiles hit a tank.

[Warin 0]

Damn you Tex...

How am I supposed to maintain the image of the stereotypical dumb texan embodied by your president when you say stuff like that??

We can all learn from his last post. We can debate this stuff till we are blue in the face...but none of us (well MOST of us) really have almost no idea the end results of the mayhem we talk about. Can you imagine seing that sort of thing first hand? *shudder* Makes me glad to be a civilian.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The result is that two-thirds of the total impact energy is concentrated in the small-caliber penetrator: enough energy to lift a thirty-ton weight one-foot delivered instantly to a penny-sized area. Not only is this ammunition capable of penetrating the top and side armor of an MBT, but the depleted uranium ignites on impact, sending a jet of flame into the vehicle<span id='postcolor'>

There you have it.

Tyler

[Kermit 0]

My brother has a rather nasty picture on his computer.  It's a charred corpse half out of the hatch on a light tank.  The tank was hit by one of those small rockets fired from a helicopter (FFAR, is it?  You know, the kind that come in packs of nineteen) as he was climbing out.  There's nothing but bones with charred muscle over them.  It would suck to die in a tank, or even a ship for that matter.  I second the part about being glad to be a civilian.  Actually, I'm considering joining the Air Farce sometime in the next year.  But hopefully, I wouldn't see any action.  Since they wouldn't let me fly, I'd probably just be a guard or a munitions guy.  Air Farce involves less combat than Army or something.

Oh - what's this I hear about the U.N. trying to get DPU banned because it is ever so slightly radioactive? Is that what you were talking about, Tex?

[sn1per 0]

And nobody mentions that U.S. have used DU rounds in europe. Nice, especially when you know that DU rounds are now in the soil. Oh well, it just causes blood cancer and is very harmful to children, no big deal   That's the cause for so much protesting against DU rounds.

U.S. soldiers in Desert Storm also got this syndrome, mostly caused by burning tanks destroyed with DU rounds. The DU round disintegrates into "dust" and in this way it can enter human lungs. That is the thing why (later in the war, when the risk was realized) U.S. soldiers were not allowed to enter or even stay close to destroyed armor.

[shadow 6]

You guys are not specialists on armour and penetrating-capabilities...

You all are specialists in driving this thread way off topic

'bout the topic:AIRCRAFT'

IMO the rudder should be fixed. It only works up to approx 80 km/h for both choppers and planes. That is almost correct for most choppers, but completely wrong for the planes. Why bother having the rudders if you can't use'em when landing? (80km/h is too slow when landing a A10).

The choppers start acting like cars instead of planes when exceeding 100 km/h in OFP

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

I was about to move this to off-topic but Shadow saved me from the job.