PDA

View Full Version : something possibly new "50 cal vs tiger tank"



pinche_bolillo
01-16-2004, 02:05 AM
I cannot remember which book I was thumbing through the other day, it could have been tony williams' book, but I did find this interesting. after looking at the armor on a tiger tank, I decided that there was just no way the 50 cal bmg ap projectile could penetrate the armor at anything but a 90 degree angle. and even then I still have my doubts it could defeat the armor. getting rounds fired from an a/c to strike at a 90 degree angle is nearly an impossible feat for sure.

well this book stated that while it was rare that american planes armed with 50 cals alone destroyed tiger tanks, it did aparently happen. and the way that it was possible was due to a desing flaw in the tiger tanks air induction system. apparently there was not a sufficient bullet trap designed for the tigers air induction system. and it would let ricocheting bullets enter the crew compartment. though this was possible. it had to be a rare event I am sure. the book doesnt state how frequent it happened, the author only states it had to be a rare event.

now if somebody must know the source I got this from, I am sure I can find it again, but I will if some one is curious.

pinche_bolillo
01-16-2004, 02:05 AM
I cannot remember which book I was thumbing through the other day, it could have been tony williams' book, but I did find this interesting. after looking at the armor on a tiger tank, I decided that there was just no way the 50 cal bmg ap projectile could penetrate the armor at anything but a 90 degree angle. and even then I still have my doubts it could defeat the armor. getting rounds fired from an a/c to strike at a 90 degree angle is nearly an impossible feat for sure.

well this book stated that while it was rare that american planes armed with 50 cals alone destroyed tiger tanks, it did aparently happen. and the way that it was possible was due to a desing flaw in the tiger tanks air induction system. apparently there was not a sufficient bullet trap designed for the tigers air induction system. and it would let ricocheting bullets enter the crew compartment. though this was possible. it had to be a rare event I am sure. the book doesnt state how frequent it happened, the author only states it had to be a rare event.

now if somebody must know the source I got this from, I am sure I can find it again, but I will if some one is curious.

RedDeth
01-16-2004, 02:38 AM
LIKE IVE SAID A MILLION TIMES P-47s blew the heck outa tiger tanks with their 50 cals. nuff said!

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509034.jpg

SUPERAEREO
01-16-2004, 02:44 AM
So "Saving Private Ryan" was not so unrealistic after all...

pinche_bolillo
01-16-2004, 02:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedDeth:
LIKE IVE SAID A MILLION TIMES P-47s blew the heck outa tiger tanks with their 50 cals. nuff said!

oh red, there was a lot of over claiming on destroying tanks. even with rockets it seems it was quite hard to hit a tank that was stationary. and you needed a direct hit with a rocket to defeat the tank. now bombs of 500 lbs is another story, but even with those it took quite a bit of practice and luck to hit one. I think most tanks knocked out by the americans was done via artilery. the americans had some pretty good artilery, in quantity also.

HansKnappstick
01-16-2004, 02:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SUPERAEREO:
So "Saving Private Ryan" was not so unrealistic after all...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought, in the movie the Tiger gets destroyed by a rocket fired from the airplane.

I consider the movie unrealistic anyway.

WUAF_Badsight
01-16-2004, 03:03 AM
just .50 cals entering a Tiger thru the armor ??

no way

thru the air intake freakishly maybe .... anythings possible

(well not .50 cals defeating tiger armor ... i mean plz ....)

KIMURA
01-16-2004, 04:28 AM
Here we go again.

The Germans didn't lose a single Tiger I caused by 0.5" shells. If you find any photos of taken out Tigers you'll allways see impacts of either HVAR, Artillery of other guns, but never of 0.5" shell.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 04:37 AM
I suggest the reading of TIGER! The Tiger: A British View. ISBN 0-11-290426-2

This is a detailed report by the Brits on one of the first Tigers captured in N Africa. Lots of drawings.

SUPERAEREO
01-16-2004, 04:41 AM
Mmm... last time I bought a book on armour it must have been 15 years ago.

Hell, I can't be a full-time plane nerd AND a tank nerd at the same time!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bearcat99
01-16-2004, 04:42 AM
Although tanks were not destroyed by .50 cals..they were rendered inoperable..which IMO is just as good. Which actually wasnt too hard if you consider all the engineering that went into a Tiger. Unlike the Sherman, which could almost be put togehter with spit and bubblegum (American tank crews paid for THAT with thier lives on many occasions) the Tigers were very labor intensive so I would dare to say that many a Tiger was rendered inoperable by .50s... just a very rare few were destroyed by them..and those were destroyed by exloding ammo or fuel tanks usually, not .50s alone. The sheer laws of physics speak for themselves on this issue.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 04:56 AM
What made the Tigers and Panthers in-operatable was the destruction of the supply train by the 0.50" &gt; no fuel, no ammo, no spare parts &gt;&gt; no go.

Many Tigers could have been retrieved if it did not take 3 SdKfz 251 type of vehicles to to it away.

jurinko
01-16-2004, 04:59 AM
dunno about tigers, but P40 will easily blow the PzIII in FB with its MGs... just aim from the rear or side.

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
dunno about tigers, but P40 will easily blow the PzIII in FB with its MGs... just aim from the rear or side.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 50 cals are over modelled.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No need for AT guns when the HMGs used by the mud huggers could do the job.

The P3 had 50mm rear and 16mm top thicknesses.

HansKnappstick
01-16-2004, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Many Tigers could have been retrieved if it did not take 3 SdKfz 251 type of vehicles to to it away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You probably meant two SdKfz 11 type of vehicle.

SdKfz 251 was an armoured troop transport and uncapable of towing heavy things.

SdKfz 11 was a towing vehicle designed for loads up to 18 tons.

pinche_bolillo
01-16-2004, 07:29 AM
yes I too have heard about tigers that carried fuel and ammo strapped to the outside of the tank and this caused their loss. but the idea that bullets could enter the tiger through the fresh air duct due to a design flaw was new to me. not once did I say the 50 cal could defeat the tigers 25mm of hardened steel armor.

MiloMorai
01-16-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Many Tigers could have been retrieved if it did not take 3 SdKfz 251 type of vehicles to to it away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You probably meant two SdKfz 11 type of vehicle.

SdKfz 251 was an armoured troop transport and uncapable of towing heavy things.

SdKfz 11 was a towing vehicle designed for loads up to 18 tons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I said 'type of'.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyways, found the photo and it is SdKfz 9s that are doing the towing.

see Osprey's Tiger 1, New Vanguard series, pg24

faustnik
01-16-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
yes I too have heard about tigers that carried fuel and ammo strapped to the outside of the tank and this caused their loss. but the idea that bullets could enter the tiger through the fresh air duct due to a design flaw was new to me. not once did I say the 50 cal could defeat the tigers 25mm of hardened steel armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you think a exploded external jerry can would cause the Tiger to become a loss? It might appear that way to a P-47 pilot but, would probably not take out the tank.

.50s taking out heavy panzers is either amazing luck or pure fantasy.

From "Germany's Panther Tank":

"British examination of 96 Panthers captured from 8 to 31 August 1944 revealed the cause of their loss as 11 by armor piercing shot, 1 by hollow charge projectiles, 1 by artillery high explosive shells, 2 by rocket projectiles from aircraft, 1 by cannon from aircraft, destroyed by crew, 30 abandoned, and 6 due to unknown causes."

This was during a period of intense allied air attack on German armored units.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

LilHorse
01-16-2004, 12:48 PM
I'm sure no one really believes that .50s alone could destroy a Tiger (and I'm a big fan of batteries of .50s on a/c). I'm sorta with Bearcat on this. I think that 8 .50s could certainly disable a Tiger (shoot up treads, gas bowser being towed, etc.). I've heard that some tanks engine coverings were not sufficiently armored to stop .50 cal. I've also hear of .50 rounds bouncing off road surfaces and through the thinner armor of certain tanks, but I don't know if that's true or a myth. Afterall, why would they bounce off road surface but pierce armor? Dunno.

aesmith
01-16-2004, 12:52 PM
"I've also hear of .50 rounds bouncing off road surfaces and through the thinner armor of certain tanks, but I don't know if that's true or a myth."

And that could only apply if the underside armour was thinner - which it wasn't on the Tiger anyway.

"Afterall, why would they bounce off road surface but pierce armor? Dunno."

They wouldn't

Blutarski2004
01-16-2004, 01:12 PM
If a single Tiger tank could withstand a hundred or more hits by Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank rifles, as has been well documented on the Eastern front, then the likelihood of a .50cal strafing run knocking one out is EXTREMELY small. A lot of external equipment (vision blocks, hatch hinges, mufflers, vents, external stowage, aerials, etc) might be destroyed, jammed, or damaged, but the vehicle itself should be considered pretty much proof against such weapons.

OTOH, try this out for proof that truth is stranger than either fiction or theory. There is a new book, MARINE TANK BATTLES IN KOREA, which discusses the experiences of USMC tank battalions in the Korean War. The author relates an occasion when the main gun of an M-26 Pershing tank was disabled by rifle caliber bullets which entered the muzzle, passed down the barrel, and jammed the tank gun's projectile in the bore such that the gun could neither be fired nor cleared. Interrogation of Chinese prisoners revealed that they had actually been trained to fire at the muzzle of a tank's gun immediately after it had fired in the hope that one or more bullets would pass down the barrel, exit through the open breech into the interior of the turret, and ricochet around the inside of the tank to kill or injure the tank crew.


Blutarski

BLUTARSKI

JG26Red
01-16-2004, 02:00 PM
I have heard of rockets or bombs, but .50 cals? maybe agaisnt nashorns or panzer IIs lol, but a tiger? ya ok... maybe a lucky hit in the rear getting into the engine area but not penerating a tiger.. eventhou they did make nice big juicy targets...

Manos1
01-16-2004, 04:45 PM
Ahhhh The Tiger!

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/photos/tiger_display.jpg

Incur damage to the Air Intakes with 50cal? ROFL!

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/photos/tiger131.jpg

www.tiger-tank.com (http://www.tiger-tank.com)

Once a quarter, the same discussion.......

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/pilotsforum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr)

jensenpark
01-16-2004, 05:27 PM
I recall reading once of an allied pilot claiming with his P47 overturning a tank by basically blowing the road/dirt away from the side of the tank and it flipped over.

Apparently the road just collapsed underneath the side from getting blown out by 8 .50's.

True or not...who knows...

http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/thecast/duke2.jpg

"Death before unconsciousness" - Uncle Duke

BBB_Hyperion
01-16-2004, 05:39 PM
http://www.jagdtiger.de/GermanTanks/PzVIB-04.jpg

Can someone Plz point out at which exact point this 50s can hit the engine Section ?

Regards,
Hyperion

[This message was edited by BBB_Hyperion on Fri January 16 2004 at 04:48 PM.]

01-16-2004, 05:44 PM
They can only achieve that by prying off the gunsight and listening to the voice:

"Use the Force, NooB!"

TX-Bomblast
01-16-2004, 06:06 PM
Some time ago the history Channel had an hour special on P-47's in the ETO, it was late war footage mostly.There's one scene where a P-47 strafes a Tiger tank and leaves it ablaze. I think any of you can buy a video copy of the program, just go to the History channel online store and search for it. The .50 cal is a very potent weapon, just not in IL2FB.

TX-Bomblast
Red3

GR142_Astro
01-16-2004, 06:10 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:

Can someone Plz point out at which exact point this 50s can hit the engine Section ?

Regards,
Hyperion
[QUOTE]


Tigers, Konigstigers, Panthers, Jagpanthers and Jagdtigers all had this BASIC engine deck layout:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jgtint.jpg

It is easy to see the possibility of some stray rounds of .50 entering this area. Only ONE stray is needed to punch a hole in the radiator. Folks, this had to happen more than once due to the appearence of field/factory modded tanks featuring this:

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jgjp_13.jpg

Before you say it, these modelers are professionals and the expendient is well documented. I just haven't a scanner to scan images from my research books.

As someone has said, this comes up about once a quarter, and it seems to contain the most myths of any thread type:

1 - Yes, most every country used thinner armor on the belly. It just makes sense. Deflected shots up from the road, I really don't think so.

2 - Of course P47's and P51's took out German tanks with their .50's. Did allied pilots overclaim these types of kills? I believe they did.

3 - A hole in the fuel cell or radiator is every bit as good as hole right through the turret. Why? Because German armored recovery forces were stretched paper thin for almost the entire war. As someone mentioned, it took 3 Sdkfz 9 FAMO's many hours to recover German heavies. Be sure that any recovery was done by either a BergePanther, another tank of the platoon (checkout the tow cables), or, this bad boy:



http://www.thewarandpeaceshow.com/vehicles/towtruck1.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
01-16-2004, 10:51 PM
So mainly we agree that the bouncing 50s of the road things seems not at all realistic special for the KingTiger or Tiger.

The Engine section is the only weak point where hits of this caliber can do really something.

The Engine itself is pretty good secured by amorplate. The Air Intake and Air Exhaust remain as entry points.

Now we must consider a P47 dont dives 90 degrees on this section . So we have a aoa of about 30 to 50 degrees higher dive angles result in longer firing distance (Except the Pilot dont want to pull up) and this leaves entry hitting energy too low to get through armor.

As you posted the pictures of the Engine section you can see airintake and exhaust. That allows only Bullet entry at some special degrees. This Event can happen but then the Bullet needs to hit a Vital Part and maybe archieves this with bouncing a little around in the engine room until energie is out. So it is maybe possible with right shooting distance much bullets and right angle and lucky bullet bouncing insight the tank. But how rare is it that this event takes out the complete engine or tank ?

How many Tiger I and Tiger II were in the West Front since allied landing and operational and with fuel ?

Many tanks had to be destroyed duo fuel or spare parts shortage.

Also at early war stages of the landing in france mostly every german tank was considered as tiger tank. Some tanks also carried a fueltank vehice 2 wheels behind them that blew up when shooting at the tank.

Short Article here may not represent a overall view.

http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

This Picture you showed with this armorplates added is from a JagdPanther when i idented it right from this view. The Plates are 90 Degrees so only usefull against Attacks from above. This could be Ari , Rockets , and all Kinds of Bullets and even 50s ,) . But that doesnt prove that 50s were really considered a danger it shows only that attacks from above are considered as thread.

Regards,
Hyperion

Fehler
01-17-2004, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Bomblast:
Some time ago the history Channel had an hour special on P-47's in the ETO, it was late war footage mostly.There's one scene where a P-47 strafes a Tiger tank and leaves it ablaze. I think any of you can buy a video copy of the program, just go to the History channel online store and search for it. The .50 cal is a very potent weapon, just not in IL2FB.

TX-Bomblast
Red3<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember seeing that as well. However, I also remember noticing that the tank went up in smoke. No secondary explosions, not detonations. Just poof! Like....?? Like a can of gasoline was actually hit.

I have fired the MII 50 cal. She is a wonderful weapon. But it just wont penetrate the thickness of armor that a Tiger had. Perhaps if the rounds were made of depleated uranioum or something, perhaps it might. But armor piercing ball ammunition? Nope.. no chance.

No, perhaps if it was loaded with some of those magic bullets.. like the ones that killed JFK...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

MiloMorai
01-17-2004, 12:38 AM
GR142_Astro


Tigers were not to tow other Tigers. Strictly verbotten, but not to say it was not done.

GR142_Astro
01-17-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
GR142_Astro


Tigers were not to tow other Tigers. Strictly verbotten, but not to say it was not done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite correct on both points. This rule was broken by many. Many documented photos of Tigers with tow cables not in stowed position, but rather lashed to the front shackles in the ready position. Tiger ace Otto Carius confirms this in his book. During 44-45 the FAMO became increasingly rare and were not replaced when lost, so certain rules were broken.

I agree 85% with you Hyperion. Watch some Thunderbolt gun camera footage against ground targets and try to count the number of hits across the ground. You get an idea if these hits were to find a tank's engine deck.

You are quite correct about losses due to lack of fuel, spare parts and mechanical breakdown. This point is often overlooked.

And don't take me wrong. Armor is a favorite subject of mine, and for me the German Panther Mk V was the best designed and constructed tank used in the war. (The JSIII was superior, but did not truly partcipate).

Choctaw111
01-23-2004, 07:29 PM
The allied pilots absolutely bounced bullets off of the ground and up underneath the Tiger Tanks to disable them!!!! I have this on film if you don't beleive me. So do not say that this couldn't happen because it really did. I wish that I had a way to put the film on this post. You would all enjoy it. It is really neat seeing the tracers bounce off of the ground and up under the Tanks...

beepboop
01-23-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The allied pilots absolutely bounced bullets off of the ground and up underneath the Tiger Tanks to disable them!!!! I have this on film if you don't beleive me. So do not say that this couldn't happen because it really did. I wish that I had a way to put the film on this post. You would all enjoy it. It is really neat seeing the tracers bounce off of the ground and up under the Tanks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. Sorry. No. You're wrong. No.

Sigh.... Look, the reason that this is impossible is given to us by Sir Isaac Newton. Admittedly, he's not a History Channel authority, but I think that if you go in to school tomorrow and ask your physics teacher "can a projectile strike surface (a) at an angle insufficient to cause penetration, bounce off and penetrate surface (b), when Surface (a) is less hard than surface (b)?"

He will tell you this: "No".

The ground (surface (a), in case you hadn't figured it out) is, I am afraid, invariably softer than steel plate (surface (b)) on the underside of a tank - any tank. Any tank at all. No tank was ever, EVER destroyed by bullets bouncing off the road *under* the tank and then penetrating the belly armour. Never.

Obi_Kwiet
01-23-2004, 09:12 PM
Think about this: Just one of the 30mm guns used by the A-10 could not possibly enter the hull of a T-90, now could it. How ever, 30 or 40 of them hitting at the same time seems to do a preety good job of them. I betcha it works the same with 8 50's slamming into the hull of a tiger at once. Alos the Tigers armor is weaker on top.

chris455
01-23-2004, 11:38 PM
Since this topic has become almost as enduring as the 190 forward view subject, can we try this:
Let's see if anyone can dig up an actual account of a Tiger crew, or even ANY EYEWITNESS ON THE GROUND of ANY instance in which .50 caliber rounds disabled, let alone destroyed, a Tiger.
My opinion (and it is just that-an opinion) is that it NEVER happened.
But, I would be more than able to recant if someone can come up with some compelling eyewitness testimony from the GERMAN perspective, or anyone at ground level in close proximity tothe "destroyed" tank.(Not that Germans are any more or less beleivable than anyone else. It's just that from a P-47 flying over @ 300+ knots, well, you get the picture. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
There certainly is no harm in speculating about these things, but the whole issue has always been kind of "grassy knoll" to me, let's see some credible evidence. I won't hold my breath.
S!
Chris

MiloMorai
01-23-2004, 11:53 PM
Yup, sure does get repetious this myth of the uber 50 cal. Listen up you who think so. The Tiger had 25mm of armour on top and on the bottom. Now do some math and tell me how thick the steel was at a strike angle of 45*, 30* and 20*. I know you won't do it, so here are the numbers, 40mm, 50mm and 80mm.

So tell me again how uber the 50cal was. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

HellToupee
01-24-2004, 12:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Think about this: Just one of the 30mm guns used by the A-10 could not possibly enter the hull of a T-90, now could it. How ever, 30 or 40 of them hitting at the same time seems to do a preety good job of them. I betcha it works the same with 8 50's slamming into the hull of a tiger at once. Alos the Tigers armor is weaker on top.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The a10 fires du rounds size of milkbottles at some insane firerate, this would be far greater than even what the 190 could but out let alone 8 .50s. The tiger i think has amour comparable to even some of todays tanks thickness wise.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

Nunsuch
01-24-2004, 04:37 AM
To the poster that suggested that T90's had been killed by A10's something like"a single 30mm fired from an A10 wouldn't penetrate the armour of an A10 but 50 in the same place doesnt seem to have much trouble." Are you suggesting that world war 3 has already happened and we missed it.

I am sure the T90 as any other tank would not fair well aganst the aircraft of today but to base an argument on the asumption that something that has not happened, happened is absurd.

And I think that you could use more .50 bullets than was put into american planes strafing a single one and you wouldn't "kill" a tiger. Britain and Russia had an idea how to deal with tanks and that was big guns with hardened steel bullets.

zugfuhrer
01-24-2004, 04:42 AM
It must this kind of gun that the P40 and Flying Fortresses are equipped with.

You know that the tanks where constructed to withstand damage. The tiger where constructed and the engineers had lot of experince of battledamage.
On thing that they thought about was to construct the cooling system so that shrapnels from artilleryshells did so little damgage as possible.
It sounds unlikly that a round from a MG which has much less damagecapacity than a shrapnel, could inflikt damage on a tank unless it was a lucky shoot that set fire on some fuelbarells or anything like that.

JtD
01-24-2004, 07:01 AM
FYI:

Air intake for engine was below the turret. To damage the engine via this route you'd have to pierce the turret first.
Air outlet from engine was at the rear behind armored bars. To enter engine compartment liek this you'd have to peirce the bars first.
There were two indepanedent cooling circle in every German Tank. In order to disable the tank you'd have to destroy both.
The cooling air came in and extited throug grilles with s-shaped bars. To get a projectile through there is just as likely as winning the lottery.
The water cooler itself was not below the grilles, it was below the solid armor plate.

MiloMorai
01-24-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
FYI:

Air intake for engine was below the turret. To damage the engine via this route you'd have to pierce the turret first.
Air outlet from engine was at the rear behind armored bars. To enter engine compartment liek this you'd have to peirce the bars first.
There were two indepanedent cooling circle in every German Tank. In order to disable the tank you'd have to destroy both.
The cooling air came in and extited throug grilles with s-shaped bars. To get a projectile through there is just as likely as winning the lottery.
The water cooler itself was not below the grilles, it was below the solid armor plate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The air for the engine came in through the intake port which was under the bussle, attached to the turret. That is on later Tigers, early Tigers had air cleaners hanging off the rear with tubes running across the decking to the intake. The turret had to be rotated to lift the engine cover.

The radiator cooling inlets/exhausts besides the S-curves usually had a wiremesh as well.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Astaldo711
01-24-2004, 08:49 AM
From what I've read, Tigers could be taken out by bouncing shells under the tank. If you're firing 6-8 50 cal guns, some will hit the undercarriage. The Germans usually just left damaged tanks in the field.

Old_Canuck
01-24-2004, 09:07 AM
You guys got me curious. Went hunting and found this little piece of info. from a fellow who claims he was there:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In Reply to: Re: Could jugs take out tiger tanks ? posted by Ed Wagamon on June 04, 2003 at 03:21:02:

This is a great site! I've only recently read some of the postings and am amazed at the detailed knowledge of the members on the P47. I just finished reading the postings refered to by Ed Wagamon Re: P47 vs Panzer. All things aside, except the use of rockets, the P47 was a tank killing machine. The 513th Sq of the 405th Group, 9Th Af was equiped with 4 5inch rockets around April or May of 1944. Tank busting was not their original objective, we were told the Buzz bomb sites along the coast of France were not being destroyed by the bombers and the rockets were to be used, delayed fuse, to penetrate and explode inside the reinforced concrete emplacements. We never used rockets on these sites, D Day came and they were quickly found to be effective not only on Panzers but almost anything else that was a little too heavy for the 50s. From the intelligence report dated August 31, 1944 on the 513th Sq ( unit history )"The appreciable part that the 513th played is shown by a total of 73 tanks destroyed up to the 10th of August" This total was for the Month of July and to Aug 10. I was a pilot in the 513th till Aug 9, shot down
by ground fire, crashlanded, captured immediately and spent the remainder of the war as a guest of Hitler. During my brief tour with the 513th I shot at a number of tanks with the 50s and all I got was their attention. I know the 513th went on to a great record, I'm just sad I could not have been there at the finish. Ross"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It's from an interesting thread title: "Could jugs take out tiger tanks?" ... the controversy continues it seems ... here's the link to the thread:


http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1235.html

OC

"You don't stop playing because you grow old, you grow old because you stop playing."

MiloMorai
01-24-2004, 09:38 AM
I guess the 513th never read this report.

http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html



Long live the Horse Clans.

MiloMorai
01-24-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Astaldo711:
From what I've read, Tigers could be taken out by bouncing shells under the tank. If you're firing 6-8 50 cal guns, some will hit the undercarriage. The Germans usually just left damaged tanks in the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did not read this thread. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

Choctaw111
01-24-2004, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beepboop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The allied pilots absolutely bounced bullets off of the ground and up underneath the Tiger Tanks to disable them!!!! I have this on film if you don't beleive me. So do not say that this couldn't happen because it really did. I wish that I had a way to put the film on this post. You would all enjoy it. It is really neat seeing the tracers bounce off of the ground and up under the Tanks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. Sorry. No. You're wrong. No.

Sigh.... Look, the reason that this is impossible is given to us by Sir Isaac Newton. Admittedly, he's not a History Channel authority, but I think that if you go in to school tomorrow and ask your physics teacher "can a projectile strike surface (a) at an angle insufficient to cause penetration, bounce off and penetrate surface (b), when Surface (a) is less hard than surface (b)?"

He will tell you this: "No".

The ground (surface (a), in case you hadn't figured it out) is, I am afraid, invariably softer than steel plate (surface (b)) on the underside of a tank - any tank. Any tank at all. No tank was ever, EVER destroyed by bullets bouncing off the road *under* the tank and then penetrating the belly armour. Never.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a film with interviews with allied pilots who spoke of shooting under tanks and boucning the bullets underneath them to destroy them. One of the pilots on film was Kenneth Bullock who was a Thunderbolt pilot for the 362nd Fighter Group and this is what he had to say about the Tiger Tanks and I quote "The tanks were really tough. The Tiger tanks they had were really good and they all carried, or most of them carried, a fuel tank behind them in a trailer so what we would do is not worry about the tank. We hit the trailer and set it on fire and if it came loose or whatever then we would shhot the bullets right underneath the tank and they would bounce up from the ground or whatever road they were on or whatever, up into the tank bacause they were armor plated underneath but they were on the top and on the sidesso we still found a way to get in." That was a quote from an actual pilot so I hope your not saying that he is wrong because he would know better than any of us...

Choctaw111
01-24-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Choctaw111:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beepboop:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Choctaw111:
The allied pilots absolutely bounced bullets off of the ground and up underneath the Tiger Tanks to disable them!!!! I have this on film if you don't beleive me. So do not say that this couldn't happen because it really did. I wish that I had a way to put the film on this post. You would all enjoy it. It is really neat seeing the tracers bounce off of the ground and up under the Tanks...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No. Sorry. No. You're wrong. No.

Sigh.... Look, the reason that this is impossible is given to us by Sir Isaac Newton. Admittedly, he's not a History Channel authority, but I think that if you go in to school tomorrow and ask your physics teacher "can a projectile strike surface (a) at an angle insufficient to cause penetration, bounce off and penetrate surface (b), when Surface (a) is less hard than surface (b)?"

He will tell you this: "No".

The ground (surface (a), in case you hadn't figured it out) is, I am afraid, invariably softer than steel plate (surface (b)) on the underside of a tank - any tank. Any tank at all. No tank was ever, EVER destroyed by bullets bouncing off the road *under* the tank and then penetrating the belly armour. Never.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have a film with interviews with allied pilots who spoke of shooting under tanks and boucning the bullets underneath them to destroy them. One of the pilots on film was Kenneth Bullock who was a Thunderbolt pilot for the 362nd Fighter Group and this is what he had to say about the Tiger Tanks and I quote "The tanks were really tough. The Tiger tanks they had were really good and they all carried, or most of them carried, a fuel tank behind them in a trailer so what we would do is not worry about the tank. We hit the trailer and set it on fire and if it came loose or whatever then we would shhot the bullets right underneath the tank and they would bounce up from the ground or whatever road they were on or whatever, up into the tank bacause they were armor plated underneath but they were on the top and on the sidesso we still found a way to get in." That was a quote from an actual pilot so I hope your not saying that he is wrong because he would know better than any of us...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Forgive my typing. They WERE NOT armor plated underneath but they were on the top and on the sides.

KIMURA
01-24-2004, 04:22 PM
The underside of a TIGER is still thicker than 25mm, so there's no way for a 0.5"bullet to penetrate - even hit with a angle of 90‚?.

dizeee
01-24-2004, 04:44 PM
but... but... the pilots of the p47‚¬īs claimed they bounced of rounds from the streetsurface and sucessfully destroyed heaps of german tanks with 50 cal and with rockets and with bombs and .... and... i... cant...
they cant be wrong. they would never claim something that didnt happen. they know all.

DaBallz
01-24-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
The underside of a TIGER is still thicker than 25mm, so there's no way for a 0.5"bullet to penetrate - even hit with a angle of 90‚?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the American pilots were German Americans
flying with the assistance of the Tutonic knights
and with their racial superiority penetrated the
armour of a Tiger.

I am laughing like crazy at this thread.
The .50 cal is not the preferred weapon against
any armour, let alone a Tiger.
But it was the weapon we had.
Tigers were indeed shot up with .50s.
Top and bottom armour ain't as good as side armour.
There are seams and openings.

That a Tiger was destroyed (taken out of action)
by .50 cal fire is VERY likely.
That the .50 was a good Tiger killer is unlikely.

8 .50's from a speeding P-47 should have been able to
render a Tiger ineffective for a short period.
That meant mission accomplished in late 1944
or early 1945. You were not going to get a chance
to get that tank to a repair facility.

Da...

dizeee
01-24-2004, 04:47 PM
ah btw....
why is the underside of a tiger tank relatively well protected? the crewcompartement had to be securred against all sorts of explosives detonating underneath the tank. like antitank mines. just check out how much boom a average ww2 anti tank mine packs, and u know that there wa sno way though for a 50cal, even if teh tank would be lying upside down.

dizeee
01-24-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KIMURA:
The underside of a TIGER is still thicker than 25mm, so there's no way for a 0.5"bullet to penetrate - even hit with a angle of 90‚?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps the American pilots were German Americans
flying with the assistance of the Tutonic knights
and with their racial superiority penetrated the
armour of a Tiger.

I am laughing like crazy at this thread.
The .50 cal is not the preferred weapon against
any armour, let alone a Tiger.
But it was the weapon we had.
Tigers were indeed shot up with .50s.
Top and bottom armour ain't as good as side armour.
There are seams and openings.

That a Tiger was destroyed (taken out of action)
by .50 cal fire is VERY likely.
That the .50 was a good Tiger killer is unlikely.

8 .50's from a speeding P-47 should have been able to
render a Tiger ineffective for a short period.
That meant mission accomplished in late 1944
or early 1945. You were not going to get a chance
to get that tank to a repair facility.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

jesus christ, pls you and all other "p47 with 50cal where h4XX on jerry armor" guys, read this:
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

Cess-Harp
01-24-2004, 05:08 PM
They did not destroy the tank , they took it out of the battle.. I have been reading a book of the SS Tankers and in the book a tanker stated that there Tiger was taken out by aircraft fire.. Bullets.
He stated that the Fire control system was very delicate and the sites could be knocked off line by hits.. also they got hit in the exhaust system , and that caused the tank to heat up and fill the inside with smoke..
Was the tank destroyed ? No but it was taken out of the battle and had to be fixed by ground crews before it could be used again.

If someone wants to know the name of the book I will look it up the next time I am in teh house and post it here.. It is a great book of the tank war on the ground.

DDad
01-24-2004, 09:33 PM
One thing- I've never heard anyone here mention- maybe I've missed it.....
Whats the No 2 thing feared by Tankers? Feel free to ask around, do a google search etc. My money is on the the tank being set afire. If the .50's hit a fuel tank, you can bet that crew was out of there, pronto. My great uncle (Sherman Commander, left arm in the 3rd tank he was shot out of) told me this a few years ago before he died. This also explains why Malatov Cocktails worked too....... unless they were "overmodelled" in the Real world....

v1ader
01-24-2004, 11:16 PM
There are two kinds of tank 'kills' as defined by the British Army - a 'mobility kill' and a 'catastrophic kill'. Both are self-explanatory, although the pedantic among us will no doubt find a few states of 'deadness' in between. There are only two kinds because all AT weapons will achieve either one or the other. The physics of a tank kill dictate that once penetration has been achieved the damage resulting will be catastrophic. I wont go into detail, ask if interested.

There is also a more generic term 'mission kill' when an enemy asset is damaged to a point where it cannot execute its orders. .50 cal will NEVER achieve a catasrophic kill on Tiger. We can all agree on that. It may well get a mobility kill, tracks are the most vulnerable points of any tank, and it would largely be a matter of luck/chance.

On to 'bouncing bullets'. Im afraid they do. It is simply a matter of the angle at which the round strikes the ground. In the pacific theater rounds 'bounced off' water during low level strafing attacks. Documentary evidence is plentiful. I have seen it and achieved it myself countless times, fring tracer rounds of various calibers on a tank-sized range. When there is no backstop and the ground is level after the target, you will see the tracer bounce all over the place once it passes through the target and impacts at a shallow angle on the ground beyond. But can this kill a tank? Absolutely not. A truly freak accident may secure a mobility kill. Nothing more.

v1ader
01-24-2004, 11:31 PM
Whoops! My apologies to Beepboop - having re-read your post I realised you weren't arguing against the bullets bouncing as such, but against their AT effectiveness. We are in total agreement.

WB_Outlaw
01-25-2004, 01:12 AM
According to the following link...

http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/MachinegunM2HB.html

Fifty cal. AP ammo can penetrate 1 inch of homogeneous steel armor and .9 inches of face hardened armor at 200 yards. At six hundred yards it's 0.7 and 0.5 inches.

The following link...
http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1258.html

has some good anecdotal information if you can stand the stupid background image.

From this info, I would think that a mobility kill would be possible against some types of tanks if the P-47 pilot was very skilled, very brave, and a little bit lucky. Lighter armor could probably be totally knocked out without much difficulty for the aforementioned pilots. With a LOT OF luck and some poor or incomplete maintenance, a few pilots might have even brewed up a heavy MBT or two.

-Outlaw.

Hristo_
01-25-2004, 01:50 AM
"Bouncing bulets off the road" is as idiotic as you get here, showing at least severe lack of physics understanding.

Let's look at the street first. Let's say it is asphalt (fairly rare in Normandy in 1944, but still). Asphalt is rather soft material compared to stone or steel. You can see it in summer when heavy objects actually leave dents in it.

Our bullet hits the asphalt. Let's say at a low angle so it bounces off. According to Snelius' law, the bouncing angle will be the same as the angle at which the bullet hit the asphalt.

During the strike, our bullet will inevitably lose some energy and deform to less than ideal shape, and probably start spinning wildly. Needless to say this doesn't help its penetration capabilities.

But let's even neglect this.

Our bullet, deflected of a softer surface (asphalt) now hits harder surface (steel). Now, why do you think a bullet would bounce off asphalt and penetrate steel, hitting both surfaces at the same angle ? The penetration would occur only if steel was softer than asphalt, which is never the case.

Aaron_GT
01-25-2004, 03:39 AM
One way to shed some more light on the debate
is to look at reports from tank crews and
infantry, as they also had machine guns, but
to .50 calibre. If optics and fuel systems on
a Tiger could be damaged by machine gun fire
there should be reports of allied tank crew
and infantry using machine guns to do so. Also
if shooting under a Tiger with a machine gun
was effective, this should also be recorded
by allied tank crew and infantry, who would
be in a better position to conduct such an
attack, being at a much shallower angle, with
much less movement.

What I suspect is that if a Tiger crew was
attacked by one or more aircraft with .50s
they would likely bail out even if their
tank was undamaged (and this is supported by
testimony from German tank crews) not because
their tank was damaged or destroyed, but
because of the fear that the plane's attack
was the precursor to an attack by that plane
or its squadron mates with bombs or rockets.
This is actually what German tank crews of
the period report - not that their tank was
knocked out by the guns, but that they were
bailing out before it got hit by bombs.

To a pilot diving in, a reasonable conclusion
when seeing the crew bail out when climbing
after a pass might be that they were bailing
out as the tank was destroyed. However in
some instances when the attack was over they
got back in the tank!

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 04:04 AM
I don`t believe it...

As histro writes: when a 0.50 cal bullet bounces off from a surface (no matter what) it has alreay lost a lot of its velocity and energy. In this case it can never take out a heavy tank nor a medium tank. It is said that it took five M4 tanks to take out a tiger - and of those only one would return (at least that was told among allied tankcrews). These Tanks are equipped with armor-piercing 75mm grenades (but had a rather short gunbarrel).
Indeed the british Firefly (17 pdr. gun) was a great Tiger-killer due to his long gun and high muzzle velocity, as the T34-85 and the JS-Tank were. Why do you think the late Sturmoviks where equipped with armor-piercing 37mm grenades ? And even those were only sucessful when they got a direct hit in the back (heavy tank) or on top or side armor (medium tank). German tanks where not invulnerable but they were protected very well. What I remember is that the british Tempest and Typhoon were very sucessful over Normandy, but this was due to the use of rockets and not the use of their 4x20mm guns (against tanks).

I suggest that you read this link, its not a german one, so it should be objective.
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

Don‚¬īt be too proud... this allways causes failure.

Greets

Jiro

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 04:33 AM
There are some smaller arms which can penetrate thicker armor due to high muzzle velocity and great bullet-weight (for example wolfram was used). The projectile was able to reach a speed of approx. 1400 m/s, which causes powerful results at the impact. You have to keep in mind that these anti-tank rifles (28mm or similar ) were developed especially to fight tanks and not as a general purpose weapon as the 0.50 cal. was . The russian "Panzerb√ľchsen" were very famous and the British made extensive use of that kind of weapon in northern Africa.

Kind regards

Jiro

MiloMorai
01-25-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
According to the following link...

http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/MachinegunM2HB.html

Fifty cal. AP ammo can penetrate 1 inch of homogeneous steel armor and .9 inches of face hardened armor at 200 yards. At six hundred yards it's 0.7 and 0.5 inches.

The following link...
http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1258.html

has some good anecdotal information if you can stand the stupid background image.

From this info, I would think that a mobility kill would be possible against some types of tanks if the P-47 pilot was very skilled, very brave, and a little bit lucky. Lighter armor could probably be totally knocked out without much difficulty for the aforementioned pilots. With a LOT OF luck and some poor or incomplete maintenance, a few pilots might have even brewed up a heavy MBT or two.

-Outlaw.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Tiger had:

bottom &gt; 25mm(1")
top &gt; 25mm(1")
rear &gt; 80mm(3.15")

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tftiger1.htm

It simply amazes me that some people really believe that a 50 cal can penatrate the bottom of a Tiger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


a strike angle of - equivelent thickness of 25mm(1")

45* - 40mm(1.57")
30* - 50mm(1.97")
20* - 80mm(3.15")



Long live the Horse Clans.

BlackSqn81
01-25-2004, 06:46 AM
i guess you are referring to the Degtjarjow 1941, first using 12.7mm ammo, later models using 14.5 mm ammo w a muzzle-velocity ranging from 860m/s (12.7mm) to 1010m/s (14.5mm).
The armour-piercing-ability was 22.5mm at 100m !!! at 90‚? for the 12.7 single-loader (only12.5mm/100m for magazin-feed &lt;5 shells&gt; ) and a mere 16(10)mm at 300m range all at 90‚?.
These guns where considered to be the best anti-tank-guns, better then the german guns (also used by the suisse army) and far better then the british guns which where considered as unreliable, complicated and unusable even against light german/italian guns.
Better on paper is the swedish Bofors 20mm gun, which could penetrate 30mm/100m, but the heavy recoil made it nearly impossible to use (nickname grasshoper because the jumps caused by the recoil)and it was never used in war.

So if even the special-anti-tank-guns could NOT pierce the tigers-armour at point-blank-range with the special-anti-tank-ammo it is more then unlikely a standart 0.50 ammo could pierce 25mm at more then 100m...i dont think a P47-pilot will dive at 90‚? closer then 100m...at least he couldn‚¬īt tell the tale and the kill would be more by the planes impact then by bullets.

If it would have been so easy to kill a tank why bother and invent the bazooka?? Why go close and risk your life with heaps of handgranades??
Why dont just shoot w a normal machinegun at the road, see the bullets ricochet from the mud and kill the Tiger from below?? Or flip over a 56.000 kg main-battle-tank with some 0.02kg bullets??

81Sqn_Blacksky


P.s. and off-topic : the Browning-M2-0.50-ammo is modelled after the german anti-tank-gun Modell-18, captured in france 1918 by us-troops..

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 07:09 AM
@ Blacksky:

The muzzle velocity refers to the maximum speed which could be achieved with those weapons. There is a german 28mm anti-tank rifle, and I think even Russia and some scandinavian countrys had some of these (bigger) calibers.
The soldier operating such a gun could be hurt very badly, because of the great recoil of the weapon (it`s the same with the A10 Thunderbolt today, it will slow down significantly when you fire the 30mm-gun longer than one burst). The russian Degtjarjows were able to destroy the tracks and wheels of german tanks, thats why you can see this additonal side-armor on the Panzer IV(F) and IV(G). As you said, these were special rifles and such results could not be achieved by using an ordinary (heavy) machinegun.

Regards

Jiro

MiloMorai
01-25-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlackSqn81:
If it would have been so easy to kill a tank why bother and invent the bazooka?? Why go close and risk your life with heaps of handgranades??
Why dont just shoot w a normal machinegun at the road, see the bullets ricochet from the mud and kill the Tiger from below?? Or flip over a 56.000 kg main-battle-tank with some 0.02kg bullets??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes why have large calibre AT guns when any squad of GI grunts with a M2HB could do the job? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

BlackSqn81
01-25-2004, 07:29 AM
@Jiro
its the german "schwere panzerbuechss Modell 41" caliber 28mm and the Bofors 20mm(the grasshoper i mentoined the post befor)...
the german one is more a anti-tank-cannon then a gun, it was always mounted on wheels (with a paratrooper-version w very small wheels) and weighted 224kg (infantry) or 147kg(para)
They both had a muzzle-veloc of 1400m/s penetrating 60mm/100m/90‚? and 25mm/1000m!/90‚?....but one can‚¬īt really compare these cannons w the standart machine-gun as you stated yourself...

S! Black

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 07:46 AM
Yes, it`s this one...

Panzerb√ľchse 41 (Para)
http://www.army.lt/guns/ptrk/vok/pzb41-2.jpg

Anti-tank rifle ammunition...
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/boysat.jpg

Note that the barrel is wider at the lock and has a diameter of only 28mm at the muzzle. Thats how such a high muzzle-verlocity could be achieved. It‚¬īs similar with other anti-tank rifles.

Regards

Jiro

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Sun January 25 2004 at 06:58 AM.]

Gryphonne
01-25-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a strike angle of - equivelent thickness of 25mm(1")

45* - 40mm(1.57")
30* - 50mm(1.97")
20* - 80mm(3.15")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The effect is even more pronounced Milo,

According to the US document PRO WO 185/118

25mm@the following angles:
45deg = 42.25 mm
30deg = 62.50 mm
20deg = no tested value present. (extrapolation gives roughly 90mm)

Besides all of this Tiger's armor was not ordinary RHA but nickel steel RHA armor with a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards)

So the values would be even more in favor of the Tiger. And on top of that the diameter/thickness ratio was unfavorable for the 50 cal., (low shell diameter vs. thick armor) which on itself is a protective quality.

Regards,

Gryphonne (Formerly known as Tiger)

BlackSqn81
01-25-2004, 07:51 AM
@jiro
yep thats it...looks slightly larger then the M2

i‚¬īd like to see a P47 w eight of these beasts in the wing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 08:23 AM
I found something else...
The use of russian anti-tank rifles by german troops... There are also pictures of the ammo (note the cartrigdes &gt; big amount of gunpowder).

Quote: "PzB 783(r)

Even more widely used by the Wehrmacht were the two main types of (captured) russian tank rifles which proved to be more effective than their german counterparts, the PzB 38 and PzB 39. They both used the M41 14.5mm ammunition (look at the comparing sketch above) whose bullet had a weight of 64g, carried a steel core of 39g and penetrated roughly 30mm of armor at a range of 500m, or 40mm at 100m.


The first russian AT rifle to be discussed here, the PTRD-41, was given the german designation PzB 783(r) (r for "russisch").
Although the russians after many different constructions had decided upon a design by N. Rukavishnikov as their standard tank rifle in 1938, the military leadership eventually overestimated the strength of the german tanks at that time and considered the weapon useless. When a tank rifle was needed fast in july 1941, the well-designed weapon was considered not suitable for the neccessary mass-production. Several weapons under the common designation Tank Rifle Model 1939 proved unsatisfactorily. A few days after the german attack on the soviet union, the famous engineers W.A. Degtjarjov and S.G.Simonov were given the order to immediately design a new tank rifle. Degtjarjov's design resulted in the single-shot PTRD-41, Simonov's design led to the PTRS-42. Mass production was begun immediately on August 29th 1941. The new tank rifles came in time in numbers to make a considerable contribution to the AT defense in the battle of Moscow.
The PTRD-41 showed itself considerably more powerful and effective than the german tank rifles. Therefore, any captured russian AT rifles were immediately used by the germans, where it received the official foreign-weapon designation Panzerb√ľchse 783(r) or simply PzB 783(r). When soon the tank armor was increased, especially at the front, the weapons could still be effectively used in concentrated fire at flanks, rear and the observation slits of the tanks. When these tank rifles eventually could not be used effectively anymore against the newer, even heavier armored tanks from 1943 on, the weapon was increasingly used to good effect against other targets, such as the lightly armored vehicles that operated together with the tanks, against machine gun nest, sometimes even against bunkers or aircraft.
The single-shot weapon has a moving barrel that recoils about 6.5cm, which lessens much of the recoil forces. Another third of the recoil is absorbed by the large one-chamber muzzle break, the remaining force is decreased by the padded stock. The weapon had a changeable sighting system that could be positioned to account for ranges between 400m and 1000m as well as for deviations in the hit group. Practical effective range was 200m - 400m. The weapon featured a carrying handle and came with a bipod; it is crew served by a two-man team, a gunner/loader and a target designator/tracker (according to theory the latter was to keep track of the target while the gunner was to insert the new cartridge). Main advantages were the sturdy, uncomplicated (= suited to mass production) design which ensured functioning even after sustained usage. The weapon reportedly also had good accuracy and was considered to be rather practical (even more so than the PTRS). A main disadvantage was the excessively loud firing noise.
Production numbers are sketchy, however the following data fragments hint at the total production: number of issued functional weapons in red army units 1.Jan.42: 8,116; 1.June 42: 65,365; 1.Jan.43: 118,563; 1.Jan.44: 142,861; total production 1941: 17,668; t.p.1942: 184,800; Production ceased in January 1945 and the number of weapons in army use was reduced to 40,000. The number of weapons captured and used by the germans is unclear.
Other technical data: overall length: 202cm; barrel length 135.0 cm; total weight 16.3 kg loaded incl. bipod (1.00kg); caliber 14.5mm; V0 of 1010m/s; practical rate of fire: 5-10 shots/min. Armor Penetration: 40mm/100m; 30mm/500m."

Here are the pictures...

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/patr.gif

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/images/antitank.jpg

Regards

Jiro

WB_Outlaw
01-25-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:
According to the following link...

http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/MachinegunM2HB.html

Fifty cal. AP ammo can penetrate 1 inch of homogeneous steel armor and .9 inches of face hardened armor at 200 yards. At six hundred yards it's 0.7 and 0.5 inches.

The following link...
http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1258.html

has some good anecdotal information if you can stand the stupid background image.

From this info, I would think that a mobility kill would be possible against some types of tanks if the P-47 pilot was very skilled, very brave, and a little bit lucky. Lighter armor could probably be totally knocked out without much difficulty for the aforementioned pilots. With a LOT OF luck and some poor or incomplete maintenance, a few pilots might have even brewed up a heavy MBT or two.

-Outlaw.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the Tiger had:

bottom &gt; _25mm(1")_
top &gt; _25mm(1")_
rear &gt; _80mm(3.15")_

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tftiger1.htm

It simply amazes me that some people really believe that a 50 cal can penatrate the bottom of a Tiger. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif


a strike angle of - equivelent thickness of 25mm(1")

45* - 40mm(1.57")
30* - 50mm(1.97")
20* - 80mm(3.15")



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Milo,
Please indicate the part of my post where I stated that I believe a fifty cal. round could penetrate the bottom of a tiger. Better yet, show me where I stated ANY armor penetration of ANY tank?

-Outlaw.

MiloMorai
01-25-2004, 11:13 AM
It did not Outlaw, but looks like it came across that way.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif It was to be in addition to your post, for emphasis.



Long live the Horse Clans.

MiloMorai
01-25-2004, 11:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gryphonne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>a strike angle of - equivelent thickness of 25mm(1")

45* - 40mm(1.57")
30* - 50mm(1.97")
20* - 80mm(3.15")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The effect is even more pronounced Milo,

According to the US document PRO WO 185/118

25mm@the following angles:
45deg = 42.25 mm
30deg = 62.50 mm
20deg = no tested value present. (extrapolation gives roughly 90mm)

Besides all of this Tiger's armor was not ordinary RHA but nickel steel RHA armor with a Brinell hardness index of 255-260 (the best homogeneous armor hardness level for WW II standards)

So the values would be even more in favor of the Tiger. And on top of that the diameter/thickness ratio was unfavorable for the 50 cal., (low shell diameter vs. thick armor) which on itself is a protective quality.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The numbers were very rrrough measurements.

Now using ACAD and 25mm(0.98425") thickness

45* - 1.3019"/35.4mm
30* - 1.9685"/49.9mm
20* - 2.8778"/73.1mm

I don't know how the US came up with their numbers.



Long live the Horse Clans.

skunkertx
01-25-2004, 12:17 PM
Hey everybody,
I, too, could not believe that .50 ammo could penetrate the bellies of Tiger Tanks, but I recently bought a DVD called "Thunderbolts" which was produced by the History Channel. This talks about the last days of the Luftwaffe and how a P47 squadron could not find any enemy planes, so they went after anything on the ground that moved. I swear, this is one of THE BEST and most CLEAR combat footage I have ever seen. I have it on DVD, and THERE IS FOOTAGE of pilots ricocheting .50 bullets underneath Tiger Tanks. You can see the ammo dance all around the tanks and it's pretty amazing. You also see the tanks literally blow up and huge spirals of black smoke pillowing into the air.

Update: I ripped the actual footage from a VHS tape of the same program that I have on DVD (the footage is MUCH better on dvd).

I have uploaded this to my server and it's 5mbs. By the way, pay my local air museum's Website a visit...they are hosting this video (without their knowledge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif)

http://www.texasairmuseum.com/temp/p47strafe.mov

ON a side note, I was involved in a discussion about this very topic over at alt.military.aviation and we exhausted over 200+ posts! The conclusion? Believe whatever the hell you wanna believe! But, the pilots who were there still claim that they were able to take out the tanks with the "belly" method.

skunkertx
01-25-2004, 12:22 PM
Damn, my post got cut in half. Here's the other half:

I recently spoke with the director of this HISTORY CHANNEL documentary and I
asked him about the validity of "bouncing" bullets under the Tiger Tank to hit
its "thin" belly. This is what he had to say:

"The German Tiger tanks used so much fuel they used to tow their own extra fuel
supply behind them and the pilots told me they went for the fuel trailer first
then the tank where they would bounce up the .50 cal from the road because they
could not get through the armorplate. Ken Bullock talks about this in the film,
we was a captain and won the DFC and a lot of the combat footage in the film is
from Ken's guncamera. He died a year ago, his son now works at NASA in
Washington. Other pilots in the 362nd FG told me they did it too. I was
surprised since I didn't know that either."

MiloMorai
01-25-2004, 12:40 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

That show is what sparked a VERY long thread a few months age, here.

I guess that director nor those pilots never read this report.

http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html



Long live the Horse Clans.

WB_Outlaw
01-25-2004, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
It did not Outlaw, but looks like it came across that way.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif It was to be in addition to your post, for _emphasis_.



Long live the Horse Clans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'DOH!!!!!!

Sorry Milo, my bad. That crazy icon got me all riled up!! In the future I will shut-up.

-Outlaw.

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 01:21 PM
Hi Skunkertx,

I downloaded that video and have several questions:

This is original ww2 gun footage ?
Altough you can see tanks in that video, the resolution is not high enough to tell what tank is moving on the street (I dont think its a tiger, it seems to be some kind of tank-destroyer due to the shape of the "turrent").

Edit: the original link does not work
- here is another picture of a Tiger.

http://panzer_all.webpark.pl/017_tiger-2.jpg

Especially in the scene where the vehicle explodes, you can not say what kind of tank or other object is destroyed, again the resolution is way too poor. Can you see it clearer on the DVD ?

Regards

Jiro

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Sun January 25 2004 at 01:02 PM.]

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Sun January 25 2004 at 01:14 PM.]

[This message was edited by Jirozaemon on Sun January 25 2004 at 03:11 PM.]

BBB_Hyperion
01-25-2004, 01:49 PM
I think looks like a Jagdpanther that one driving on the Road. Can we have a clear screenshoot from 17 second to confirm ?

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/gjjp.htm

Is it confirmed that this tanks really were out after this attack or what i guess they werent there as the groundcrew arrived .) . Or they placed explosives and took own tanks out cause of lack of fuel .)

Regards,
Hyperion

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 02:05 PM
I would also say that this is a Jagdpanther or a russian SU-85 tankdestroyer. The vehicle in the video has no turrent... At least as far as you can see...

Greets

Jiro

BlackSqn81
01-25-2004, 02:44 PM
just seen the film and the voice tells they shooted at the road because the tiger wasnt armoured on the underside....thats just plain BS, i would call 25mm of steel sort of armour....

skunkertx
01-25-2004, 03:04 PM
OKay guys, I took a frame grab from the VHS since I could not find my DVD copy. I think I lent it to a friend. I'll try to get it back, but here's a VHS frame grab from that video.

http://www.texasairmuseum.com/temp/p47_tank.jpg

It definitely looks like a Tiger to me. Check out the long flatbed beneath the turret...this looks like a Tiger. But what do I know, I know nothing about tanks!

But, a question: Why would a pilot be shooting the belly of a tank on it's SIDE when you have the tank's tracks blocking the belly? Would you do it head on or from behind so that way you have no obstructions to block the richochet?

BBB_Hyperion
01-25-2004, 03:31 PM
http://www.texasairmuseum.com/temp/p47_tank.jpg
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jgjp_10.jpg
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jgjp_8.jpg
This is a Jagdpanther.

Also could be a Jagdtiger but look at the tracks the shape is not like it.
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jbjagdt-7.jpg
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jbjagdt-b.jpg
Then i think there are skirts cause of the reflection on the turret part it has the same light color in the backpart.

The shape of the main turret seems at 40+- degrees. That is not on the Jagdtiger.
Also it look much like a fixed turret


Regards,
Hyperion

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 03:33 PM
I certainly think that this is not a tiger - the tank on display either has no turrent ( &gt; tankdestroyer) or the turrent is situated in the front of the vehicle. The turrent of a tiger was placed in the middle of the tank, take a look at these pictures.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/germany/pzkpfw_vi_e_16.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/GD-Tiger1.jpg

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-sPzAbt.504.gif

Ok, this is just a gif from a pc-game but the same perspective as in the video

http://www.suddenstrike.com/images/einheiten/tiger.gif


To me the flatbed √¬*n the second half of the displayed tank seems to be way too long for a Tiger.
Again my suggestion: Jagdpanther or SU-85.
Regards

Jiro

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 03:38 PM
Here is a picture (SU-85)

http://www11.ocn.ne.jp/~s-blue/pict/download/info/su85.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
01-25-2004, 03:52 PM
Against a su85 speaks why to use a su85 on the westfront without spareparts they are easier to get on the eastfront. Also the shape in the rear section doesnt fit.

Regards,
Hyperion

Jirozaemon
01-25-2004, 04:01 PM
You are right, the shape at the rear does not fit with pictures above &gt; no SU85.

We don`t know if this is original footage, so maybe they used other tanks (if this was shot e.g. for a movie or something else)- that`s why I mentioned the SU85.

Regards

Jiro

Tempestate
01-25-2004, 04:03 PM
that does lok like a jagdpanther tank destroyer

purzel08
01-25-2004, 04:16 PM
...that american planes armed with 50 cals alone destroyed tiger tanks, it did aparently happen...

...and Adolf Hitler did not commit suicide. In
reality he was hit by a .50 cal of a p47 which
penetrated his bunker. But it is admitted that
it was a lucky shot because the pilot could not see through the bunker walls...

greetings...

skunkertx
01-25-2004, 04:43 PM
Again, that is not footage from a Hollywood movie. It's from gun camera footage. Here is the exact paragraph from the History Channel video:

"In the closing months of World War II, Hap Arnold, the commander of the U.S. Army Air Force, ordered that the activities of his forward strike air crews over Germany be filmed. The movies that resulted--shot entirely in color from remote cameras on the planes themselves and specially-equipped bombers following the strike teams--is an extraordinary document of the air war over Europe.

After the war, however, Arnold decided the footage was too graphic for the public, and the 86 hours of film lay unedited and unseen for over fifty years. THUNDERBOLTS: THE CONQUEST OF THE REICH is drawn entirely from this incredible, never-before-seen footage, along with modern narrations and interviews from pilots who flew in the battles depicted. Focusing on the Thunderbolt pilots of the 362nd fighter group, it includes footage of the March, 1945 Battle of the Rhine River Crossing, the destruction of Luftwaffe forces on April 16, 1945, and low-level strafing combat missions in the final weeks of the war.

Unvarnished, uncompromising and unequaled, THUNDERBOLTS is an important and powerful addition to the documentation of the Second World War."

I highly recommend this video! The combat footage is great and alot of the video was too graphic for TV, so a few scenes were cut..but they were included in this one for sale. There are scenes of horses being cut to shreds with .50cals and you even see, at one point, a man running out of a German truck once he realized that he is gonna get popped.

Very dramatic.
History Channel Video (http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=71041&browseCategoryId=&location=&parentcatid=&subcatid=)

Gryphonne
01-25-2004, 07:33 PM
The tank in the pic is definately a Jagdpanther.

The comment in the video is abit bogus "no armor plating on the belly"

Then what does he call 25mm of RHA? aluminum foil?

Also, if tank crews had a hard time telling a Pz.IV apart from a Tiger then how on earth is a pilot with clearly worse visibility, at high speed and long distance without any optics going to?

As for the bouncing of a round, you'd need such a steep angle to even bounce them into the belly that the round would simply burrow itself into the ground first. I don't know where this myth is from but this is not even worth discussing.

IroncladGnome
01-25-2004, 08:37 PM
I remember watching a documentary in which a p47 pilot said they used to try to skip the bullets off the pavement and hit the underside of tanks. Sounds highly improbable, but its what the dude said.

Gryphonne
01-26-2004, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The numbers were very rrrough measurements.

Now using ACAD and 25mm(0.98425") thickness

45* - 1.3019"/35.4mm
30* - 1.9685"/49.9mm
20* - 2.8778"/73.1mm

I don't know how the US came up with their numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They tested it with various guns, there is so much more to relative armor thickness than just a cosinus calculation.

MiloMorai
01-26-2004, 03:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gryphonne:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The numbers were very rrrough measurements.

Now using ACAD and 25mm(0.98425") thickness

45* - 1.3019"/35.4mm
30* - 1.9685"/49.9mm
20* - 2.8778"/73.1mm

I don't know how the US came up with their numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They tested it with various guns, there is so much more to relative armor thickness than just a cosinus calculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I know where you are coming from now.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif 'Effective' was a wrong word choice but wanted to show how much the thickness had increased.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

Willthisnamedo
01-26-2004, 04:15 AM
I have to say, guys, that video does not make a case for this as a deliberate act of war, whatever the resolution/target.

What it shows me is a plane with no rockets or bombs doing the only thing he can to attack enemy armour - spray it with his bullets.

That's a good idea - he might get lucky and kill a commander or gunner whose hatch isn't fully closed, he might blow off radio antennae, stores etc, and he might do all sorts of stuff.

But that didn't look like a deliberate attempt to 'bounce bullets off the road' to me. They were going all over the place!! in any case, if our mythical bullet bouncing sharpshooter were really trying to do that, wouldn't he make his approach from 6 oclock, along the road? From the angles in this footage he must be a really crack shot, because he's obviously able to aim between the road wheels to hit the road and bounce up into the hull from a side approach.

It just isn't on, folks. Spray it instead of taking the ammo home, yes - deliberately expect to target the bottom with ricochets - pointless. Rule number 1 for shooting at any enemy is to aim at him, not away from him. Anything else is plain fantasy on our part, or retrospective 'tinted viewing' by pilots who were young men 50 or more years ago. {NB - before the flames start - I am not in any way being rude to the pilots - just realistic. I am a combat vet from actions that took place between 1985 and 1998 - and I cannot tell you precisely what I was trying to do -or why- in many cases. High adrenaline and fear/excitement/intense living and stress mean that no two individuals have the same recollection of the same incident...}

I cheerfully shoot at anything with whatever I have left on the plane - doesn't always make sense, but it's a lot of fun.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
01-26-2004, 07:34 AM
Hi guys! I do concur that the vehicle in this footage APPEARS to be a Jagdpanther. NOT a tank and, most certainly of all DEFINITELY NOT A TIGER!

Since this guy is shooting from the rear quarter at a fairly moderate level of elevation, his most effective hits (those arriving at the most favourable angle of incidence) are going to be against the side of the vehicle.

The side armour of Jagdpanther was 50mm. Certainly susceptible to tank or anti-tank rounds, but 50mm (about 2 ins) of rolled homogenous armour will easily shrug off .50cal. Some damage to roadwheels might occur, as might damage to external stowage or fittings, but immobilization of the vehicle as such would be highly unlikely.

By way of throwing in my two bob's worth, positive and accurate ID of vehicle types in such situations is difficult enough from the ground, possibly even more so from the air. Mis-identification was common during the war.

Mis-identification remains frequent today, even in books and video documentaries, where the observer has plenty of time to scrutinize the subject!

Best regards to all,
panther3485

Blood_Claw
01-26-2004, 09:26 AM
@Willthisnamedo: thanks for your post - what else can someone think viewing that movie?

If anything but nothing this movie only helps to prove the fact that this bouncing theory is nonesense.
Iam interested in WWII stuff since my youth and did a lot of reading so even that statement that "all or at least a lot of german tanks carried a fuel tank in a trailer" is highly suspicious, I would never say it didnt happen, most likely it happend in some rare instances but was far from common.
And keep in mind that the germans employed a great varity of other AFVs beside true tanks and TDs and identifying a target from a fast flying plane, watching for danger and concentrating on flying and employing weapons on your target isnt that easy either, furthermore I doubt the man fought in WWII hadnt it so easy to read and view pictures about ALL the enemys equipment.
Just for a note it was quiten common among allied Soldiers to refere to every german tank as "Tiger" because the Tiger, also a good Tank but really not the best, is the most famous and feared tank of WWII.
About the movie itself I also think its likely to be a Jagdpanther and the burning ones seem rather like some armored troop carriers like a sdkfz 251 or other AFV/soft skin vehicles to me.
Still I have no doubt there has been lost more than one tank to .50 fire but not necessarly destroyed and for sure not through bouncing bullets.

Cheers
Blood_Claw

PS: sorry for my bad grammer

[This message was edited by Blood_Claw on Mon January 26 2004 at 08:54 AM.]

Blutarski2004
01-26-2004, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Now using ACAD and 25mm(0.98425") thickness

45* - 1.3019"/35.4mm
30* - 1.9685"/49.9mm
20* - 2.8778"/73.1mm

I don't know how the US came up with their numbers.

..... Milo, AP performance versus striking angle does not track strictly along trigonometric lines. The lack of an armor penetration value at 20 deg inclination from the plate surface probably indicates a failure to penetrated due to deflection of the projectile.

BLUTARSKI

Blutarski2004
01-26-2004, 10:23 AM
Re the clip from the video - It does KINDA look like a Jagdpanther from general outline, but this was a pretty rare vehicle in the German army (&lt; 500 produced IIRC). Another possible candidate is the Marder II, which bore a superficial resemblance to the Jagdpanther in terms of general hull/superstructure layout, long gun barrel, and disk wheeled suspension (Pzkpfw 38t chassis).

BLUTARSKI

MiloMorai
01-26-2004, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MiloMorai:
Now using ACAD and 25mm(0.98425") thickness

45* - 1.3019"/35.4mm
30* - 1.9685"/49.9mm
20* - 2.8778"/73.1mm

I don't know how the US came up with their numbers.

..... Milo, AP performance versus striking angle does not track strictly along trigonometric lines. The lack of an armor penetration value at 20 deg inclination from the plate surface probably indicates a failure to penetrated due to deflection of the projectile.

BLUTARSKI

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my other post after that one Blut.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



Long live the Horse Clans.

Jippo01
01-26-2004, 10:47 AM
Could be a Hetzer too.

But here is a quick quiz for everyone who can say that there was one even one destroyed tank in that footage, if you saw even multiple tanks destroyed even better. I sure couldn't say I saw even the one.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank1.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank2.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank3.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank4.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank5.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank6.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank7.jpg


Those who could find destroyed tanks now say which ones of these were destroyed. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is a simple close-range high resolution photograph so the task should be easy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Answer will come shortly.


-jippo
http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/tank.jpg

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

MiloMorai
01-26-2004, 10:51 AM
To big and wrong shape to be a Hetzer. Hetzer's had a sloping rear deck. Only 4 road wheels/side as well.



Long live the Horse Clans.

BBB_Hyperion
01-26-2004, 11:09 AM
Number 1 seems stuck in cause equipment is still on the back what indicates its in use. Also all are looking at the right front track maybe mine or just mud but when it would be a mine that didnt detonate all are too close.

I think the 2nd one has quite some bullet holes in the turret if thats not additional viewpoints.

Number 3 looks like in repair .


Number 4 Could be in repair but the side looks little dark maybe was out by fire. But the guy right has a track in his hand what leads to conclusion in repair .

Number 5
Looks like a coffee break.

Number 6
looks in move dust in the tracks

The last one seems to be out too cause the snow in the tracks wouldnt be there if it had moved.
And let it stand in this position is not a tactical advantage.

Seems all of this tanks are still repairable. When a tank is burned out its considered as unrepairable i guess cause of the wires and complete interior needs to be replaced. And the high temperature maybe deformed some parts.

Regards,
Hyperion

JtD
01-26-2004, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
The air for the engine came in through the intake port which was under the bussle, attached to the turret. That is on later Tigers, early Tigers had air cleaners hanging off the rear with tubes running across the decking to the intake. The turret had to be rotated to lift the engine cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Milo, I always thought these pipes were no part of the initial design. They were added later on when someone thought Tigers needed better air filters in desert/steppe operations. (Africa, southeast Europe) In 1944 they were removed again.

As for the armored vehicle in the video: I'd really like to see a better picture. From what I can see now it could be anything, Marder, StuG III, Panther, Jagdpanther... I also think Jagdpanther is most likely but there is so much dirt in the low quality video that it is totally impossible to id the vehicle with 100% certainty.

Jirozaemon
01-26-2004, 11:33 AM
The problem with that movie is that there are several cuts, or they used two or more movies to show the scene (note the different angle
at the end of the film, the different colour of the fields in the middle, the street / crossroad and so on...). And as written before you can not tell what kind of vehicle is destroyed in the movie - poor resultuion.

Regards

Jiro

Blutarski2004
01-26-2004, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MiloMorai:

See my other post after that one Blut.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

/QUOTE]


Indeed - sorry about that.

BTW, have you seen Tab Flettner and his friends recently?

BLUTARSKI

Jippo01
01-26-2004, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Suberb work!

1. temporarily stuckin mud, out in less than 30min

2. destroyed (bullet holes in turret)

3. normal maintenance in barracks

4. track chance (btw. this tank could also run without tracks)

5. coffee break

6. dust from moving

7. tank running over a shed


So one destroyed and rest are in "mint" condition. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Well done Hyperion!


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

cuski
01-26-2004, 12:30 PM
Wow! Nice video... however...

The alleged "Jagdpanther" seems undisturbed by the allied fire. The "tank" that bursts into smoke... looks like an Sdkfz 250 to me.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/germany/sdkfz250_1.jpg

Armour between 6-16mm, not to mention many with open top.

And 1 more thing.... many tank's bellies are designed to absorb the explosive power of detonated landmines in order to protect the crew. And yet they crumble under the allmighty power of bounced .50 cals... come on guys, use your brains for once.

Cossack_UA
01-26-2004, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

And don't take me wrong. Armor is a favorite subject of mine, and for me the German Panther Mk V was the best designed and constructed tank used in the war. (The JSIII was superior, but did not truly partcipate).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And T-34 beat the crap out of both of them http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jirozaemon
01-26-2004, 01:18 PM
@ Cossack
Quote: "And T-34 beat the crap out of both of them"

This might be true for the beginning of the war in the east, when the T 34 encountered Pz. III and Pz IV prior to the special "F" modell.
The Panther was especially constructed as a "counterstrike" against the T-34 and served that purpose very well. The Firepower of it`s long 75mm cannon was better than the 88mm/L56 of the Tiger, only outgunned by the 88mm/L71 of the Jagdpanther and Kingtiger (as for the german guns - for example there would be the british 17 pdr. for the allies).

A T-34 76 would be a piece of cake for the Panther at a greater distance.
A T 34 85 would stand it`s ground but would not be superior.

Regards

Cossack_UA
01-26-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jirozaemon:
@ Cossack
Quote: "And T-34 beat the crap out of both of them"

This might be true for the beginning of the war in the east, when the T 34 encountered Pz. III and Pz IV prior to the special "F" modell.
The Panther was especially constructed as a "counterstrike" against the T-34 and served that purpose very well. The Firepower of it`s long 75mm cannon was better than the 88mm/L56 of the Tiger, only outgunned by the 88mm/L71 of the Jagdpanther and Kingtiger (as for the german guns - for example there would be the british 17 pdr. for the allies).

A T-34 76 would be a piece of cake for the Panther at a greater distance.
A T 34 85 would stand it`s ground but would not be superior.

Regards<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German general von Runstedt called the T-34 the "best tank in the world" and von Kleist said it was the "finest in the world

cuski
01-26-2004, 01:41 PM
And your point is? They may have done so when the Panther did not exist. However, the balance was tipped once the Panther came out.

MiloMorai
01-26-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MiloMorai:
The air for the engine came in through the intake port which was under the bussle, attached to the turret. That is on later Tigers, early Tigers had air cleaners hanging off the rear with tubes running across the decking to the intake. The turret had to be rotated to lift the engine cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Milo, I always thought these pipes were no part of the initial design. They were added later on when someone thought Tigers needed better air filters in desert/steppe operations. (Africa, southeast Europe) In 1944 they were removed again.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Nov 42 the Feivel air cleaners were added. The only place Tigers were used was in Africa and Russian at that time.



Long live the Horse Clans.

Jirozaemon
01-26-2004, 02:06 PM
@ Cuski

My post refers to this statement of cossak:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

And don't take me wrong. Armor is a favorite subject of mine, and for me the German Panther Mk V was the best designed and constructed tank used in the war. (The JSIII was superior, but did not truly partcipate).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cossak:
"And T-34 beat the crap out of both of them"

The point is that the T 34 did not "beat the crap out of" the Panther but encountered an equal foe.


In 1941 the T 34 surely was the best tank of the world... The question is at what point of time Von Rundstedt made his statement...
In 1945 I think there were better tanks (that does not mean that these were german).

Regards

Jiro

jtasker
01-26-2004, 02:08 PM
This comes up all the time. The USAAF did their own study of German armored equipment attacked by Tactical Aircraft after the Normandy landings. (When they could get hands on analysis). They concluded that not a SINGLE USAAF claim for a tank destroyed by strafing was valid.. not ONE. Thousands were claimed. Pilots claimed everything from "bouncing the rounds off the road into the "Soft Underbelly" to "Shooting the Treads Off". The bottom line was it didn't happen. If you understand HOW AP or API rounds actually function, the idea of "Bouncing" them is ludicrous.

More over, the report stated that rockets needed to be a direct hit on the roof surfacec to be of any effect at all, and even 500 lb bombs (the preferred loadout for many fighter bombers) needed to be within something like 3 meters to be considered a "probable" kill.. THe reason is that tanks are amazing blast shelter..fragmentation will not penetrtate at all, and the armor combined with the suspension buffers the crew from the shockwave with grreat effect.

Jirozaemon
01-26-2004, 02:11 PM
Sorry Cuski, I misunderstood your post...
Sorry Milo, I mixed it up...

Regards

Jiro

jtasker
01-26-2004, 02:21 PM
continued..
Soft skinned vehicles on the other hand were destroyed with great regularity.

Panzer Lehr was ordered to Normandy to repulse the landing on 6-6-44. They moved for 3 days under constant air attacks.. they faced more than 1500 sorties by dedicated fighter bombers, and a hundred medium bombers (B26's). During that time, Panzer Lehr lost 130 vehicles. Of that total, 3 (THREE!) were tanks.. all MkIV's. No other tanks were taken out of service, let alone destroyed. 2 of the three MkIV's were lost when a B26 raid landed smack on their Laager and they were overturned into craters by 1000lb bombs.

The reporrt concluded that since direct targeting of tanks was virtually ineffective, and required an obscene number of sorties to expecct any results, all effoerts should be made at attacking all soft skinned support vehicles..fuel, mechanical support, etc.

25X more tanks were abandoned in the Falaise pocket than were destroyed. The most effective anti tank weapon was the German crews themselves..they destoryed their own tanks after running dry, or having a mechanical breakdown with ZERO support capability.

The report is considered HIGHLY accurate since the German recovery operation was basically non existant during the retreat, and basically all German tanks in the area were available for inspection after the battle.

(Lastly, if you get a chance, inspect the engine grilles on German tanks.. the casting are about 4" think (Vents) and to enter without striking the walls, the projectile needs to be going almost vertically.. As for the thin roofs, compare the penetration of the weapon used with the ANGLE and the RANGE required. If you put a P51 into a 60' dive at 400 MPH, at 300M, then yes, if you hit the roof with a number of rounds you could reasonable expect some "penetrations" But thats NOT an attack profile that be can survived.

Lastly.when reading "penetration" in sources, remember the Germans version of penetration was full penetration 100% of the time.. the US standard was ANY penetration 50% of the time.. That makes a HUGE difference when considering effectiveness of weapons...

Platypus_1.JaVA
01-26-2004, 04:44 PM
Anyone remembered the previous thread in the old boards about this subject?


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php

panther3485
01-27-2004, 01:39 AM
Hi guys!

Yep, I remember the other thread on this subject. It went on and on and on and on.....

Trouble is, most of you guys are pretty clued up on your planes but thorough, in-depth and detailed knowledge of AFVs and their characteristics is a somewhat rarer commodity on this board.

No offence intended, that observation comes from reading the many posts on both threads. This is speaking in general terms, of course, because there are a FEW of you who seem to have a pretty good idea what you are talking about.

But then, I guess that's fair enough - after all, this is a forum for air combat/aircraft enthusiasts - not a tank nut forum!

I guess I'm a bit luckier than some, having spent many years as a 'tank nerd' (and building hundreds of scale models) before taking up my current interest in warbirds, an area where I can learn a lot from you guys!

By the way, Blutarski and one or two others......,

I wasn't completely sure about the Jagdpanther ID from the still, which is why I was careful to say "APPEARS to be". What tended to sway me that way (and still does) was the shape of the shadow at the vehicle's tail end, strongly suggesting a rear hull plate sloping uniformly inwards from top to bottom. If this observation is right, then it narrows down the choice a great deal and rules out the likes of Marders, Sturmgeschutzes, Hetzers etc.

Then again, as somebody pointed out, not many Jagdpanthers were built - the actual figure being 392! (A rare beast indeed, but not nearly so rare as the Jagdtiger, of which less than 80 were built!)

Admittedly, the superstructure appears well forward on the hull and quite high. In my opinion, this would most likely rule out any widely used German turreted tank and at first I did consider the Marder.....damned picture is really too fuzzy to be 100% certain so of course, you COULD be right. I'd sure like to watch the footage for myself, I reckon I could crack a 100% positive if I could run and re-run it with freeze-frame function.

Anyway, enough of all this. Without throwing weight around, do any of you guys think that a concensus has been reached? Or will it go on forever?

Nice chattin t'y'all,

Best regards,
panther3485

SpremeCommander
01-27-2004, 02:02 AM
The idea of a Tiger Tank being destroyed by .50 cal machine gun fire is completely absurd.

Blutarski2004
01-27-2004, 09:25 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by panther3485:

By the way, Blutarski and one or two others......,

I wasn't completely sure about the Jagdpanther ID from the still, which is why I was careful to say "APPEARS to be". What tended to sway me that way (and still does) was the shape of the shadow at the vehicle's tail end, strongly suggesting a rear hull plate sloping uniformly inwards from top to bottom. If this observation is right, then it narrows down the choice a great deal and rules out the likes of Marders, Sturmgeschutzes, Hetzers etc.

Then again, as somebody pointed out, not many Jagdpanthers were built - the actual figure being 392! (A rare beast indeed, but not nearly so rare as the Jagdtiger, of which less than 80 were built!)

Admittedly, the superstructure appears well forward on the hull and quite high. In my opinion, this would most likely rule out any widely used German turreted tank and at first I did consider the Marder.....damned picture is really too fuzzy to be 100% certain so of course, you COULD be right. I'd sure like to watch the footage for myself, I reckon I could crack a 100% positive if I could run and re-run it with freeze-frame function. [QUOTE]

..... Panther, absolutely no criticism of you intended. If I had to make a bet, it LOOKS like a Jagdpanther to me in general outline. With the image quality so fuzzy as to make identification of the vehicle uncertain, I was just speculating on what else it MIGHT be.

BLUTARSKI

skunkertx
01-27-2004, 09:50 AM
Hey guys,
I'm the person who posted the footage of the "tank" getting hit by the 50s. I should be getting my DVD back from my friend this week and I'll be happy to post a clearer picture, if possible.

Someone mentioned about how not a single tank had been taken out by USAAF .50s and I think that's true. I've read that in a tank newsgroup and someone had documents to prove it.

What exactly was the life expectancy for a Tiger Tank driver?

cuski
01-27-2004, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What exactly was the life expectancy for a Tiger Tank driver?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that depends very much on which front you're talking about.

BlackSqn81
01-27-2004, 02:23 PM
@panther3485 well i guess a mere 50mm for the jagdpanther should be enough side-armour if you consider it was at 60‚? so the effective value is more, as mentionend before.

the Shermans turret had 65/85 and the T34a/b only 45mm..so as far as i know it is considered as the best german panzerj√¬§ger, being the best mix of speed, firepower and &lt;quote&gt; excellent armourprotection&lt;quote&gt; but alas as with most good weapons, there where allways too few, according my books only 14 jagdpanther did fight in normandy(so its not very probable one appears in the film)


@skunkertx longer then the sherman-driver who faced him i guess..

faustnik
01-27-2004, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What exactly was the life expectancy for a Tiger Tank driver?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably much longer than the driver of any other AFV on any front the Tiger happened to be fighting at. These were amazingly tough, well constructed vehicles.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)