PDA

View Full Version : four point oh patch- do .50's kill tiger tanks yet?



Hawgdog
06-24-2005, 12:04 PM
I think I am going to try.
I hope the jug rolls like a spinner bait as well.

Hawgdog
06-24-2005, 12:04 PM
I think I am going to try.
I hope the jug rolls like a spinner bait as well.

1.JaVA_Razer
06-24-2005, 12:34 PM
Gone fishing?
http://www.fla-keys.com/marathon/graphics/deepseafishing.jpg

StellarRat
06-24-2005, 12:34 PM
Yeah, they do, but for some reason they can't kill a 190... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JamesBlonde888
06-24-2005, 07:57 PM
I have heard that pilot's used to ricochet bullets into the underside of Tigers travelling along a hard surface. I guess that it's possible but seems to me that ths would be qute rare. Maybe a line even..? Anyone know any more about it?

By the way stellar maybe you should check that it isn't a Jug you are shooting at.

JG54_Arnie
06-25-2005, 01:25 AM
If you shoot of one wing, the Jug rolls like no other. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

NonWonderDog
06-25-2005, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JamesBlonde888:
I have heard that pilot's used to ricochet bullets into the underside of Tigers travelling along a hard surface. I guess that it's possible but seems to me that ths would be qute rare. Maybe a line even..? Anyone know any more about it?

By the way stellar maybe you should check that it isn't a Jug you are shooting at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a complete and utter fabrication. The undersides of heavy tanks were armored, even back in world war II. They didn't really do too well at fending off landmines, but there was armor there nonetheless. A .50 caliber round richocheted off the ground at an oblique angle would have as much chance to destroy a Tiger tank as would a spitball fired from 2 miles range.

A .50 could do some superficial damage to anything on top and some pretty severe damage to anyone sitting exposed, but not much more.

Cajun76
06-25-2005, 07:22 AM
John Houston Oliphint is a Command Fighter Pilot with over 6,000 flight hours in props and jets; fighters, helicopters, sea planes, twin and four engine aircraft. He flew combat and was a covert agent active in WW II, Korea, The Cold War, and Vietnam. He holds 43 decorations and awards, including the Silver Star, 3 Distinguished Flying Crosses, Air Medals, Bronze Star, Purple hearts, and many more.

Combat in the "Jug." My 40 combat-mission experiences in the P-47 Thunderbolt had proved to me that the "Jug" could take and deliver extensive damage. After escort missions, it was easy to "get lost," go to the deck and use the plane's eight .50-caliber machine guns and ammo to their best advantage. A touch of the trigger would cut an enemy plane in half, tear out an engine, or cut off a wing; it would leave a truck loaded with soldiers with nothing recognizable; it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine and set it afire*. A squirt of armor-piercing ammo drilled two- to three-foot holes at water lines to sink barges; it would destroy the front of a train engine and wipe out the rails; it would cut off a train's front wheels, topple radar towers and wipe out a parade ground of soldiers.


Example: after an escort, I arranged to "get lost," went to treetop level to avoid flak and followed a railroad track between two cities. Gun-camera film shows 14 railroad engines destroyed before I ran out of ammunition on my way back to base. Another example: returning from a mission, I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. He fired; I fired. Neither of us would move, and how we didn't crash still mystifies me. When he passed under me, he was dead-plane shredded, on fire and going down. My Thunderbolt's left gun and ammo covers had been blown away, its left wheel and engine cowl had gone, there were numerous one-foot holes in both wings, the number seven and eight cylinders had been blown away, the prop blades had holes, the tail was shredded and pieces of my plane were coming off all over. I flew back to Manston and crash-landed. At least 423 holes were counted in my airplane before it was pulled to the scrapyard and I walked away. I had been to heaven and hell many times, and I guess neither wanted me, so they sent me back to fly again. My God was good to me.


I checked out Chateaudun airdrome below. Deja` vu. I had seen this before; yes, I knew it well, for I had strafed the living hell out of that place some months ago, and they had shot the fool out of my Jug. I destroyed two aircraft, a bunch of mechanics and a hangar, but I was hit by an antiaircraft 20mm, which exploded in the gas tank only 12 inches from the steel armor plate that protected my head. I flew through an electricity line, picked up 40 feet or so of heavy copper wire around my propeller and cowl and landed back at base. Had I seen any aircraft on the ground this day, I would have returned on the way home from the mission to hose them off.

* probably lighting up fuel cans carried externally.



So kill Tigers, no. But disable and ruin their day, possible. Tanks also need lots of supply vehicles too, and T-bolts were pure hell on supply columns. "Achtung! Jabo!"

Thanks to Kahuna, I had lost this link a while back.
http://www.madrebel.com/index2.html

Jg300_Kostek
06-25-2005, 07:37 AM
I just don't get it Cajun76, why the hell US mounted such a big, heavy weight cannon, with heavy weight bullets on Sherman instead of mounting 8x0.50cal. ????
It could (0.50)shred Tigers engine with short burst, but no, they left this 85(?) mm cannon, witch can't do nothing agaist tiger... hmm.. i just don't get it
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a new variety of 190D to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> it would knock the tracks off tanks; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly unlikely!

Here's why. Imagine that you fire a 1 second burst from a P47 at a tank (100 rounds). Let's say you score 20% accuracy - pretty decent - so 20 rounds hit. Given that it is firing at something armoured and some rounds will bounce off let's say that 75% of the energy (on average) is transferred. So that's the equivalent of about 15 rounds worth of energy at terminal speed. The plane will be moving, but the bullets will slow in the air, so let's say the energy is the same as muzzle energy.

Now look at a Sherman with a 50 cal AAA gun on the turret rear. If it fired a 1 second burst it would fire about 12 rounds. Forces have equal reaction, so this is the same force as being hit my 12 rounds. So this would mean that if you fired the AAA gun on a Sherman horizontally you might be in danger of knocking the tank off its tracks...

Unlikely.

Cajun76
06-25-2005, 08:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jg300_Kostek:
I just don't get it Cajun76, why the hell US mounted such a big, heavy weight cannon, with heavy weight bullets on Sherman instead of mounting 8x0.50cal. ????
It could (0.50)shred Tigers engine with short burst, but no, they left this 85(?) mm cannon, witch can't do nothing agaist tiger... hmm.. i just don't get it
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure you don't get it....

Cajun76
06-25-2005, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I encountered a new Fw 190D model armed with four 20mm cannon and two machine guns in the cowl head-on between cloud layers over Amsterdam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a new variety of 190D to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> it would knock the tracks off tanks; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Highly unlikely!

Here's why. Imagine that you fire a 1 second burst from a P47 at a tank (100 rounds). Let's say you score 20% accuracy - pretty decent - so 20 rounds hit. Given that it is firing at something armoured and some rounds will bounce off let's say that 75% of the energy (on average) is transferred. So that's the equivalent of about 15 rounds worth of energy at terminal speed. The plane will be moving, but the bullets will slow in the air, so let's say the energy is the same as muzzle energy.

Now look at a Sherman with a 50 cal AAA gun on the turret rear. If it fired a 1 second burst it would fire about 12 rounds. Forces have equal reaction, so this is the same force as being hit my 12 rounds. So this would mean that if you fired the AAA gun on a Sherman horizontally you might be in danger of knocking the tank off its tracks...

Unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That "190D" jumped out at me as well, probably a typo. I've seen excerpts of Hartmann's kills, bringing down LaGG-5FN's....

And it reads "it would knock the tracks off tanks;"

not

"knock tanks off their tracks"

Tracks are one of the more vulnerable aspects of tanks. Taking a turn wrong can slip a track off a tank. Being hit with "12" or so rounds of armour piercing rounds most likely won't do the tracks any favours either. However, I think it's more possible than likely to knock the tracks off.

ljazz
06-25-2005, 09:56 AM
I'm reasonably sure this thread is a fishing trip.... and to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not sure what the .50's should do. However this is as good a place to put this as anywhere else. I found it on the USAAF.net site while doing some research for a XIX TAC-Third Army air-ground team mission I'm building.

Here's what they report on the tactics page:

"P-47 aircraft and API ammunition.--The P-47 airplane has been extensively used with very great success in strafing locomotives, trains, motor transport, horse-drawn transport, and armored vehicles. Armor piercing, incendiary ammunition was shown to be far more effective on these strafing operations than mixed loading of two armor-piercing, two incendiary, and one tracer. Likewise, it has been found much more effective in use against hostile aircraft in the air and on the ground."

and a bit further down the page......
"It was conclusively proved that our .50 -caliber API ammunition could destroy enemy armor, and did so. Pilots repeatedly reported tanks being set afire by low-altitude strafing from the rear. Evidently ricochet bullets found their way into the engine section through exhaust and cooling vents."

http://www.usaaf.net is a great site if you haven't checked it out yet. Lots of great mission ideas there.... there's a day by day thing on each of the airforces.

here's the address to the tactics page where I took the above info:
http://www.usaaf.net/ww/vol5/vol5pg41.htm

ljazz

horseback
06-25-2005, 11:06 AM
The engines on those tanks required significant cooling, and while I am no expert in WWII German armor, I would expect that, like modern tanks, the armor on the top horizontal surfaces is quite a bit thinner than that on the sides (that stuff is heavy, man), and that over the engine, if there were no cooling grills, there was a lighter weight of metal to facilitate heat exchange/dispersion. Attacked from above, with a heavy stream of armor piercing ammo, even .50 caliber, it could prove vulnerable.

There's also an identification issue. Now, if experienced Naval aviators in the Pacific routinely mistook Destroyers for Cruisers, and Oil Tankers for Carriers, especially during the early part of the war, why would anyone expect an Air Force pilot to be able to differentiate between Tigers and any other enemy tracked vehicle with a big gun? Guys desperate for air support against enemy armor would tend to report Tigers just to get the desired attention, and after a while, one might have come to believe that the entire German inventory of armored vehicles was composed of Tiger tanks.

As for knocking tracks off tanks, hell yes it happened, with more regularity than you'd expect. Tracks are the most vulnerable part of any tracked vehicle. Think about how many moving parts there are in those tracks, and what happens if one section jams or is bent out of shape while the tank is moving as fast as it can.

Finally, there's the matter of accuracy. Ground attack with 8 fifties lends itself to accuracy. All that lead kicks up a lot of dirt, and pilots (who generally had better eye-hand coordination and spacial awareness than the general public) quickly learned how to estimate where their bullets would land. It was much easier to estimate range and drop against ground targets moving on a flat plain than aircraft moving much faster in three dimensions, and the German armor units quickly learned the advantages of moving at night or under really low cloud ceilings. An experienced Jabo Jug driver would put quite a bit more than 12 rounds on his ground target with a burst of over 200.

I've personally witnessed what I would have considered astounding marksmanship from A-10 Warthogs, using a very basic sight for their gun, and the 9th AF guys roaming over Europe the summer and fall of 1944 probably developed comparable skills fairly early.

Last, the reference to the 4 cannon armed 190D was a common belief among Allied pilots during the war. It was known that the long nosed 190s were often remanufactured from standard 190s, which did have 4 cannon in the wing. It was natural to assume that the long nose would have 4 big guns too, and I doubt that postwar, the pilots would make any great effort to relearn a defeated enemy's capabilities.

Certainly, if I'm in a headon pass with someone who's shooting the hell out of me at the same time I'm trying to keep my guns on him, I'm not going to take the time to count how many guns he has on his friggin' wings...

cheers

horseback

WarWolfe_1
06-25-2005, 11:45 AM
Not to long a go, a friend, that works for the county sheriff, took me out and showed me what a .50 cal could do. The department keeps one on hand.

It was mind blowing!

He shot a car, in the grill. In one end and out the other. Strait through the motor block. Not to menition the 3 cars behind it.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And it reads "it would knock the tracks off tanks;"

not

"knock tanks off their tracks" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry - my error entirely!

Ankanor
06-25-2005, 01:10 PM
My 2 eurocent on this. Is there a picture anywhere that shows a destroyed tank, or disabled one, by .50 cal fire. not one made from 400 yards, but up close. You will convince me. But for now, for me it's just one of the WW 2 myths. Apparently the pilots believed it to be true. Hittnig the gas tanks will most likely cause fire, but that is far from destroying the tank. hitting the tank will cause sparkles and flashes to appear. but, as I say, post just one picture.

GR142_Astro
06-25-2005, 01:16 PM
Nice fish trip.

It's no big deal. Tigers, Panthers, and Jagdpanthers all had generous openings on the rear deck for cooling. Even if only a few rounds entered the engine compartment the only obstacles left were the radiators and fuel cells. Puncture either one and the tank becomes a pillbox.

Hoarmurath
06-25-2005, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
My 2 eurocent on this. Is there a picture anywhere that shows a destroyed tank, or disabled one, by .50 cal fire. not one made from 400 yards, but up close. You will convince me. But for now, for me it's just one of the WW 2 myths. Apparently the pilots believed it to be true. Hittnig the gas tanks will most likely cause fire, but that is far from destroying the tank. hitting the tank will cause sparkles and flashes to appear. but, as I say, post just one picture. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

no such picture exist... not really surprising, anybody thinking that a main battle tank can be taken out of action by .50 know absolutely nothing about armored vehicles.

Aaron_GT
06-25-2005, 01:46 PM
Hitting fuel trailers and consuming the tank with fire would be a more likely way to destroy a tank than putting rounds through engine grilles. Using molotov cocktails was a valid way to attack tanks in close-in fighting during WW2, if not as reliable as other infantry anti-tank weapons. I've not heard it suggested that firing guns into the grilles was worth trying, though.

p1ngu666
06-25-2005, 02:04 PM
think there was some dora's made with 4 wing cannons.

also 2x 20mm and 1 30mm

3x 20mm too

Ankanor
06-25-2005, 07:11 PM
About the Doras, the first produced were converted A models and used the A wing.

Now, if the 50 cal fire was able to destroy the enemy tanks, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that the Army would have informed the 50 cal equipped units about the newly discovered feature?
Apart from eerything else, this would be a real moral boost for the troops.

the outer gas tanks are put there for a reason. First, you require less internal space to be armored=less total mass. second, in this way you increase the survivability of the tank in the event of a hit(less stuff to blow up inside the tank). Third, the gas tanks themselves work in some way as armor, prematurely activating the fuses of the incoming projectiles. the downside of it=less mobility because the fuel is gone quite easily. About the molotov cocktails. it isn't the exact same thing. the gas tank is blown up, the fuel is instantly ignited outside the hull. the molotov cocktail ignites but the liquid is spilled on the tank, and in every possible cavity. the flames are constantly fed and eventually find their way inside the tank. while it wasn't a 100% success, the men inside the tank would find the situation most uncomfortable and might just as well try to run out, thus sucessfully ceasing to be a viable threat for the defenders.

JamesBlonde888
06-27-2005, 05:13 AM
Well I think that anyone who says that fifties can destroy a Tiger as the question asked is dreaming.

Disable it maybe, very rarely, I am sure that there were squadrons of flying pig on standby for such operations.

From what I have heard there are versions of the King Tiger that were never disabled from enemy activity. Only through mechanical failure.

Bearcat99
06-27-2005, 06:11 AM
Hoo boy.....

Grue_
06-27-2005, 07:14 AM
Bad Hawgdog.

No dinner for starting another forum virtual fist fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hastatus
06-27-2005, 11:44 AM
Its perhaps theoretically possible for .50s to take out MBTs like a Panther, but it would have been unlikely. There are not too many accounts of this happening.

Light AFVs? sure. Armored Cars, Halftracks, ect.

The fact remains that the Allies used rockets and bombs for most of the anti-armor attacks for a reason. They needed them. Even 20mm fire from a Typhoon was no guarantee of a kill vs a Tank.

Also remember that the vast majority of targets were soft skinned vehicles and light AFVs, and infantry positions. Not Tigers.

RS_Half_PInt
06-27-2005, 01:07 PM
This is what the guy said: "it would knock the tracks off tanks; and it could cut through a tank's steel right over its engine"

He did not say the 50's would destroy a tank; the destruction of the tank are words that have been made up by others to make the post by Cajun
silly and laughable.

I've read the comebacks to this post and they are so utterly silly its almost a waste of time to respond to such irrational thinking. The one that says the recoil of a 50 to pierce tank tracks would be of such magnitude if fired from a sherman that it would knock the sherman off it's tracks; that reasoning is absurd. That means if a fire a 7mm magnum with a 150 grain
bullet and muzzle energy of 3200 ft/lbs.
then because of equal reaction to every action when I fire the round i'm deader than a mackeral
due to hydrostatic shock.

This man is an expert witness in the court of debate; a man thats been there and done that which none of you have; I certainly accept his credentials and claims more than anyone on these forums.

It's common knowledge on these forums that a 50 caliber can pierce 2 inches of armour so why can't it cut the tracks off a tank or pierce thin armour over the fuel system; as far as the plate steel on barges the kinetic energy of several 50's near the same area could break it. Understand this the 50 has more armour piercing ability than any heavy machine gun except maybe the russian model but it stands at least very close or even with it and is even a scant fps faster.

YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I think I'm entitled to them.
YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I want the truth!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Half_Pint

Worf101
06-27-2005, 01:50 PM
I was never a "tanker" but we had the "Tank Recovery Units" with us when I was in various Combat Engineer Battalions. Tank Recovery Units have the unglorious duty of salvaging knocked out and disabled tanks.

Their primary vehicles were some specialized lowboys for transport and huge converted M60 Battle Tanks. These tanks had a dozer bland on the front a short stubby main gun and a huge A-Frame boom on the back that could swing forward and lift disabled tanks on to flat beds.

After close observation it seemed to me that 90% of their time was spent in track maintainence. We're talking M60's here roughly bout the size of the Tiger if not larger.

It was plain to me that if they had to do that much work to keep the treads on a tank in peacetime, I'd hate to see what happened in combat. As for a .50 Cal knocking of a track? I think it's possible. And on an infantry rich battle field a disabled tank is often a dead tank.

Da Worfster

Aaron_GT
06-27-2005, 04:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The one that says the recoil of a 50 to pierce tank tracks would be of such magnitude if fired from a sherman that it would knock the sherman off it's tracks; that reasoning is absurd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had misread the first statement as "knock a tank off its tracks" not "knock the tracks off a tank". Based on the first presumption (my misreading) I noted that this was not possible. Purely a calculation done on my misreading.

RS_Half_PInt
06-27-2005, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I had misread the first statement as "knock a tank off its tracks" not "knock the tracks off a tank". Based on the first presumption (my misreading) I noted that this was not possible. Purely a calculation done on my misreading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem at all my friend...we all misread things from time to time.

Half_Pint

WarWolfe_1
06-27-2005, 05:49 PM
enough 50's in one area would be enough to knock of treads, or punch the cover of a motor.....don't forget those covers had slits to allow cool air to be drawn in. If air can get in so can a 50cal http://hsfeatures.com/tigeriearlydj_1.htm
Look at the slits, there is room for 50's to go through.50's are very capable a mangaling a motor. Are they not?

Also the fuel tanks of the tiger are in the same compartment as the motor.

faustnik
06-27-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
think there was some dora's made with 4 wing cannons.

also 2x 20mm and 1 30mm

3x 20mm too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah P1ng, the D-11s had 2xMg151 & 2xMk108.

Cajun76
06-27-2005, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
Now, if the 50 cal fire was able to destroy the enemy tanks, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that the Army would have informed the 50 cal equipped units about the newly discovered feature?


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Facinating question, really well thought out. I don't understand why the Russian's didn't switch their primary guns on thier tanks to 23mm and then 37mm, when the IL2 demonstrated they could knock out tanks with these weapons.

Surely, using your logic, the IL2's were making full frontal attacks with these weapons. They wouldn't, for example, purely conjecture here on my part, try tactics like high rear attacks. Foolishness. IL2's destroyed tanks with these weapons, I guess it dosen't matter where you attack them, right? Tanks have no vulnerable spots, and they're equally protected in all directions.

[/sarcasm]

Bsnakeman
06-27-2005, 06:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JamesBlonde888:
I have heard that pilot's used to ricochet bullets into the underside of Tigers travelling along a hard surface. I guess that it's possible but seems to me that ths would be qute rare. Maybe a line even..? Anyone know any more about it?

By the way stellar maybe you should check that it isn't a Jug you are shooting at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It´s not an uncommon technique. Pilots of the First Brazilian Fighter Squadron/ USAAF 350th Fighter Group/ Northern Italy reported many tanks kills using their Jugs .50´s

Best,

jarink
06-27-2005, 07:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

NonWonderDog
06-27-2005, 07:47 PM
A medium tank could possibly be disabled by concentrated HMG fire from above, that's no question. Fuel drums could be destroyed, tracks could be damaged, the odd golden BB might even smash through the exhasts.

Bouncing bullets off the ground in order to do this, however, is pure hogwash. Tanks were armored on the undersides. Heavy tanks had enough armor to have a chance against a land mine. A .50 might be able to penetrate the underside armor if fired straight in, but it would *NEVER* penetrate after ricocheting off the ground, even if it *wasn't* deformed and slowed down immensely.

Come on, it's just nonsense! You should be able to see that!

FliegerAas
06-27-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm



Oh, and:
http://www.travel2canada.com/pics/blkfish/fishing.jpg

WarWolfe_1
06-27-2005, 09:06 PM
Penetration: The most regularly used round of .50 caliber ammunition is called the "ball." According to the U.S. Army, ball ammunition is so powerful it can penetrate one inch of concrete, six inches of sand, and 21 inches of clay at a range of 1,640 yards.


http://www.steviaonlinesales.com/id29.html



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

RS_Half_PInt
06-27-2005, 09:13 PM
This individual flew 40 combat missions in the jug; this is what he said as a result of his experience; we're not talking about theory we are talking about experience; the facts to back up his claims are evident; no need to rehash established facts regarding the armour piercing capabilities of the fiftys.

YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I think I'm entitled to them.
YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I want the truth!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Half_Pint

santini812
06-28-2005, 12:44 AM
Sorry folks but "the proof is in the pudding". P-47s terrorized Panzer Divisions in France, if it moved in daylight it died, trains, tanks, trucks, bicycles, if it moved it died.

kweassa
06-28-2005, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Facinating question, really well thought out. I don't understand why the Russian's didn't switch their primary guns on thier tanks to 23mm and then 37mm, when the IL2 demonstrated they could knock out tanks with these weapons.

Surely, using your logic, the IL2's were making full frontal attacks with these weapons. They wouldn't, for example, purely conjecture here on my part, try tactics like high rear attacks. Foolishness. IL2's destroyed tanks with these weapons, I guess it dosen't matter where you attack them, right? Tanks have no vulnerable spots, and they're equally protected in all directions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Take a wild guess as to what kind of distance the 23mms required to gain solid penetration against tank armour.

Did the Russkies wanna drive their tanks right up to 100meters distance, facing long range fire from a contemporary Panzer or Tiger?

There's your answer.

ImpStarDuece
06-28-2005, 03:12 AM
Maybe the Panzer Divisions in France were a touch more terrified of the 500lb and 1000lb bombs that the P-47 could carry. Or perhaps it was the triple rocket launchers that they mounted?

Maybe all those Typhoons, Spitfires, P-38s, Mustang Is, Mosquitos and Beaufighters hauling ordanance, 60 lbs rockets and 20mm cannons had something to do with their nervousness. If I was a German tank commander I would of developed the "Dutche Blink" very early on in Normandy!

When you have anywhere from 25-45 tons of steel around you, what is going to frighten you more; a plane mounting 6-8 12.7mm machine guns, or a plane dropping 2000lbs of TNT in your direction and then coming back with a rocket salvo from 500 meters?

Similarly, if your the commander of such a force, what is more terrifing; having tactical airpower engage your 'hard' armoured elements or having it destroy your soft supply elements, blow up your fuel dumps and deprive you of ammunition?

Yes, soft targets are very vulnerable to machine-gun fire: trucks, cars, half-tracks, horse-drawn carts. Maybe even armoured cars like the four wheeled SdKfz 220's family, or the 6 wheeled SdKfz 230 family, would be vulnerable. I'd argue that far and away the greatest sucess of the Western Allied Tactical Airforces (2TAF and the 9th AF) was battlefield interdiction and supply depricvation, rather than actually destroying armoured targets.



I am yet to be convinced that a pilot who straffed a tank with 6 or 8 .50s had the time and exacting nature to notice exactly what damage he was doing.

If I was going to straff tanks I would prefer the 23mm YVa over the M2, even if I could only mount 2 of them; slightly higher muzzle velocity, much, much heavier round, beter energy retention, better penetration. Even that big, heavy 23mm round is only credited with 25mm at 400m according to the article posted here. So a round with slghtly higher M/v and 350% of the weight of the .50 round only penetrates an inch at reasonable combat ranges! Something seems squiffy to me chaps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
06-28-2005, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This individual flew 40 combat missions in the jug; this is what he said as a result of his experience; we're not talking about theory we are talking about experience; the facts to back up his claims are evident; no need to rehash established facts regarding the armour piercing capabilities of the fiftys. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The surveys of performances by the 2nd TAF Tempests and Typhoons, which mounted more powerful fixed armament, indicated that claims were not backed up by actual performance which indicated very few tanks were knocked out by guns, rockets or bombs. So you have to take claims with a pinch of salt sometimes.

Cajun76
06-28-2005, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kweassa:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Facinating question, really well thought out. I don't understand why the Russian's didn't switch their primary guns on thier tanks to 23mm and then 37mm, when the IL2 demonstrated they could knock out tanks with these weapons.

Surely, using your logic, the IL2's were making full frontal attacks with these weapons. They wouldn't, for example, purely conjecture here on my part, try tactics like high rear attacks. Foolishness. IL2's destroyed tanks with these weapons, I guess it dosen't matter where you attack them, right? Tanks have no vulnerable spots, and they're equally protected in all directions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Take a wild guess as to what kind of distance the 23mms required to gain solid penetration against tank armour.

Did the Russkies wanna drive their tanks right up to 100meters distance, facing long range fire from a contemporary Panzer or Tiger?

There's your answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noticed you didn't quote the "[/sarcasm]" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

And I'm not one of the ones that are suggesting conventional 12.7mm mounted on other tanks and vehicles is going to anihlate a Tiger, far from it. However, an a/c like the P-47 with a heavy wieght of fire (100 rounds a second on the low end) hitting a tanks treads, cooling vents and whatnot might be enough to disable or kill it, the latter being on the lucky side. Bouncing them off a roadway, that's a bit hard to swallow.

Additionally, while the a/c's forward speed in flight dosen't really affect the bullet's speed relative to another plane, the speed can be added to the muzzle velocity during an attack on a relativley stationary target. 250-350mph (~400 to ~560kph) would add 111 to 156m/s to the piont fifties impressive 880m/s

RS_Half_PInt
06-28-2005, 11:07 AM
Aaron_GT wrote:
The surveys of performances by the 2nd TAF Tempests and Typhoons, which mounted more powerful fixed armament, indicated that claims were not backed up by actual performance which indicated very few tanks were knocked out by guns, rockets or bombs. So you have to take claims with a pinch of salt sometimes.


My reply:
We are not talking about the 2nd TAF Tempest and Typhoon pilots; we're talking about what Major Oliphint did; I have not seen one post that that convinces me that his statements are not true given the facts about the armour piercing capabilities of the 50 caliber.


YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I think I'm entitled to them.
YOU WANT ANSWERS?
I want the truth!
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Half_Pint

Dtools4fools
06-28-2005, 12:35 PM
hhmm,

armor penetration of russian build PTRD infantry anti-tank rifle:

14,5mm AP tungsten round at 1006 muzzle velocity

at 100m - 500m
35mm - 25mm on 0 angle armor plate
26mm - 18mm on 30 angle
11mm - 7mm on 60 angle

So if you are in 70 degree angle dive that gun mouted on your plane could still....
NOT
defeat Tiger top armor of 25mm. And don't forget to pull up afterwars...

Attack angle of plane of 40 degrees seems to me more realistic, now even top armor of PzIV H at 12-15mm is a problem - and there might have been a reason why the PZ IV has been uparmored from 10-12mm of early PzIV G models.
The rear of a Hetzer can be penetrated by 0.50 caliber at close range btw. That's 8mm armor plate. Don't forget that there is a big difference between engine blocks, concrete and the like and armor plate specifically designed to keep bullets out.

Have you evr looked how those cooling grills are build (wave pattern, sidewards to tank drive directions), how wide those are? You must get very, very lucky to get round in there.

To disable a tank your chances might be better with shrapnel from a bomb, but still small. Carius describes several times Tigers disabled by arty shrapnel going into those vents and disabling the tank forcing to tow it back. No losses and burning tanks however.

Bouncing off the ground?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
If ground is soft there goes your bullet.
If ground is that hard that it bounces back it will be most likely be deformed and loose most of its penetration ability. Then combine that with impact angle as well...

I wouldn't even bet much on a 20mm plane cannon.

I think there is a reason why dedicated tank buster planes had either 30mm guns or bigger or rockets...

And every German tank was a "Tiger", impressed the babes baack home more...
However there were "tanks" which were open topped and/or rear and certainly 0.50 cal bad news for them...

Marcus
****

JG52Karaya-X
06-28-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
think there was some dora's made with 4 wing cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, those were the FW190D prototypes - after all the D9 is a modified A8 so the very first models still had 4x20mm... but I still think that's some mixup in the text because its highly unlikely that these prototypes saw action.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">also 2x 20mm and 1 30mm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
FW190D10 and D12

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3x 20mm too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
FW190D13 IIRC

kweassa
06-28-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My reply:
We are not talking about the 2nd TAF Tempest and Typhoon pilots; we're talking about what Major Oliphint did; I have not seen one post that that convinces me that his statements are not true given the facts about the armour piercing capabilities of the 50 caliber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How peculiar. I see a lot of posts in this thread that would refute the good major. He may believe it to be true, and we've got no problems with it. Except what he believes is not always what really is.

Does having more experience allow a physical impossibility to happen? I think not.

Aaron_GT
06-28-2005, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We are not talking about the 2nd TAF Tempest and Typhoon pilots; we're talking about what Major Oliphint did; I have not seen one post that that convinces me that his statements are not true given the facts about the armour piercing capabilities of the 50 caliber. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't read reports on the results of P47 ground attacks to know what they might say, so I offered this as an indication that what pilots claimed in the RAF claimed and what was actually destroyed were two different things. It is likely to be the similar in the 8th AF. This is not to disparage the courage of the pilots, but just a recognition that in high pressure, high speed situations it is hard to know all that happened. With regard to the 2nd TAF report, it seems that the RAF was actually surprised that so little actual damage to tanks was done. Against light armour (sdkf 251s and so on) and soft targets they were very effective, and given the ordnance capacity of the P47 and its guns I would imagine that the P47 was as if not more effective (it could carry more ordnance than the Typhoon).

Aaron_GT
06-28-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The rear of a Hetzer can be penetrated by 0.50 caliber at close range btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got to stand in the commander's position of a Hetzer once. It's so cramped (the gun basket is right in front of the commander) you wouldn't want to be in one if you'd had a heavy lunch - you could get trapped. Seriously - it had the air of a death trap. The Sherman's claustrophobic enough, but a Hetzer's an order of magnitude worse. Any man prepared to fight in any tank in WW2 or since has my admiration for just being prepared to get in the thing.

Bluedog72
06-28-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:


Highly unlikely!

Here's why.


Now look at a Sherman with a 50 cal AAA gun on the turret rear. If it fired a 1 second burst it would fire about 12 rounds. Forces have equal reaction, so this is the same force as being hit my 12 rounds. So this would mean that if you fired the AAA gun on a Sherman horizontally you might be in danger of knocking the tank off its tracks...

Unlikely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didnt make it through the whole thread, so my apologies if this has been brought up allready.


Are you seriously trying to tell us that the act of firing a weapon imparts on the firer the same energy as being hit by the projectiles fired from that weapon???? IE recoil energy= impact energy???

What rubbish!!, If that was true, every time someone fired a weapon, they would die.

If each projectile weighed the same as the weapon it was fired from( or the weapon+ platform in the case of a tank), then perhaps you may have something, but although a BMG.50 does indeed boot like an angry mule, the recoil force felt by the operator comes nowhere near the impact force experienced by the target.

woofiedog
06-29-2005, 02:18 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW"> The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire. </span>

Falaise-Argentan pocket

The high ground across the Dives-specifically Mont Ormel-furnished an unparalleled vista of the entire gap area. In the third week of August 1944, this vista was marred by the near-constant bursting of bombs, rockets, and artillery, the ever-present drone of fighter-bombers and small artillery spotters (the latter especially feared and loathed by German forces), the corpses of thousands of German personnel and draft animals, and the burning and shattered remains of hundreds of vehicles and tanks. It was a scene of carnage without parallel on the Western Front.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/img/AAF-H-DDay-p15.jpg

In the days before the closing of the Falaise gap, the 2 TAF averaged 1,200 sorties per day. The air war was particularly violent from August 15 through the 21st. Typhoons and Spitfires attacked the roads leading from the gap to the Seine, strafing columns of densely packed vehicles and men. Under repeated attack, some of the columns actually displayed white flags of surrender, but the RAF took "no notice" of this since Allied ground forces were not in the vicinity, and "to cease fire would merely have allowed the enemy to move unmolested to the Seine." Typhoons typically would destroy the vehicles at the head of a road column, then leisurely shoot up the rest of the vehicles with their rockets and cannon. When they finished, Spitfires would dive down to strafe the remains.

Because the Luftwaffe was absent over the battlefield, Broadhurst directed 2 TAF wings to operate their aircraft in pairs. Thus, a "two ship" of Spitfires or Typhoons could return to the gap after being refueled and rearmed without waiting for a larger formation to be ready to return. This maximized the number of support sorties that could be flown, and, indeed, pilots of one Canadian Spitfire wing averaged six sorties per day. Nothing that moved was immune from what one Typhoon pilot recollected as "the biggest shoot-up ever experienced by a rocket Typhoon pilot." Another recalled the flavor of attack operations:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/img/AAF-H-DDay-p14.jpg
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">A Republic P-47D Thunderbolt shown with two 500-lb bombs and an external fuel tank, a typical offensive load carried in the 1944 campaign across France. </span>

The show starts like a well-planned ballet: the Typhoons go into echelon while turning, then dive on their prey at full throttle. Rockets whistle, guns bark, engines roar and pilots sweat without noticing it as our missiles smash the Tigers. Petrol tanks explode amid torrents of black smoke. A Typhoon skids away to avoid machine fire. Some horses frightened by the noise gallop wildly in a nearby field.

Nor was Falaise strictly a 2 TAF operation; the AAF was also heavily committed. Over the duration of the Falaise fighting, air strikes gradually moved from west of Argentan to north, to east, and finally to east of the Dives River. One strike by P47s on August 13 gives a graphic indication of the sizes of German forces open to attack

That morning 37 P-47 pilots of the 36th Group found 800 to 1,000 enemy vehicles of all types milling about in the pocket west of Argentan. They could see American and British forces racing to choke off the gap. They went to work. Within an hour the Thunderbolts had blown up or burned out between 400 and 500 enemy vehicles. The fighter-bombers kept at it until they ran out of bombs and ammunition. One pilot, with empty gun chambers and bomb shackles, dropped his belly tank on 12 trucks and left them all in flames.

All told, on 13 August, XIX TAC fighter-bombers destroyed or damaged more than 1,000 road and rail vehicles, 45 tanks and armored vehicles, and 12 locomotives. Inside the pocket they reduced 10 enemy delaying-action strong points to rubble.

Four days later another Thunderbolt squadron, below-strength, flew over a huge traffic jam, radioed for assistance, "and soon the sky was so full of British and American fighter-bombers that they had to form up in queues to make their bomb runs." The next day, 36th Group Thunderbolts spotted another large German formation, marked out by yellow artillery smoke. Since the vehicles were in a zone designated as a British responsibility, XIX TAC sat back "disconsolately" while 2 TAF launched a series of strikes that claimed almost 3,000 vehicles damaged or destroyed. On August 19, one Spitfire wing put in a claim for 500 vehicles destroyed or damaged in a single day; that same day, another Spitfire wing claimed 700.


In opposing offensive mobile armor, as in North Africa, the fighter-bomber was of limited use. Now, as German armor typically lay in defensive ambush, or retreated in tight columns, the rocket- or bomb-loaded fighter proved devastating.

The Ninth Air Force and the Second Tactical Air Force had vast quantities of fighter-bombers. IX TAC, for example, had twenty four squadrons of Republic P47 Thunderbolts, while 2 TAF had eighteen squadrons of Hawker Typhoons. Both were beefy, powerful aircraft, capable of absorbing considerable battle damage and still returning to base. Of the two, the P47 was the more survivable, in part because it had a radial piston engine. The Typhoon had a liquid-cooled engine and "chin" radiator installation that was vulnerable to ground fire. Affectionately known as the Jug, the P47, on occasion, returned to base not merely with gaping holes from enemy defenses, but with whole cylinders blown off its engine. Pilot memoirs reveal that while the P47 was regarded with affection and even fierce loyalty, the Tiffie (as the Typhoon was dubbed) had earned an uncomfortable respect and awe bordering on fear.

Both fighter-bombers had, for their time, prodigious weapons- carrying capabilities. Both could lug up to a 2,000-lb bomb load, one 1,000-lb bomb under each wing. Typically, however, both operated with smaller loads. A P47 would carry an external belly fuel tank and one 500-lb bomb under each wing; many were also configured so that the plane could carry air-to-ground rockets, typically ten 5-in HVARs (high-velocity aircraft rockets). P47s on an armed reconnaissance mission would usually operate three flights, two armed with a mix of bombs and rockets, and the cover flight carrying only rockets. Over 80 percent of the bombs dropped by P47s during the European campaign were 500-lb weapons; less than 10 percent were 1,000-lb bombs, and the difference was made up by smaller 260-lb fragmentation bombs and napalm. While acknowledging the spectacular effects and destructiveness of rockets, the AAF considered bombs more effective for "road work" due to accuracy problems in firing the solid-fuel weapons.
The British, on the other hand, preferred rockets, the Typhoon carrying eight having 60-lb armor-piercing warheads. Possibly this difference of opinion stemmed from launching methods; the P47s used "zero length" launchers while the Typhoons used launch rails. It could be expected that the rails would impart greater accuracy, stabilizing the rocket immediately after ignition until it had picked up sufficient speed for its tail fins to stabilize it. (There is, however, an interesting report from Montgomery's 21st Army Group that questions the alleged success that British air-to-ground rockets enjoyed against tanks and motorized transport.)
Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire.

Of course, other fighter-bombers operated in Normandy and across Europe, notably the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, North American P-51 Mustang, and Supermarine Spitfire. With the exception of the Lightning (which had a concentrated armament installation that made it a formidable strafer), all of these proved disappointing. Their liquid-cooled engine systems were quite vulnerable to ground fire, and thus they were used far less for ground attack and much more for air superiority operations.

NonWonderDog
06-29-2005, 05:13 AM
No matter how many times you spout nonsense it won't suddenly cease to be a physical impossibility. Sorry.

I can't believe that this is even worth debating, it's so simple. If a bullet ricochets off the pavement under a tank, it will hit the underside armor at such an oblique angle as to ricochet off of that too. It would do this even if it wasn't slowed and deformed immensely by the act of hitting the pavement.

Concrete has a lesser hardness than face-hardened steel plate. Bullets will ricochet off of armor at steeper angles than they do off of concrete. If a bullet hits the ground at an angle shallow enough to ricochet, it can not possibly assume any flight path that would allow it to penetrate a parallel armor plate.

Aaron_GT
06-29-2005, 05:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you seriously trying to tell us that the act of firing a weapon imparts on the firer the same energy as being hit by the projectiles fired from that weapon???? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not. I mentioned forces, not energy.

It imparts the same force (forces have equal and opposite reaction. F=ma, or F=dp/dt where p is momentum, and momentum is mv. Force is not the same as energy. Kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2. So a small high speed projectile firing at one end of a gun imparts the same force to the gun that was required to eject it from the barrel, this translates into a change in momentum of the gun, but since the gun weighs much more the energy of the gun is much lower than the projectile.

Dtools4fools
06-29-2005, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my god. Now that's real evidence...

The engine compartement was seperated from the crew compartement by a plate to protect the crew. Now you think that those bullets entered en masse via the exhaust pipes by ricochet, then went straight through the engine block of a Tiger, penetrated said plate and then ricocheted around the interior wounding crew and blowing up ammo?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Take a look at Tiger interiorhere (http://www.alanhamby.com/cutaway.html).

Hull bottom was 25mm of armor as well by the way. So forget your ricochets of the pavement...
Saying not being able to penetrate from the top but doing so with ricochets says how little that fellow knew about tanks... Or does ricochet of pavement actually improve penetration? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I wonder where those "two inches of armor penetration" for the 0.50 mentioned elsewhere come from too. Maybe 2 inches of Siwss cheese? Or what?

The Russians considered their 23mm VYa as good enough for light tanks, but not realiable enough to kill medium tanks. Now here comes the 0.50 and kills even Tigers...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Aaron_GT ,

yep, the Hetzer is very samll and has a very cramped interior. Resulted in a slower ROF compared to other tanks carrying the same gun. However its very sloped front armor, the powwrful 75mm L48 gun and its small size/profile made it a great tank destroyer in the ambush role.

Dtools4fools
06-29-2005, 09:03 AM
Forgot:
Most tanks had their ammo stored protected as well. Even the Sherman, nicked named "Ronson" due to its for the crew unplesant tendancy to light up if hit, received wet storage on later model to overcome this problem.
The Tiger never was one of those easy burners.
****

AlmightyTallest
06-29-2005, 09:09 AM
I find it funny that many just assumes that they are talking about Tiger or King Tiger tanks. That may not be the case with these reports, and the reports don't mention what type of tank was destroyed or damaged with .50cal fire. But apparently some damage occured to tanks using massed .50 cal fire (treads, strikes to the thinner top and back armor over the engine compartment, etc.)

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-29-2005, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jg300_Kostek:
I just don't get it Cajun76, why the hell US mounted such a big, heavy weight cannon, with heavy weight bullets on Sherman instead of mounting 8x0.50cal. ????
It could (0.50)shred Tigers engine with short burst, but no, they left this 85(?) mm cannon, witch can't do nothing agaist tiger... hmm.. i just don't get it
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, terms of range, I'm sure that the 75mm gun would win. And 8X .50 with all ammo, spare barrels would weigh just as much really.

Anyways, the ".50 can kill tigers" has been my favorite troll subject since the P-47 had been in Il-2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dtools4fools
06-29-2005, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Posted Wed June 29 2005 08:09
I find it funny that many just assumes that they are talking about Tiger or King Tiger tanks. That may not be the case with these reports, and the reports don't mention what type of tank was destroyed or damaged with .50cal fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. They claim specifically "heavy German tanks". Read yellow highlight above.

Nobody doubts the ability of 0.50 destroying light tanks, open top tanks and self propelled guns.
****

FliegerAas
06-29-2005, 12:53 PM
See the awful truth! That's the way Tigers were destroyed:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/korps/korps01.jpg

Picture1.

After Sammy Brown dispatched 25 "Tiger" tanks by covering up their observation slits with chewing gum and forcing the crews to surrender with his Colt, he got bored.

Picture2.

He reported to his colonel, secured a day's rations, and sought out German long-range batteries far behind the lines.

Picture 3.

His not entirely undangerous operation went smoothly. First, he got rid of all the Nazi sentries with hooks to their jaws if they failed to drop their laughable weapons when he shouted "Hands up!"

Picture4.

Then he hopped on a trolley until he reached the German railway artillery guns. He destroyed them quickly. Then he went to the German general's quarters, met him, reached for his Colt and...

Picture5.

Unfortunately, a German shell made a direct hit on the field movie theater at that moment, so a lot of nice American boys never did learn how things turned out for Sergeant Brown...

(Taken from :http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/)

AlmightyTallest
06-29-2005, 01:09 PM
The report still doesn't mention the tank type. Your or my idea of a "heavy German tank" may be different than what the author or pilots considered a heavy tank.

Still, I'm sure some damage may have been caused using .50 cal ammo striking the right places.

AlmightyTallest
06-29-2005, 04:13 PM
Found a nice site on the Tiger tank, check it out here:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

The Tiger top view on the above site does show rather large ventilation on the top rear of the tank for the engine. I think .50 cal API could have penetrated that thin grate of metal, or passed through to the inside. Not out of the realm of possibility. Also when you consider that most Allied planes had 6 to 8 .50cal all firing AP or API ammo mixtures.

What an Allied plane might have seen when attacking from the rear or side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger04.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger03.JPG

WarWolfe_1
06-29-2005, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Found a nice site on the Tiger tank, check it out here:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

The Tiger top view on the above site does show rather large ventilation on the top rear of the tank for the engine. I think .50 cal API could have penetrated that thin grate of metal, or passed through to the inside. Not out of the realm of possibility. Also when you consider that most Allied planes had 6 to 8 .50cal all firing AP or API ammo mixtures.

What an Allied plane might have seen when attacking from the rear or side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger04.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger03.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


U is RIGHT


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif don't Hate the 50......Hate the Fact its all That.


rofl http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AlmightyTallest
06-29-2005, 05:55 PM
LOL, it's all that and a bag of chips as they say. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, I'd rather go in with bombs and rockets, if I was out of all other ordinance and still wanted to escort my buddies in I would do strafing attacks on Tiger tanks with my .50's. No guarantees of a kill, but sometimes those guys must have gotten lucky and disabled a tank or two with strafing, especially if they came in from the top and rear of the tanks. From the pictures there's quite a large area that is lightly armored on the top rear of the Tiger.

Cajun76
06-29-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:



Saying not being able to penetrate from the top but doing so with ricochets says <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">how little that fellow knew about tanks... </span>


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was:

... Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada* the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire.

*Quesada was the Ninth Air Force commander.


And you are? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

kweassa
06-29-2005, 08:47 PM
So the allied P-47 pilot;

* comes in from steep angles at 300km/h

* against a relatively very very small target

* fires 8 x wing mounted machine guns

* which has serious convergence issues and only one exact distance where the bullets converge

* not to mention each guns have a random dispersion circle of about 1~2 feet in diameter

* but somehow still lands .50 rounds into a very small thermal exhaust port

* and those few rounds of bullets will enter the ventilation and start a chain reaction to destroy the tank..


...

Oh wow, now we know where George Lucas got the idea of his Death Star sequence from. Allied farm boys with some mysterious force to guide his bullets and connect it to achieve a certainly, very unlikely event!

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 03:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also when you consider that most Allied planes had 6 to 8 .50cal all firing AP or API ammo mixtures. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are confusing Allied and USAAF. Most British planes used in ground attack used 4x20mm cannon or better.

Aaron_GT
06-30-2005, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">* but somehow still lands .50 rounds into a very small thermal exhaust port </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe the force was strong in P47 pilots? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

kweassa
06-30-2005, 04:17 AM
Maybe they used to shoot womprats with 50-cal armed speeders back in Beggar's Canyon, Ohio? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
But do they have what it takes to face the ultimate revelation?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Tiger: *Hoo* *Haa* "Allied farmboy, I'm yo' daddy!" *Hoo* *Haa*

P-47 : "Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Viking-S
06-30-2005, 08:04 AM
This thread, as all .50 threads, was posted with the intention to troll and bring disagreement and chaos to this forum. As such it doesn€t deserve an answer but since it obviously has spread misinformation and lies to a lot of youngsters I think it is time to sort out a few things in order to try to put an end to the .50 myth.

The .50 AP ammunition was capable of penetrating approximately 0.9 inches of face hardened armour at 200 meters and 90 deg angle. That is a lot! All of its energy would then be spent.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html
Modern API can do a little bit more.

The pictures are from the restoration of the Bovington Tiger (Panzerkampfwagen VI, Tiger I (E), http://www.tiger-tank.com/

The rear end of the Tiger tank was divided into three separate compartments separated by longitudinal thick bulkheads. http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal9.htm

In the centre the engine and in the outboard compartments the radiators and fuel tanks. http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal25.htm The outer once covered by heavy grilled hatches. Think you can get a .50 thru there?

The engine compartment was covered with a hatch that is stated to be 26mm on the Tiger I. http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal22.htm. By the way the same thickness is stated for the top of the turret so a .50 should, according to some posters, be able to rip the turret open.
Impossible! Unless it ricocheted of course! *

As for the disabling of the tracks!
God luck in trying to knock these tracks of the Tiger with a .50! http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/journal13.htm

So did the .50´s knock out any tigers? I€m not saying that it could not have happened; I just say that it never did! Maybe other tanks and armoured vehicles, but never the Tiger. It might have caused some damage but nothing that a bucket of paint wouldn€t have cured.

Good fishing Hawgdog! I must admit that you know your audience well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Dtools4fools
06-30-2005, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*Quesada was the Ninth Air Force commander. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And because some Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, told him his boys are shooting up Tigers made Quesada an German tnak expert?

I think I have much more accees to infos on any world war II tank than those felllows.

And that Commander of First Army's VII Corps was told by his fly boys...

There's too many stories told there, but no data that supports those stories...

How about if you go to CFS2 and model your own super 0.50 cal super-Jug and sink the Bismarck and the Tirpitz in one mission?

*****

StellarRat
06-30-2005, 03:36 PM
.50s could penerate PZ IV's and III's and other armored vehicles from the top, however, REAL Tiger tanks would be nearly impossible to destroy with .50s. I need remind some of the posters that the Tiger I and II were RARELY seen in combat. They made up a small percentage of the tanks that Germany fielded even at the peak of their armored force strength. Generally, there were held in reserve for special missions where heavy tanks were required. But, GIs and pilots had a tendency to think every tank was a Tiger! In fact, this could almost be taken as an Allied nickname for any German tank. In reality, most Allied forces were likely to encounter PZ IV, V's and a variety of assault guns like the Sturm III. These made up about 90% of German armor.

Anyway, my point is that reports from pilots saying they destroyed Tiger tanks should be taken with a grain of salt. They may have destroyed a tank, but it probably wasn't a REAL Tiger.

Cajun76
06-30-2005, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dtools4fools:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">*Quesada was the Ninth Air Force commander. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And because some Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, told him his boys are shooting up Tigers made Quesada an German tnak expert?

I think I have much more accees to infos on any world war II tank than those felllows.

And that Commander of First Army's VII Corps was told by his fly boys...


***** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize English may not be your first language, so let me help a bit.

1) Find "tiger" anywhere in the excerpt that woofiedog posted.

2) Gen. Collins would have been seeing the first hand results of Quesada's boy's work. Collins would be the expert, a US Army ground general dealing with enemy armour and troops everyday.

Apparently it was something that stood out enough that he felt it was worth mentioning to Quesada. I don't know what kind of tanks they were. But apparently the straffing attacks were not wasted on these things. Collin's troops might have directly observed attacks by Thunderbolts, and then assessed the damage caused. Feedback on effectiveness would be very valuable to Quesada for tactics and doctrine.


================================================== =============================================

Viking-S, I wonder what the penetration power becomes if you increase the velocity of the round by 111 to 156 meters per second?

================================================== =============================================

kweassa, there's only convergenge issues when your trying to get all 8 guns in one spot, the four on each wing are right next to each other, and don't have "convergence".

What size is a tank compared to a truck? A horse-drawn cart? A Kubelwagon? A halftrack? A Tiger is 20' long, 12' wide and 9 1/2' high, for example. I don't know which tanks they were engaging though, it just mentions "tanks"

Dispersion circle of 1-2 feet, at what range?

S.taibanzai
06-30-2005, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
Found a nice site on the Tiger tank, check it out here:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

The Tiger top view on the above site does show rather large ventilation on the top rear of the tank for the engine. I think .50 cal API could have penetrated that thin grate of metal, or passed through to the inside. Not out of the realm of possibility. Also when you consider that most Allied planes had 6 to 8 .50cal all firing AP or API ammo mixtures.

What an Allied plane might have seen when attacking from the rear or side http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger04.jpg

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/tiger03.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx for the site m8

very nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

kweassa
06-30-2005, 08:55 PM
Cajun76:


Convergence becomes important because if a plane armed with 12.7mm machine guns would achieve any kind of penetration against a well-armoured tank, we have no choice but to assume it will take a concentrated barrage of all the guns against the target to have any kind of chance.

Hitting thinly protected vehicles(halftracks or trucks), or non-protected targets(humans, animals, open-top vehicles) does not require that kind of concentration of power in that a few rounds on the mark is enough to get the job done.

In this case, a spread-out pattern of gunfire offer the "shot-gun effect", and any handful of ammunition that connects will still be enough to achieve total neutralization of the target's functionality. Dispersion actually increases the chances of a single bullet to hit(while it hurts the collective effectiveness of all the bullets fired), and if any single bullet connects to a human being, then they're all but dead.

The problem is, tanks aren't like that. They are extremely well protected, and any openings that might offer a chance to hurt it are very small. Only a consciously aimed barrage of bullets will have any kind of chance in achieving that kind of sucess.

In other words, with a pinch of exaggeration, if there are unprotected trucks driving around one could just fire at its general direction and the truck would be ripped up like a rag doll. "Shotgun" effect.

However, if you want to at least immobilize a tank, you have to set an attack run, aim consciously with the sights, and repeat concentrated fire so the chances of penetration or entry, would be maximized. And when one must do this, the tank, is a difficult target to hit with gun-mounting methods plagued with convergence issues.

Take the example of the really successful anti-tank platforms of WW2. The IL-2(23mm), Ju-87G(37mm), Hurricane IID(40mm) are probably the most successful of such planes. They are armed with wingmounted cannons, and thus, they solved the difficulty of hitting the target by firing tanks at dangerously close distances in slow, stable, maneuverable planes. Other platforms such as the Hs-129 carry nose mounted guns to solve this problem.

Adding to the difficulties of convergence, is the dispersion problems with guns. Dispersion of wing-mounted 12.7 mm machine guns are quoted at 6 mil, which means that at 800m the projectiles impact in a 4.8 m circle. that's 18.1 m^2 of total area. At 800m distance, even with perfect aim, only one in six projectiles fired will ever hit a fighter-sized target. How close would a P-48 be willing to approach the ground? Up to 100m? 200?


All in all, when these factors are put into the equation, even knocking out main battle tanks with thinner armouring than the Tiger becomes an extremely unlikely event for a 12.7mm gun, no matter how many of them are mounted.

Strafing tanks flat with planes, is just not a job for a P-47.

AlmightyTallest
06-30-2005, 09:07 PM
This is just one of those issues where you either belive or disbelieve. There's some middle ground, but in the end nobody is going to give any ground or change their beliefs.

So, if .50 cals aren't working well enough aginst Tiger tanks, then the Allies will just have to settle for something more powerful. Like robots.

http://i.somethingawful.com/inserts/articlepics/photoshop/04-25-03-robots/spacemountain_robots.jpg

Viking-S
07-01-2005, 03:39 AM
"Viking-S, I wonder what the penetration power becomes if you increase the velocity of the round by 111 to 156 meters per second?"


You can easily calculate that yourself instead of give a hint that this would make a huge difference on armour penetration.
The speed you indicate, 400 to 560 km/h, is in my opinion a bit high for an attacking airplane but OK we can use that in our calculation.
The .50 round is 856 mps 23.8 m from the muzzle; 560 km/h is as you say 156 mps so the increase in speed is 18 %. So the penetration could ,in theory at least, increase by the same, from .9 inch to 1.06 inch.
But that speed (560 km/h) and the distance of 200m that I used in this example is not realistic in a real situation so in my opinion the distance should be e.g. 600m and then the penetration drops of to approximately 50%. In round figures .5 inches.

Like I said; it never happened! We can run calculus and theoretical discussions on this for ever but that wont change that fact.
This is a game or to some a simulation and the programmers can do whatever they like with the code to make weapons and armour softer or stronger, but since I prefer a simulation that is as close to reality that is possible I really wish that they leave this part as it is.

WOLFMondo
07-01-2005, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kweassa:
Take the example of the really successful anti-tank platforms of WW2. The IL-2(23mm), Ju-87G(37mm), Hurricane IID(40mm) are probably the most successful of such planes. They are armed with wingmounted cannons, and thus, they solved the difficulty of hitting the target by firing tanks at dangerously close distances in slow, stable, maneuverable planes. Other platforms such as the Hs-129 carry nose mounted guns to solve this problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trouble with the Hurricane as a ground pounder was it was incredibly slow and not particularly tough so it was an easy target for any AA fire that could be put up. When the stuff rockets on them they got even slower and eventually were pulled out of action in that role in favour of the new Typhoons.

The Typhoon goes completely against this, it wasn't very manouverable and was very fast but was stable and didn't use its cannons on tanks at all but well designed hollow charge rockets and were extrememly succesful anti tank platforms. Just read up on how many tanks they knocked out when Patton made his advance into France and got stuck and 2nd TAF Typhoons came to save the day.

Typhoon gets my vote as best anti tank and assault plane, could take out anything on the battlefield be it on the ground or in the air at low altitude.

woofiedog
07-01-2005, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AlmightyTallest </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, if .50 cals aren't working well enough aginst Tiger tanks, then the Allies will just have to settle for something more powerful. Like robots.

I watched those Robot's in the movie Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow... and that one P-40 was chewing those Robot's to Pieces! And it had Twin 50's with 30's.

kweassa
07-01-2005, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just read up on how many tanks they knocked out when Patton made his advance into France and got stuck and 2nd TAF Typhoons came to save the day.

Typhoon gets my vote as best anti tank and assault plane, could take out anything on the battlefield be it on the ground or in the air at low altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, the vulnerability of aerial AT platforms was the largest drawbacks with the IL-2, Ju87G or the Hurriceane 2D.

In the case of the Hurricane, the VickerS 40mm wasn't powerful enough to penetrate the better protected tanks of the later days of the War. It became an obsolete weapon, and the other option the RAF went for was the Typhoon.

However, lobbing bombs and launching rockets itself had a serious problem - the accuracy of unguided bombs and rockets were just too incredibly low to make any real use. IIRC the stats, typically in WW2, of 200 rockets fired only 5 would hit the mark. That's about 2.5% success rate. Assuming a single Typhoon Ib typically carries 8 x rail-mounted rockets, it would take 24 planes to just hit a single tank with a single rocket.

Of course, the success rate of attack runs greatly vary upon many conditions.. pilot skill, average level of cover the tanks are in.. terrain conditions.. etc etc.. However, one thing for certain is at any rate, using ordnance to kill tanks was just too much inefficient a method. Ground attack sorties are typically the ideal situation for overclaims to pop up.

According to Tony Williams(author of "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces");

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know that P-47s did fire at the road in the hope that the bullets would bounce up and strike the underside of the tank, but I've never read about any case when it actually worked.

Consider this: Maximum penetration of .5" Browning AP at normal ranges 15-20mm: Striking angle after bouncing off the road maybe 30 degrees: effective penetration at this angle 5-10mm (or less because the bullet probably wouldn't strike point-first after hitting the road): armour thickness under German medium tanks in 1944 around 25mm. Result: German tank crew mildly irritated by noise like hailstorm!

There has been a GREAT deal written about the difference between tanks claimed destroyed by P-47 and Typhoon units and the wrecks found on the ground. It works out at about a 10:1 claim:kill ratio. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...

In the end, as a total, air power against armoured main battle tanks, at least before the latter half of the 20th century, was still just not accurate enough to work.

The real devastation air power caused to the tanks were by wrecking havoc to its essential logistics. Termination of road and rail networks, destruction of fuel supplies, factories and refineries, maintenance facilities.

The only real planes worthy of the name "Tank Buster" in those days, are as mentioned, the IL-2 and the Ju87G, and the methods they used were low alt/close range strafing with AT guns. Anything else simply wasn't good enough.

The best method of dealing with tanks is either another tank, or a dedicated tank-buster. At least that's how it was in WW2.

Dtools4fools
07-01-2005, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't know what kind of tanks they were </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's good. Neither do I.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> given the typically heavy armor of German tanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even he seems not to know.
But "typically heavy armor on German tanks" would discount PZ IV and the like as they did not have typically heavy armor - their armor was in fact similar to Shermans and the like. Certainly not heavy. So that leaves the heavies: Tigers, Panthers.

As mentioned there were not many of the big cats around anyway - wouldn't he explicit mention the destruction of such tanks if observed by himself?

And that's what people claim here. And the only source besides from guesstimating is this rather vague source.

In top of that I have never seen pics of those 0.50 cal. destroyed tanks.

Looking at armor thickness, angle and penetration capability of 0.50 cal I think even late Pz IVG and H would be a tough nut to crack for 0.50 cal.

Regarding the concentration of bullets there are gun cam vids on this page (http://www.368thfightergroup.com/guncamera.html)

In no vid there is a single tank destruction recognizable (in fact it is not possible to ID the vehicles most times). What one can see is that the buzllets went over a rather large area in all cases.
The most interesting vid is that of 2LT J. Biagini 397th Fighter Squadron of 19 Aug 44. It's the only one where I think the vehicle can be recongized, looks like halftrack.
In all case you see lots of dust being kicked up as well.


Open top vehicles and tank hunters, halftracks, supply vehicles, yes, nobody doubts that.


Interesting gun cam vids of air combat on this page (http://guncam2002.tripod.com/) btw.

There is a short one with a Me 163.
Found the Betty intercept interesting concerning effectifness of defensive gunners in Pacific Fighters. I think that pilot would have died in the game long time...

****

AlmightyTallest
07-01-2005, 09:30 AM
lol woofiedog, you saw that movie too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don't forget the P-40 cables that can trip the robots now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At any rate, everyone has their own ideas about this issue and it will always go round and round. As long as we stay civil about it, it will be an interesting read and discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
07-01-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But "typically heavy armor on German tanks" would discount PZ IV and the like as they did not have typically heavy armor </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In many instances front-line reports of "Heavy tanks" were shown, on inspection of photo recce images, to be Pz IVs.

NonWonderDog
07-01-2005, 07:59 PM
And? A ricocheted .50 can't pierce 12mm of underside armor at 70+ degrees, either.

Nimits
07-01-2005, 08:47 PM
Another thing you have to remember is the propensity of tank crews to retreat and/or bail out first, and ask question later. More than one Tiger, Panther, or Panzer IV was abandoned or forced to retreat with little or no damage (and I'm not just talking about Falais or the retreat fromt he Bulge) when it was hit with white phosperous smoke shells, convincing the crew the tank was on fire. Similar happening occurred when external fuel drums were hit, etc. Getting a "soft kill" on a Tiger with .50 cals was not unheard of.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the armor directly above the engine compartment and along the tracks of most German tanks tended to be relatively weak; a lucky hit by .50 cal AP or API should have a chance of killing the engine or throwing a track (tanks could lose their tracks just driving up a hill or through woods, so I'm sure .50 cals could do it). Neither type of damage really kills the tank (i.e. renders it long term combat ineffective); tracks and engine could be relatively easily repaired, at times without even having to be returned to a repair depot, but a crew was just as likely to abandon a tank so damaged as remain with it, and an abandoned tanks is just as good as a dead one.

Cajun76
07-01-2005, 08:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif This is what I'm saying. It's turned into "penetrate the frontal armour and obliterate tanks with one hit" by the naysayers instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

AlmightyTallest
07-02-2005, 10:09 AM
I noticed that too cajun lol.

We're not talking about a catastrophic Hollywood type explosion of the tank here. Damaging a tread, causing fuel or oil leaks, starting small fires, or perhaps getting some rounds in to the engine could be enough to cause a "soft kill" It certainly wouldn't have looked very spectacular, but a damaged tank is a damaged tank.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> (In reference to HMG's and single shot AT rifles) While unable to destroy heavy armor, these weapons were used throughout the war, and could be surprisingly effective. The Russians and Finns had good ones. In his memoir, Otto Carius, a German Tiger Tank Ace, says that he hated them. While no danger to the crew of his Tiger behind the thick armor, a lucky shot could hit vital equipment, possibly causing a radiator or oil leak that could even disable the vehicle. Because they were operated by only a 1-2 man crew, they could operate from ambush and were usually not worth the effort of hunting down. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one crew carrying a HMG could worry Otto, then what about a strafing plane?

Viking-S
07-02-2005, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is what I'm saying. It's turned into "penetrate the frontal armour and obliterate tanks with one hit" by the naysayers instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What parts of my posts about the top armour of the Tiger didn€t you understand?

Cajun76
07-02-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is what I'm saying. It's turned into "penetrate the frontal armour and obliterate tanks with one hit" by the naysayers instead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What parts of my posts about the top armour of the Tiger didn€t you understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Which parts of me never saying the fifties were penetrating the top armour, but instead damaging things like engines, radiators, tracks of tanks that may or may not be Tigers did you not understand? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Viking-S
07-02-2005, 10:59 AM
In my post I proved that the Tiget could not be seriously damaged by the .50, as asked by initiator of the thread. Now your just grumpy because your case is lost and your desperately trying to shift focus from the discussion of facts.

EDIT; Oh yeah! Forgott the .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FritzGryphon
07-02-2005, 11:07 AM
In response to the original question, the answer is no.

Using the B-25 tailgun I had at a PzV rear for 5 minutes. It doesn't die.

But, the PzV gun is remarkably effective against the B-25. Must be overmodeled.

Dtools4fools
07-02-2005, 02:31 PM
But, the PzV gun is remarkably effective against the B-25. Must be overmodeled.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Like that IL-2 one of Carius' Tiger downed with their main gun...

but instead damaging things like engines, radiators,

And how they get in there? I'm sure you looked at the links provided earlier and know that those thingys are INSIDE the darn tank, protected by top armor...

You still rely on the extremely efficient and so effective smuggle'm in via the exhaust pipes and narrow cooling openings tactics?

If one crew carrying a HMG could worry Otto, then what about a strafing plane

Good ol' Otto mentions once in his book about the Russian AT rifles. Those were easy to conceal and had relative small muzzle flahs, so they could shoot from short distance AIMED shots. Mostly they went for vision blocks, which cracked if hit. This reduce visibility of crew, enough to pull back and have blocks replaced.
I do not know how they would damage radiator. Sit on the tree and wait until Tiger is underneath (it is said that Tigers to a rest from the immense midday heat in the shadows of trees, so that sounds a plausible tactic), then shoot into vent openings from top?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the armor directly above the engine compartment

Yes, it is weak in comparison with frontal armor. However it still is 25/26mm (depending on sourdces) and that's too much for 0.50 to penetrate (or even 23mm and the like).

In many instances front-line reports of "Heavy tanks" were shown, on inspection of photo recce images, to be Pz IVs

Yeah, that's the Tiger syndrome - often German tanks became "heavy" and went "Tiger". Like in that report on the effect of the 0.50cal on the typically heavy German armor...
*yawn*

****

AlmightyTallest
07-02-2005, 05:09 PM
lol, I did a google search and threads like this one are everywhere.

http://www.aviationbanter.com/printthread.php?t=5977&page=1&pp=10 (http://www.aviationbanter.com/printthread.php?t=5977&amp;page=1&amp;pp=10)

From above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was taught by WW2/Korean War fighter pilots to attack a tank in two
ways - one was to strafe the side and try to knock a track pin loose,
disconnecting the track and disabling the tank. A P80 pilot told me it
worked. The second method was to aim at the rear deck of the tank in
about a 30 degree dive and try to shoot through the cooling air
grilles. They warned me that some tanks would turn the turret 180
degrees so the planes would waste ammo shooting at the thick armor
glacis on the front of the tank. But if you get low enough you can
tell front from rear. I did just this in an F4E and blew up a T54 tank
south of the DMZ in 1972. Didn't have a gun camera but it looked just
like the films from WW2, except in color. A hard yank got us over the
fireball and debris. Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
bulkhead, too. Too bad for them. (G)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the whole threads you find on the same subject on the internet, and all end up inconclusive lol.

I do find it interesting that pilots were telling others how to attack and strafe tanks to try and disable them though. No sense in trying this dangerous tactic if it didn't have a chance of working I guess.

Aaron_GT
07-02-2005, 05:38 PM
Hmm - the F4E was most likely mounting an M61 20mm cannon, not 50 cals.

bolillo_loco
07-02-2005, 06:09 PM
you guys are using the 50 cal wrong! I have no problem destroying german tanks with the 50 cal. the mistake everybody is making is that they either strafe the tanks or jump into a gun posistion and manually aim the 50 cal. the trick is to grab an A-20 or B-25 and fly over german tanks. the A.I. gunners fire one quick squrit at the enemy tanks and blamo! it knocks off the tracks, damages every periscope/gun sight, kills all the crew men, knocks out all the tanks controls, and renders the engine inoperable. other than that it causes no damage to the tank itself.

AlmightyTallest
07-02-2005, 08:24 PM
Hehe, very true Aaron, but the true question is did the WW2/Korean war fighter pilots who taught him this tactic use .50 caliber guns in their aicraft to disable tanks? Also, did the P-80 pilot who told him it worked use .50 cal in his P-80? In the case of the P-80 it is Korea also, what tanks were used in North Korea at that time?

Perhaps we should try to find some veterans, both German tank crews and Allied fighter pilots and ask them about this issue ourselves. I'd certainly be interested in hearing both sides tell about this first hand.

Maybe we could contact some of those in that forum thread I posted, a few seem to be WW2/Korea/Vietnam Vets.

I've been reading that forum and below are just some interesting comments those guys posted.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To get back to the main subject - they may have thought they were
'bouncing them up into the belly' but I'll bet the effectiveness was
due to a hail of AP beating in the cooling air grilles - look at the
back end and deck of any tank and that's what you see. And that's why
the Korean War vets in my squadron taught me to shoot tanks there.

Walt BJ

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In May, 1944, when the Herman Goering panzer division decided to attack south
through the Liri Valley in daylight, trusting to cloud cover to conceal its
movement, B-25 strafers coming in at very low level slaughtered it. They
dropped 500 pounders and fragmentation bombs, but it was mostly the tens of
thousands of rounds of .50 fired at almost point blank range from the rear that
seems to have done most of the damage. Burned out anks, troop carriers, gun
carriers, trucks and artillery pieces--as well as hundreds of dead
Germans--littered the road for miles; your Italian Highway of Death.
During the Korean war, Tactical Air Control Parties could, with confidence,
call in P-51s to stop armor by strafing.


Chris Mark

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was looking for confirmation of the F4U friendly fire PT boat encounter mentioned earlier
(confirmed it did happen, the boat was PT-124) when I stumbled across this
comment from the PT boat skipper about a debriefing: "My account of seeing the
stern of a barge blown apart by my port .50 cal. guns openly produced skeptical
grunts, then the conversation turned to installing heavier armament...." So
even during the war, there was dispute about the killing power of the .50; I
doubt that decades after the event the issue can be satisfactorily resolved.


Chris Mark

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In response to the debate on P-47 deflection shots into the belly of
German Tanks:

Hello everyone. My first post here. I have a copy of THUNDERBOLTS:THE
CONQUEST OF THE REICH which aired two years ago on the History
Channel. It is the CLEAREST and BEST WWII footage I have ever seen.
Anyways, a P47 pilot mentions how he deflected his ammo off the ground
in order to hit the bellies of Tiger Tanks and other vehicles. The
documentary also shows actual footage of the ammo being deflected off
the ground and busting the tank. It's amazing.

I can upload this short clip if the group is interested.

-----------------------------------------

Very interested. Of course those of us who where there know it can and was
done. Those who deny it were never there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I got a response from the director of THE COLOR OF WAR series which claimed
that .50 bullets were "bounced" off the ground to penetrate the bellies of
Tiger Tanks. This is what he had to say:

"Nick
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."

I'm still working on ripping the gun camera footage for this group.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi folks,
I have been unable to get a DVD copy of this video that I uploaded, so I went
back to the VHS copy and *sharpened* it a little bit with a digital video
editor. I have now uploaded it to the Web (link below) and you can clearly see
a tiger tank (they show 3 passes). I know the first one is a Tiger Tank and I
am pretty sure the last one is, as well. Watch as the pilot strafes it...you'll
notice the tank practically "blowing up" with black smoke on the 3rd pass.

When the pilot says "we'd hit the trailer and put him on fire" you'll see a
Tiger Tank with some burning vehicle behind it (a trailer or another Tiger
Tank?).

A side note: In the last months of WWII, General Hap Arnold, head of the U.S.
Army Air Force, ordered the making of a color film on his forward strike crews,
particularly the P-47 Thunderbolts fighter groups flying close air support to
the army's infantry and armor units. From March 1 to May 8, 1945, 16 camera
crews shot 86 hours of film. But after the war, General Arnold decided not to
release the footage. We tracked down four original pilots from the 362nd
Fighter Group who narrate the story we see on the screen.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> FWIW
here's what Korean War P80 pilots I flew with passed on to me when I
was a 1/Lt. They said to knock out a T34 they used two methods -
cripple it by knocking out track pins by strafing from the side or
look at it carefuly to see which end is the rear and then shoot down
into the engine gratings. Some NK tank drivers (old heads) used to
reverse the turret because the forward glacis could shrug of 50 cal
AP. I tried the engine grating method on a T55 with the 20mm M61 and
it worked just fine. Spectacular, in fact. Yes, I could tell tanks
apart back then. We trained on all that stuff, friend and foe. There
were M41s around the battle area too but they were all dead. BTW most
of the strafing film I've seen out of WW2 ETO has them down under 10
degrees; some below 5.
Walt BJ

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I contacted the guy that had the footage. His link to the video was dead at this time so hopefully we'll be able to see this video and come to our own conclusions.

kweassa
07-03-2005, 01:32 AM
Take a wild guess as to who instructed the Korean War pilots.


Bingo!

The same misinformed, overclaiming bunch who flew in WW2. I mean, not like it's unexpected.

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hehe, very true Aaron, but the true question is did the WW2/Korean war fighter pilots who taught him this tactic use .50 caliber guns in their aicraft to disable tanks? Also, did the P-80 pilot who told him it worked use .50 cal in his P-80? In the case of the P-80 it is Korea also, what tanks were used in North Korea at that time? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tanks would have been T34s and T44s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take a wild guess as to who instructed the Korean War pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it was 2nd TAF pilots who thought they had killed lots of tanks in WW2 with rockets and cannon but were mistaken?

The fact that pilots believed they could destroy tanks with 50 cals is undisputed. But there is still little evidence that any were actually destroyed. This having been said, disabling tanks in terms of making them non-combat viable (lost tracks, etc) is MUCH more plausible, and it would be a perfectly valid thing for a ground attack pilot to do. A tank that is disabled on the battlefield is often almost as good as one destroyed.

So perhaps a better name for the thread would be
"Do .50s sufficiently distable a Tiger tank to make it unviable during a combat engagement?". More of a mouthful, though!

Dtools4fools
07-03-2005, 05:36 AM
T44's?
Interesting they made it to Korea, thought comparatively few were made.

****

Aaron_GT
07-03-2005, 09:54 AM
A smattering of T44s poppped up all over the place, even in Vietnam, belying their numbers. I think the Russians wanted to get rid of them as they were probably a logistical annoyance. T34s were the dominant type in Korea, though.

AlmightyTallest
07-03-2005, 12:10 PM
Aaron, I think you hit the nail on the head http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think the main term to use is disabling rather than outright destroying a tank with .50 caliber weapons.

lol, that thread title is a mouthfull. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I think it's more accurate than claiming outright destruction of the tank.

I also ran across two freak incidents where Tiger tanks were destroyed without the Sherman penetrating the Tiger's armor. Apparently the dent caused by the Sherman's main gun round was in such a place that it possibly set off the Tiger's ammo storage.

Also, reading some veteran's recollections on the battlefield, many are claiming that P-47's were strafing vehicles and tanks, if any tanks were damaged or temporaraly disabled, they may have been finished off by ground forces, hence the low numbers of tanks that could actually be claimed as killed by air power.

It's a holiday weekend here in the U.S. I'm still hoping to get that video that guy had.

Anyways, good discussion from both sides of the arguement, but I think we're narrowing what may have happened down better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dtools4fools
07-03-2005, 04:15 PM
I was just wondering as the 34/85 was often refered as the T-44 as well - the long gun T-34 that appeared in 1944...

Now maybe a T-34 with a long gun became a T-44 just like Pz IV became Tigers?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

****

Blutarski2004
07-03-2005, 07:30 PM
A very large percentage of the Panthers and Tigers lost by the Germans were disabled and broken down vehicles which were unrecoverable for various reasons and were therefore abandoned and/or destroyed by the Germans themselves. Perhaps as many as 1/3 to 1/2. These vehicles were fairly delicate in terms of mechanical reliability. See Jentz's PANZER TRUPPEN for full statistics.

Jentz also makes reference to German armored forces concern about the strafing problem as it related to tanks. The following is a translated excerpt from Guderian's Normandy Front situation report to Hitler dated 28 June 1944

quote -

The troops will soon request spaced armor on the rear deck because of the success of strafing aircraft. A disadvantage is that it would further increase the weight of German Panzers, which are already too heavy.

- unquote


While I do not believe that it was by any means possible to destroy a heavy WW2 tank by means of 50cal MG fire, except through the luckiest and most extraordinary hit, I do believe that it would have been realistically possible to achieve a "mission kill", whether by getting bullet fragments through engine gratings, damaging running gear, bulging a gun barrel, destroying vision blocks or sights, etc.

AlmightyTallest
07-04-2005, 10:14 AM
Thanks for that info Blutarski, that's a pretty interesting quote. I also agree with your concensus as well.

Aaron_GT
07-04-2005, 04:19 PM
Another point is that in a tank division the number of tanks was actually comparatively small. The tanks were supported by all manner of light armour, half tracks, trucks with supplies, etc. A well aimed air attack that didn't hit a single tank might actually render the tank force untenable in a combat situation.

AlmightyTallest
07-04-2005, 08:58 PM
That's a good point Aaron, but I'm wondering about these Tigers that were towing extra fuel behind them in some instances. Was it because the tanks were separating from their large supply trains to move to a front line position?

Or were they simply towing the extra fuel to be able to travel further than normal to the front to engage the Allies? It could also have been a measure of desperation, if their supply chains were being hammered they may have elected to tow the fuel for themelves to be more self sufficient from their more vulnerable supply chains of lighter vehicles.

Or, was this common practice with all types of German tanks to be able to carry extra fuel to increase their operational range?

gx-warspite
07-04-2005, 09:28 PM
Just to answer a couple questions:

1. T-44 and T-34/85 were two different tanks. The T-44 was a design by Morozov that never really succeeded. It was rushed during design so it had serious teething problems, and it entered production only in very late 1944 or even at the start of 1945, with less than 1000 being built. They didn't take part in any combat operations, IIRC. The Red Army didn't feel it was worth going to the hassle of setting up logistics for them. However, lessons learned from the T-44 made it into later tank designs.

2. Tigers had either 25mm or 40mm top armor, depending on when they were built. They were therefore immune to to all aircraft fire, even in the 25mm configuration (the Hurricane IId would need a very steep attack to penetrate, so it was possible but pretty unlikely). The top armor was increased only to protect from artillery, which was being increasingly used to attack Tigers once they were identified and spotted.

All other German tanks had relatively thin top armor. Even the Panther never had more than 25mm, typically 16mm, on its top. Early German tanks usually had around 10mm. Technically this made them vulnerable to strafing runs, but again, for an M2 to penetrate, it would have to be a generous angle (a 60 degree dive or so) at close range (under 400m would be my guess). 20mm AP was likely the bigger danger. Though the ballistics of the .50 permit it to fly further and penetrate more at extreme ranges, up close, especially at an angle, 20mm would be far more deadly.

Hawgdog
07-05-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viking-S:
In my post I proved that the Tiget could not be seriously damaged by the .50, as asked by initiator of the thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not convinced.

AlmightyTallest- most excellent post- I recall something similar by russian pilots as well.
Some where I saved pics of some 1" thick soft steel we shot .50AP all the way thru- at 100 yards and some .5 cold rolled that it penetrated as well. I dont know how low the pilots went when strafing tanks, but I remember reading that soft kills happened often, very often towards the end of the war- the russians didnt treat tankers very well.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2005, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">They didn't take part in any combat operations, IIRC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not with the USSR, and most were relegated to training but it seems that some Eastern European regimes supplied their T-44s to other regimes, hence some popping up in places like Vietnam.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2005, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some where I saved pics of some 1" thick soft steel we shot .50AP all the way thru- at 100 yards and some .5 cold rolled that it penetrated as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a world of difference between 0.5 inch cold rolled steel at presumably an obtuse angle and 1 inch of face hardened armour at an oblique angle.

The mechanisms for damage/kill are:

* Damage of exposed crew or through open hatches (not very likely - you'd be buttoned up)
* Track damage
* Exhaust/ducting damage
* Direct engine damage (there are grilles, but this one isn't that likely)
* Destroying towed fuel and causing damage to the tank or causing it to run out of fuel
* Causing the crew to panic and bail (you might be firing 50 cals and bouncing them off the tank, but the crew might worry that a 500lb bomb is next).
* Destruction of support troops causing the tank to become combat ineffective due to lack of support or supplies.

Blutarski2004
07-05-2005, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
&gt; There's a world of difference between 0.5 inch cold rolled steel at presumably an obtuse angle and 1 inch of face hardened armour at an oblique angle.

..... The use of face-hardened plate was not common on tanks. The vast majority of armor was homogeneous "machinable quality" plate, with most of the rest being of cast steel.



&gt; The mechanisms for damage/kill are:
* Direct engine damage (there are grilles, but this one isn't that likely).


..... It's important to remember that the vulnerable part of the tank's propulsion systems was not the engine per se, but its cooling system. The deck plates over the engine compartment were not solid. They were typically pierced and screened to provide an escape for the heat. This piercing would always provide an opportunity for bullets and/or &gt;&gt; bullet fragments &lt;&lt; to get in. To accept your argument that such damage was unlikely is to discount the statement made by Guderian in his 28 July 1944 report regarding the desire on the part of German tank crews for spaced armor over their rear decks.

Viking-S
07-05-2005, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by Viking-S:
In my post I proved that the Tiget could not be seriously damaged by the .50, as asked by initiator of the thread.


I'm not convinced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know! You never will be! As with all the .50 threads it€s not arguments with facts and figures about what might actually be the truth or even realistic but tend to be more a religious or perhaps political thing.

€œWe did win the war with this equipment so it must be the best! And therefore it must be able to win over the opponent€s best equipment!€

Aaron_GT
07-05-2005, 04:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's important to remember that the vulnerable part of the tank's propulsion systems was not the engine per se, but its cooling system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I noted exhaust/ducting damage in there. Certainly the Panther Ausf G used fuel to cool the engine, and there were external components related to this.

Aaron_GT
07-05-2005, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that such damage was unlikely is to discount the statement made by Guderian in his 28 July 1944 report regarding the desire on the part of German tank crews for spaced armor over their rear decks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spaced armour is primarily designed to set of hollow charge projectiles - i.e. rockets being used by aircraft which used such projectiles. I read this as more likely referring to Typhoon attacks (the RAF flew many more anti-armour missions than the USAAF in June-July 1944 over France).

Aaron_GT
07-05-2005, 04:24 PM
Re; face-hardened armour. It seems a previous poster was right. The Germans dropped face hardening during WW2.

gx-warspite
07-05-2005, 10:40 PM
Notes:

1. German Panzers used face-hardened armor regularly, more so than any other army during the war.

2. The aircraft-mounted ANM2's muzzle velocity is about 100fps less than the basic M2.

3. Aircraft didn't fly around with belts of AP ammo. They use ball ammo. Big difference between the two.

Hawgdog
07-05-2005, 10:44 PM
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/ttt_tiger_vulnerability.jpg
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/

http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/index.html
All weapons now used for destroying German tanks €" antitank guns and rifles, caliber .50 heavy machine guns, antitank grenades, and Molotov cocktails €" are effective against the Pz. Kpfw. VI.

http://www.lonesentry.com/tiger_tank_intel/index.html

gx-warspite
07-05-2005, 11:00 PM
Using a Russian propaganda piece that was used to shore up shaky morale of their troops in the face of every panzer being identified as a "Tiger", as actual source data, is pretty weak http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Seriously. Even the poorly trained Russian gun crews already knew that optics, tracks, driver ports, cupolas and guns of ALL tanks were vulnerable. The difficulty is in hitting them. In order to do so, you have to get within range, and long before you get in range, you're already in the Tiger's.

joeap
07-06-2005, 07:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sorry Hawgdawg:
How do you guys want to be fried up?

Lemon and tartar? Some malt vinegar??

Blutarski2004
07-06-2005, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
Notes:

1. German Panzers used face-hardened armor regularly, more so than any other army during the war.


..... Apart from the applique armor fitted to Mk IV's and Mk III's in North Africa, face-hardened or cemented armor was not common even in German service. The vast majority of German armor was homogeneous plate - much easier and cheaper and faster to manufacture.



3. Aircraft didn't fly around with belts of AP ammo. They use ball ammo. Big difference between the two.


..... I don't know where you got this information. By 1944, AP/AP(I) ammunition was typical in US fighter ammunition belts. Not that it was going to make a big difference against a German heavy tank in any case.

Dtools4fools
07-06-2005, 08:00 AM
"..... The use of face-hardened plate was not common on tanks. The vast majority of armor was homogeneous "machinable quality" plate, with most of the rest being of cast steel"

- Tiger was homogeneous rolled armor - of very high quality.
- most other German tanks were of face hardened armor.

If rolled or face hardened it doesn't compare at all with "soft steel" (non-armor steel) as armor is not just steel but a mix with other metals.

The "propaganda image" posted above actually shows on thing - "hey dudes, you can't destroy that thingy on a realiable basis, but shooting at the right places you might be able to damgae/disable it... Good luck, in the meantime I will get back to my drawing board in Moscov and do some more pretty pictures for you"...


I saw only one pic of a Tiger so far with fuel drums on its engine top cover. My guess is that since German tanks were on the defensive late war they would not need extra fuel for long range operations in combat. If the entire unit moved from place to place fuel would be carried by support vehicles (now those would make a nice target for strafers...).

Blutarski2004
07-06-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
&gt; Even the poorly trained Russian gun crews already knew that optics, tracks, driver ports, cupolas and guns of ALL tanks were vulnerable. The difficulty is in hitting them.

..... No one would ever say it was an easy shot, but plenty of AT rifle rounds found a mark. Read Glantz's book on Kursk, or Jentz's book on Tiger tanks on the Eastern front.


In order to do so, you have to get within range, and long before you get in range, you're already in the Tiger's.

..... Agreed. But that further supposes that, in the overall hubbub of battle, the tank commander could spot a dug-in and camouflaged infantryman on his flank firing his AT rifle from 300 or 500 yards away.

gx-warspite
07-06-2005, 08:41 AM
Right, my point is that AT rifles didn't just spam fire at a tank hoping to hit one of those areas. They needed to be in position, on-angle, in-range and targeting the right spot.

For an aircraft flying at 250mph, this would be quite a feat, especially since even AP rounds (never mind the more common ball ammo, which served most of the war to my best recollection), had worse penetration than dedicated anti-tank rifles.

Dtools4fools
07-06-2005, 08:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">firing his AT rifle from 300 or 500 yards away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hmmm, those things were crude, big weapons not mounted on tripod (recoil!) with a very simple sight, no scope. Hitting a small spot like a vision block would require the tank standing still and being rather close - I would think 300 yards max, preferably closer.
Hard to spot due to small muzzle flash.

Against thinner armored tanks such as PzIV side armor and even early Panther side armor they could penetrate however which prompted the mounting of "Schürzen" (skirts), spaced soft metal sheets on the sides of the tank. This proves that AT rifles were indeed annoying and triggered a reaction.

****
*****

gx-warspite
07-06-2005, 08:46 AM
Pz IIIs always used FHA.

Pz IVs were produced with FHA from late 1941 or early 1942-on. The Russians generally didn't use APC or APCBC ammunition, and since they were the primary threat throughout the war, German tanks were designed to defeat that.

The Tiger didn't use FHA to my best knowledge, and I'm uncertain about the Panther. I've heard speculation that top armor was always FHA but since Germans considered top armor to be protection against primarily artillery, I'm highly skeptical of this.

Blutarski2004
07-06-2005, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by gx-warspite:
&gt; Right, my point is that AT rifles didn't just spam fire at a tank hoping to hit one of those areas. They needed to be in position, on-angle, in-range and targeting the right spot.


..... Obviously. But understand that Tigers in action on the Eastern Fropnt were documented to have suffered upwards of 300 hits by AT rifles. A single hit denting the gun barrel produces a mission kill; a hit on the driver's vision block blinds his view. Perhaps the tank would survive such numerous hits, but the intent was not to kill the tank, which was patently unrealistic to expect with such weapons, simply to hinder or prevent completion of its mission. The Soviets had lots of 14.5mm AT rifles in the field and found ways, within their design limits, to make them useful against heavy tanks

In Korea, it has been reliably docmented that NK and Chinese troops were instructed to fire at the muzzle of American tank guns immediately after they had fired. The intent was to either pass bullets down the barrel and through the open breech into the turret interior, or for the bullet(s) to jam the next round in the bore. It sounds ridiculous at first glance, but it did work on occasion and resulted in an effective mission kill.



&gt; For an aircraft flying at 250mph, this would be quite a feat, especially since even AP rounds (never mind the more common ball ammo, which served most of the war to my best recollection), had worse penetration than dedicated anti-tank rifles.


..... No 50cal round of any sort was likely to penetrate the armor protection of a HEAVY tank. But all tanks had their vulnerabilities. Take a look at the rear deck of a Panther or a Tiger and its engine cooling gratings.

DayGlow
07-06-2005, 11:12 AM
It may not penitrate the armour of the tank, but the wieght of fire from 8x.50cal HMGs can flip it over making it ineffective.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2005, 11:40 AM
I presume you are joking, dayglow!

Hysyde
07-06-2005, 06:34 PM
The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Lewicide
07-06-2005, 11:11 PM
Go for 8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DayGlow
07-08-2005, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I presume you are joking, dayglow! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was writen in the SWOTL manual as part of the 'I was there blurbs' so it has to be true.

telsono
07-08-2005, 11:08 AM
Here are a few of my comments for what they are worth.

If we were able to get credit for an immobolized AFV (armored fighting vehicle) for a "mission" kill instead of a total kill that would be great. As mentioned by others if the AFV was immoboilized by either the tracks or engine disabled or the crew abandoning the vehicle for various methods, the AFV was "hors de combat" which was all that was necessary.

There was also over reporting of kills by the pilots. Not knowing that the group of vehicles they saw through the morning mists were already disabled/destroyed they would be attacked again and again. It was not unusual for a group of AFV's to have been attacked 2 or 3 times from the air when they were knocked out the previous evening by ATG's or other means.

BTW, white phosporus (WP) smoke was lethal in a closed environment. The US forces used a normal chemical smoke as well "willie peter". WP was sometimes used to chase combatants out of buildings as they would cough from the noxious effects of the smoke flumes which normal chemical smoke wouldn't. It stands then that tank crews who are buttoned up were subject to smoke via WP they would abandoned the AFV/tank if the interior was filled with the noxious smoke.

There is also another effect to take into consideration "resonance". The multiple strikes against armor at a single location may cause disharmonic resonance to occur which may send off pieces of armor flying off from the inner face of the armor into the engine and crew compartments. Multiple .50 cal bullets could do this, and there wouldn't be any signs on the outside of the AFV/tank from this damage.