PDA

View Full Version : .50's and P47's and Tiger Tanks...oh my



Hunter82
02-16-2006, 08:19 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

Just saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

lbhskier37
02-16-2006, 08:38 PM
U into S&M aren't you?

Cajun76
02-16-2006, 08:40 PM
3rd time.... this week..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Mods need banning! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

tjaika1910
02-17-2006, 01:35 AM
This is incredible, third time this week only and lots of times last years.

Wouldnt it be nice if some subject where once and for all considered done and overdebated.

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 01:41 AM
I think we need more new smiley's , like a fisherman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Krizz1972
02-17-2006, 03:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Hunter82
02-17-2006, 06:47 AM
me? casting out? never http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif


Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
I think we need more new smiley's , like a fisherman. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bearcat99
02-17-2006, 07:05 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

......................

jds1978
02-17-2006, 07:13 AM
this topic is like herpes...it will never leave http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

way cool color video, though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 07:43 AM
im afraid you can get rid of herpes much much easier

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 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

TX-Zen
02-17-2006, 08:09 AM
As a former tank commander in the US Army I find the thought of the M2 killing tigers completely absurd.

But what cool is how many people think it's possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Krizz1972
02-17-2006, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
As a former tank commander in the US Army I find the thought of the M2 killing tigers completely absurd.

But what cool is how many people think it's possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/chris921/04.jpg

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 08:33 AM
HAHAHAHAHA you know Krizz some people see that as pure propaganda, hahahahahahaha

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

Bet we get some photo's of destroyed tigers

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Just let this topic die in peace

Tator_Totts
02-17-2006, 10:05 AM
P-47 won the war be sure.

Waldo.Pepper
02-17-2006, 10:34 AM
20mm won teh war be sure!

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=144;t=003364 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=003364)

Texan...
02-17-2006, 10:35 AM
Same lame argument. It's not about penetrating the armor. A fragment to the coolant system and an already over-heating Tiger I is immobilized on the side of the road.


http://armchairgeneral.com/images/Bovington/Art41_small.jpg

snafu73
02-17-2006, 10:40 AM
The Schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 501 motif on the front glacis plate of the tank in the vid is a dead giveaway... It was definitely a King Tiger.

You know it.

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 12:17 PM
And again the same bs of getting into the radiator or engine.

You see the armoured part between the in and outtakeon the top of the hull in the pic above??????? underneath that is where the radiator sits
see pic below.
Ow the maze are about 10 cm thick
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/4755_a_1_sm.jpg


Now for the engine, good luck

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/6067-C-4_sm.jpg
regards

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 12:47 PM
How nice. Those aft vents are angled right into the radiator with no obstructions.

And a .50 cal AP can penetrate about 12CM of armor.

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 12:52 PM
I bet you wont recognize 12cm of armoured steel even when you piss on it.
thats 120mm a 76mm sherman canon cant penetrate that.

geess it is realy like herpes this (edit)naugthy word
No obstruction??? lol better take a close look, this radiator is not in place yet, behind it are the fans + plating

SithSpeeder
02-17-2006, 01:12 PM
I think Gib meant 12 mm, not cm. See http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html for an interesting comparison of shell types for the .50 M2. The chart that is second from the end of the page is most interesting.

* _54th_Speeder *

RedDeth
02-17-2006, 01:12 PM
by GOD i am vindicated!!!!

i am the originator of the 50CAL vs TigerTank thread that had about 100 pages on it.

accept no substitute

TX-Zen
02-17-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
How nice. Those aft vents are angled right into the radiator with no obstructions.

And a .50 cal AP can penetrate about 12CM of armor.

Thats at close range against a 0 degree angle. Consider that the attacking fighter will be coming in at an angle which increases relative thickness of the armor, plus decrease in penetration due to muzzle velocity drop off at range.

On a practical level spraying a tank down with 50 cal can and does do plenty of useful damage...possibility of destroying optics, radio mounts, disabling track and worst of all (for the tanker) destruction of externally stowed personal items and equipment.

But to cause a tiger to be destroyed in the classic sense of explosion and fire with the crew being forced to bail out?

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

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
I bet you wont recognize 12cm of armoured steel even when you piss on it.
thats 120mm a 76mm sherman canon cant penetrate that.

geess it is realy like herpes this bs.

No obstruction??? lol better take a close look, this radiator is not in place yet, behind it are the fans , and above them there comes another plate.

So your saying fan blades will stop the bullet once it passes though the openings on the vent? Interesting. Must be some HEFTY fan blades!

Shirman tanks were on the ground firing from a level position. They only had the sides to hit and had no angle for the weaker parts of the tank. On the otherhand a diving aircraft has a good angle at those vents. About a 40 degree angle? How this is that 2nd plate? Diving down and hitting that area with a few hundred rounds, a shell could find its way though that vent easy.

BTW, the Shirmans could penetrate the Tiger, but its back armor. They were not invulnerable, but very difficult too kill. I think an enemy aircraft with .50 cal's could disable a tiger tank if they hit it in the right way. 40 degree dive from the back. Right into those vents and right into the radiator.

ParaB
02-17-2006, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think an enemy aircraft with .50 cal's could disable a tiger tank if they hit it in the right way. 40 degree dive from the back. Right into those vents and right into the radiator.

But they had to switch off their targetting computers and rely on the force to do that. A direct hit would then cause a chain reaction and completely destroy the Death Sta...errr...Tiger.

It's not impossible. If you can bullseye womp rats in your T-16, that is...

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 01:42 PM
did i say sherman couldnt take a tiger out,Not only the rear but also frontal(Firefly) nope , you CLAIMED 50cal can penetrate 12cm (120mm) of armored steel. even the modern ones cant do that,( and i can tell you they are upper class today not as good as the rusian 14.5), but in your imagenation they can.

Ow 12cm is about 4.724inch

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
did i say sherman couldnt take a tiger out,Not only the rear but also frontal(Firefly) nope , you CLAIMED 50cal can penetrate 12cm (120mm) of armored steel. even the modern ones cant do that,( and i can tell you they are upper class today not as good as the rusian 14.5), but in your imagenation they can.

Ow 12cm is about 4.724inch

Excuse me for being American. I ment 12MM of armor.

Viper2005_
02-17-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Excuse me for being American. I ment 12MM of armor.

It's a terrible affliction, but we're caring folk. Take this bell:
http://www.musiccorner.co.uk/images/pp5hbell.gif and ring it whenever you're in public whilst chanting "antiquated" so that the rest of us can take appropriate precautions such as converting everything into feet, inches, pounds, slugs, and Rankine. In time you will appreciate the merits of the S.I., and shortly thereafter you will be cured. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texan...
02-17-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
I bet you wont recognize 12cm of armoured steel even when you piss on it.
thats 120mm a 76mm sherman canon cant penetrate that.

geess it is realy like herpes this bs.

No obstruction??? lol better take a close look, this radiator is not in place yet, behind it are the fans , and above them there comes another plate.


What's with the attitude?

At any rate, you can hope all you want but the fact is that both German tank crews and factory techs deployed measures to protect the vulnerable rear Tiger I deck:

1) During the mid-late run of production Tigers the factory began adding wooden planking over the fuel cells for added protection.

2) Spaced armor that hovered above the deck, added in the field by the crews.

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 02:12 PM
quote" Excuse me for being American. I ment 12MM of armor.""

No problem, im just a Europian.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


My error, i must have been clearer when i mentioned 10cm , i must have used 100mm.

I you wanna take the dam thing out, throw a big molotovcocktail on it, its cheaper and more efficient.

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



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

the end

Jaws2002
02-17-2006, 02:13 PM
Those Sherman crew guys must really lack the imagination.

Why the heck didn't they bounce the shells of the ground into the belly of the tigers is beyond me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 02:22 PM
quote" Posted Fri February 17 2006 12:42
did i say sherman couldnt take a tiger out,Not only the rear but also frontal(Firefly) nope , you CLAIMED 50cal can penetrate 12cm (120mm) of armored steel. even the modern ones cant do that,( and i can tell you they are upper class today not as good as the rusian 14 "

made an language error here.


The normal sherman (76 gun) could take the tiger1 out from the back (all range)and the side (close range). the Firefly had no problems with the 100mm frontal armor.

I thought i had to correct that. lol

the real end

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
quote" Excuse me for being American. I ment 12MM of armor.""

No problem, im just a Europian.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif


My error, i must have been clearer when i mentioned 10cm , i must have used 100mm.

I you wanna take the dam thing out, throw a big molotovcocktail on it, its cheaper and more efficient.

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



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

the end

Or how about shooting the gastank on wheels they needed to travel? Those Tiger takes got about as much MPG as some American SUV's and the Germans simply did not have the supplies!

Also, I studied drafting and liked Metric much more then Imperial. Now I am doing 3D graphics and EVERYTHING is Imperial. So I have lapsed into a stupid state when it comes too measuring stuff.

P.S. I tried converting my 3D stuff too Metric, but I got a lot of crud from my co-workers. They waved big wooden malets at me when they opened up Metric files yelling "Ug, not good! Me no understand 10=1 thing! Must be 12=1!".

telsono
02-17-2006, 03:29 PM
What's the fuel consumption of a Tiger? I believe that a Panther had 6 gallons to the mile. that's alot worse than US SUV's even worse than my old '70 Pontiac Tempest Lemans at 7 to 8 mpg.

CD_kp84yb
02-17-2006, 03:36 PM
in the film you see a gastruck burning, german tanks didnt tow trailers nor other tanks. I only saw the brittish tow gastrailers, not a good idea.

A tiger1 has gastank of
720 liters, it can drive for 80-161km with it depending on the terrain, thats around 9 liter per Km lol 9:1.

No fuel, then its no go. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

chris455
02-17-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
Same lame argument. It's not about penetrating the armor. A fragment to the coolant system and an already over-heating Tiger I is immobilized on the side of the road.

Dream on.

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
Same lame argument. It's not about penetrating the armor. A fragment to the coolant system and an already over-heating Tiger I is immobilized on the side of the road.

Dream on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%. After a hit, I doubt it would have time to get to the side of the road. No. It would be in the middle of the road, be sure!

StellarRat
02-17-2006, 04:46 PM
Yes, with a small hole in the cooling system it would immediately stop, burst into flames and emit plumes of black smoke.

Gibbage1
02-17-2006, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by StellarRat:
Yes, with a small hole in the cooling system it would immediately stop, burst into flames and emit plumes of black smoke.

Ya. Just like an R-2800 in IL2!

Hunter82
02-17-2006, 05:28 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Texan...
02-17-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Texan...:
Same lame argument. It's not about penetrating the armor. A fragment to the coolant system and an already over-heating Tiger I is immobilized on the side of the road.

Dream on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's obvious how little you know about the Tiger I.

"Starting with Fgst.Nr.251075 in April, 1944, wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks, DW to Tiger I
Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle


So I did leave out that the fuel system was also in jeopardy as well as the cooling system. Two ways to disable a Tiger through strafing the rear deck.

NonWonderDog
02-17-2006, 06:32 PM
...with a one in a million shot.

Xiolablu3
02-17-2006, 08:11 PM
Who needs anti tank guns?

Why bother with Hurri IIds? Just fit them with 50cal and spray the tanks.

Why bother with 37mm cannon? Just spray them with 50 cal.

Stupid old HAns Ulrich Rudel, bet he was kicking himself when he realised he could have disabled all those tanks using a fighter with 50 cals rather than humping a big 37mm cannon on a Stuka over to Russia.

Stupid Tempest Pilots using rockets when they should have used the 'Tiger Disabler' 50 cal rounds.

Sure its POSSIBLE that I will have sex with Pamlela Anderson tonight, but its not gonna happen.

SithSpeeder
02-17-2006, 08:55 PM
The point that is trying to be made by Gibbage is that 216 rounds can be thrown at the back of a tank in a 3 second burst (9 rounds per second x 8 guns x 3 second burst = 216 rounds). Let's assume a 10% hit ratio. That's 22 rounds on target.

Diving in on the rear of a tank between 30 and 50 degrees inclination (like when someone dive bombs) is entirely possible. I do it all the time.

Now the radiator with its grill may only comprise 5% of the surface area of the tank from the rear "dive bomber" attack angle?

So spreading the 22 bullets around, that only puts basically one bullet on the radiator.

So what's the chance it'll make it through the grating, based on the size of the holes? Would you settle for 50% chance?

What's the chance that a 50 caliber bullet will blow a hole in the radiator big enough to make it useless. Will you settle for 50% chance?

So 50% of 50% is 25%. So on a 3 second pass, from the rear, maybe a 1 in 4 chance of disabling the tank. No talk here of killing or exploding or causing burning, just disabling.

I know that when my radiators have blown on my cars, it was disabled pretty quick.

Does that seem reasonable?

* _54th_Speeder *

Professor_06
02-17-2006, 09:07 PM
actually need only a piece of bullet fragment or chip of flying armour. Radiators or fuel lines are pretty fragile. German tanker soldiers would bemoan the fragility of their tanks to airstrikes. I've seen it on the HC.

panther3485
02-17-2006, 11:34 PM
Hiya guys!

This again ?????

Gibbage1, Texan..., SithSpeeder and Professor_06 are all pretty much on target here (sorry if I missed anyone who said similar to them).

Watched the vid. Very difficult to make out exactly what the vehicles are (and I'm a fanatical WW2 tank nut who has built and detailed hundreds of AFV models, so I've an eye for the silhouettes and the details).
These particular angles of attack would be less likely to yield the sorts of results that Gibbage and others are talking about.


Anyway, looks like you guys don't need my help for now - you're doing OK (assuming, of course, that this thing is being taken seriously here; something I'm not too sure of!)


Best regards to all,
panther3485

Gibbage1
02-18-2006, 12:01 AM
Heck. We dont even know if the targets ARE Tigers. Too hard to tell. We dont even know if the strafing runs did anything to there targets. Nothing is conclusive.

Im just saying from looking at those vents, I dont see a problem getting a .50 into them at all. When hundreds of bullets are flying, something may find its way in. Those are big vent holes, and they do angle RIGHT into that radiator.

Aaron_GT
02-18-2006, 01:43 AM
Xiolablu3 - this is one of the important arguments against 50 cals killing Tigers being at all likely (although, I suppose, theoretically possible). All nations, including the USAAF in arming their P47s with bombs and rockets, seemed to recognise that machine guns were -unlikely- to be effective. Even then the assessment of 2nd TAF Typhoon attacks (which were among some of the most effective anti armour attacks) was that even rocket attacks were largely ineffective.

In any case best way to disable a Tiger from the air using 50 cals was actually to interdict the truck convoys carrying the fuel.

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by Hunter82:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

Just saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

in video, it seems that tank what was last shot at, had external fuel can with it? (Jerrycan)
or, tank wasnt buttoned up from tower hatched, and it got hit inside tower ricocheting there and hit something good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

in one pass, its seems that there is tigers, but what are the last tanks, even the one which lights up? quite hard to ID from digitally "enchanced" video..

Aaron_GT
02-18-2006, 01:55 AM
When hundreds of bullets are flying, something may find its way in. Those are big vent holes, and they do angle RIGHT into that radiator.

I think it is less likely than you imagine. The grilles -holes- probably represent far less than 5% of the upper surface area of the Tiger. A 2 second burst (200 rounds - and a 2 second burst is about the maximum you'd be able to put anywhere near the target) with 20% overall accuracy onto the top of the tank (optimistic - but 40 rounds on the top of the tank) gives at most 2 rounds likely to hit the holes. And even then some of those may not have the correct position forward-and-back in the grille holes to pass through without hitting the armour. Given the acute angles involved this may well stop the round. This might bring us down to an optimistic 1 round entering the grilles, and then this may not strike anything important.

If you have several passes there is an increased chance of a damaging lucky hit, of course.

In reality a crew under attack might well get out of the tank as whilst the first attack might be with machine guns, the next pass might be with bombs or rockets which had a much better chance of destroying the tank. Making a first pass to clear the AAA from the road before lining up for a rocket or bomb attack would make a lot of sense, especially if coming in as a pair of aircraft, the first to suppress defensive fire, the second to deliver the killing payload.

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 02:04 AM
what is under those grilles? is it clean paper engine, or still bit something called armour/cover against molotov coctails? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Gibbage1
02-18-2006, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
what is under those grilles? is it clean paper engine, or still bit something called armour/cover against molotov coctails? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

How about a soft radiator under those vents?

panther3485
02-18-2006, 03:04 AM
Hiya Aaron_GT

You make some reasonable points about the difficulty of accurately aiming gunfire from a strafing aircraft, against the decking of a Tiger.
However, the proportion of superstructure decking area occupied by those grille openings would be somewhat greater than the figure you have proposed ('far less than 5% of the upper surface of the Tiger') .
Even if you include the turret roof in with the superstructure deck, this is what you get:

Measuring from a scale drawing in one of my books, the overall dimensions of the superstructure deck and turret roof combined (in the drawing) are 82mm x 52mm = 4,264 mm2.

There are four main grilles in the rear superstructure deck, two 'large' ones, (each measuring 12mm x 16mm) and two smaller ones (each measuring 9mm x 16mm).

Since the grilles are designed such that approximately half their surface area is 'hole', we add one of each together:
12mm x 16mm = 192mm2
9mm x 16mm = 144mm2
Therefore the approximate total grille opening area, on the drawing, is 336mm2.

Do the maths and it's somewhere near 8 percent, of the total combined superstructure deck and turret roof area. I haven't included mudguards (which were lower down, not horizontal, don't matter and were often missing anyway) or the glacis plate (also lower down, not horizontal and about the same surface area as two grilles). But I think you get the picture.

In real life, the total area of grille opening would be approximately the same as a smallish sized kitchen window!

There were sufficient instances of all sorts of splash/bullets/splinters/shrapnel etc (re bullets, not specifically .50 cal - even .303 or .30 cal could be harmful) entering the engine compartment through these openings and doing damage.
Although rockets and bombs, and even cannon, were more deadly, the potential threat from MG strafing was still taken quite seriously by the Germans, particularly later in the war when the Allies dominated the skies. [Hence their well documented efforts to minimize its effects.]

Fuel and cooling systems were very vulnerable, repairs often difficult and sometimes impossible under field conditions.
The loss or disablement of even one Panther, Tiger or King Tiger in this way was to be avoided if at all possible.

How many were actually taken out or disabled in that precise way? I would say relatively few but for the Germans, still a few too many!


Best regards,
panther3485

NonWonderDog
02-18-2006, 03:22 AM
I was was under the impression there was something to protect against molotovs in everything from the tiger and panther on. I have no idea what that would amount to, however.

panther3485
02-18-2006, 04:12 AM
Hi there, NonWonderDog,

No, there was no real defence against the 'Molotov Cocktail', at least, not on the tanks themselves. The mixture of burning oil and petrol, dropped on the rear decking, would run down into the engine bay. This had a good chance of starting additional fire in the tank's fuel system, possibly resulting in the total loss of the vehicle.

The degree of vulnerability was high for pretty much all tanks, even higher still for those that were petrol driven, rather than diesel. [All the principal German tank types were petrol driven, contrary to what you might have heard from such sources as the movie 'Patton'.]

The best defence against this was infantry support, clearing buildings and other points of cover and concealment in front of the tanks.
Sending tanks into certain types of environments without such support was very risky, if not downright foolish.


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-18-2006, 04:28 AM
Hello,

Im was so free to look closer at the vents at the picture.

so i took the liberty to put some remarks in the pic.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/explain.jpg

form the back and above

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/5904_b_4.jpg


and the in- and outtake of a panther/tiger2/jagdpanther/jagdtiger

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng1.jpg


http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng7.jpg

have fun with it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

regards

Aaron_GT
02-18-2006, 09:14 AM
Do the maths and it's somewhere near 8 percent

Ah well - I should have done the maths before posting so I stand corrected on the inaccuracy of my estimate! Even so boosting the area of the grilles from 5% (my estimate) to 8 per cent basically means about 3 rounds possibly entering the grilles rather than 2. If you look at the last set of photos that CD_kp84yb posted you see that the grilles are relatively deep in terms of the walls, which means that a 50 cal round at 30 degrees, even if it hits the open area of the grille is unlikely to make it through without hitting the walls, either reducing its velocity, fragmenting it, or whatever.


There were sufficient instances of all sorts of splash/bullets/splinters/shrapnel etc (re bullets, not specifically .50 cal - even .303 or .30 cal could be harmful) entering the engine compartment through these openings and doing damage.

This is very true. I suspect that shrapnel from artillery (the Allied, especially US artillery was feared, and the US order of battle from Corps level downwards contained more artillerymen than infantry in 1944) was more of a worry in terms of engine protection than aircraft. If you look at the reasons for fitting engine deck protection the orders include concerns about artillery shrapnel. With an artillery airburst the shrapnel is also probably likely to be hitting at an oblique angle but there is a chance of an airburst directly overhead meaning the shrapnel (and potentially lots of it) heading downwards straight into the grilles. A direct HE hit on the engine deck would be much less likely than shrapnel, but would ruin your day!

It was not uncommon for Allied troops in Normandy to either call in airstrikes or when moving across open areas to call in artillery strikes that German troops would report as causing the ground to look like boiling water. Patton rightly had a high regard for the US artillerymen as a war winning tool. We all like planes here, but let's here it for the oft-forgotten artillery!

panther3485
02-18-2006, 10:27 AM
Hi again, Aaron_GT

Quote:

"If you look at the last set of photos that CD_kp84yb posted you see that the grilles are relatively deep in terms of the walls, which means that a 50 cal round at 30 degrees, even if it hits the open area of the grille is unlikely to make it through without hitting the walls, either reducing its velocity, fragmenting it, or whatever."

Yes, bearing in mind that the shots show a variety of grille setups from more than one AFV type; however, the principles are essentially the same.

In fact, the grilles were designed to be much deeper than the surrounding deck plate armour, which was relatively thin. Some of the grilles had walls that were angled and curved in certain directions, calculated to somewhat reduce the effects of bullets or shrapnel entering the openings from the 'most likely' angles.

In reality, however, this was of quite limited value, particularly in relation to bullets which, even if they struck the wall of the opening on the way in, generally still retained sufficient energy (fragmented or otherwise), to do serious damage inside the engine compartment. The cooling and fuel systems were very vulnerable to this.

The probability of bullets entering? Obviously this depends greatly on a variety of factors, some of which you have covered already. Certainly, the consideration of risk from various types of artillery, including mortars, was generally paramount. Nevertheless, the Germans regarded the risk from air strafing, especially in the 1944-45 period, as being of significance in its own right.


Best regards,
panther3485

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-18-2006, 10:41 AM
That videos title is horribly misleading, what it actually shows it P-47s haphazardly spraying tracers in the general direction of a dark moving blur and (possibly) hitting it

But in truth, 50s disabled a LOT of Tigers during the war. Not by shooting the tanks, though, but by shooting the transport infrastructure (trucks, locomotives) that were responsible for carrying the tanks and their supplies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-18-2006, 12:46 PM
Hello,

Ok i have examened the movie, and guess what???

Its a convoy that is attacked.

Its dam easy to see.

ok we start with the first scene two tanks on the road, one in the field, lots of tracers but that is it. I doubt if they belong to this convoy, when you watch the ground colours of the field.and no trees besides the road

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot.jpg

Ok next scene
he dives down on a armoured vehicle (tank???) while behind it a petrolcar burns, watch the smoke, its in the right and watch the T-junction, noo damage or fire on the strafed vehicle.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahota.jpg


next scene antoher strafing and this time the vehicle start burning. watch the smoke in the left corner, YUP its the same smoke we saw earlier

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot4.jpg


I tried to get something closer and what do we see?? burning yup a truck or trailer , you can see the shadows of the trees and the convoy.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot2.jpg

Now when you see the first field you see it a totaly differend colour scheme . so i think its a differend convoy.

Have fun. looks like people are fooled

Xiolablu3
02-18-2006, 01:32 PM
If there was anything but a minute chance of this happening then there would have been some defence improvised for it. (such as a metal cover over the radiator)

I have never seen any Tiger with any sort of defense, which lets face it would be very very easy to make. An engineer in the field would have racked something up if it would be needed, like the panels they made and welded on to protect against bazookas.

Has anyone found any quotes from books by German Tankers who say they were attacked by aircraft and their MACHINE GUNS disabled our Tiger?

Bremspropeller
02-18-2006, 01:36 PM
http://artofwar.ru/img/l/lomachinskij_a_a/text_0180/destroyed-m1a1-abrams.jpg

I suppose this Abrams got into the line of fire of a HumVee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

jds1978
02-18-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
Hello,

Ok i have examened the movie, and guess what???

Its a convoy that is attacked.

Its dam easy to see.

ok we start with the first scene two tanks on the road, one in the field, lots of tracers but that is it. I doubt if they belong to this convoy, when you watch the ground colours of the field.and no trees besides the road

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot.jpg

Ok next scene
he dives down on a armoured vehicle (tank???) while behind it a petrolcar burns, watch the smoke, its in the right and watch the T-junction, noo damage or fire on the strafed vehicle.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahota.jpg


next scene antoher strafing and this time the vehicle start burning. watch the smoke in the left corner, YUP its the same smoke we saw earlier

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot4.jpg


I tried to get something closer and what do we see?? burning yup a truck or trailer , you can see the shadows of the trees and the convoy.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/ahot2.jpg

Now when you see the first field you see it a totaly differend colour scheme . so i think its a differend convoy.

Have fun. looks like people are fooled


THANK YOU!

Then again this bit of film was compiled by the Hysteria (History) Channel....i'm sure tonight's line-up will be filled with historically accurate depictions of Yeti's, UFO's, Exorcisms, the Lost City of Atlantis, the Holy Grail, Ghosts.....

For the record: It's more than likely possible to DISABLE a Tiger tank rather than BREW IT UP by concentrating .50 cal fire on it...it would have to hit radio attanae, sighting device, etc

Stafroty
02-18-2006, 07:22 PM
what is burning there? Jerry gas tank? can you go check closer thank you.

panther3485
02-18-2006, 11:11 PM
Hiya, Xiolablu3


Quote 1:
"If there was anything but a minute chance of this happening then there would have been some defence improvised for it. (such as a metal cover over the radiator)"

For the Tiger and Panther (which shared this same general vulnerability), such defences were in fact 'improvised'. For the King Tiger, they were at least seriously considered.


Quote 2:
"I have never seen any Tiger with any sort of defense, which lets face it would be very very easy to make. An engineer in the field would have racked something up if it would be needed, like the panels they made and welded on to protect against bazookas."

In the case of the Tiger, the 'improvised defence' was internal, therefore not visible in photographs.

With the Panther and King Tiger, it was external and, in the case of the Panther at least, photographic evidence exists to show that it was installed on some vehicles late in the war.


Quote 3:
"Has anyone found any quotes from books by German Tankers who say they were attacked by aircraft and their MACHINE GUNS disabled our Tiger?"

My suspicion is that such a specific quote would be very difficult to find for a number of reasons (but this does not show that it never happened).

First, there are very few books written by German tankers and, in particular, by Tiger crews. Such documentation as does exist rarely mentions such specifics.

For a short while after reading your question, I flicked through some of the books in my personal AFV reference library, to examine after-action reports from German Tiger crews and repair personnel, and/or technical evaluations of vehicle improvements and modifications.
There are numerous after-action reports available but when the cause of vehicle loss or disablement is mentioned, you frequently see phrases like "lost through air attack" or "disabled during air attack", but without further details. I'm sure that with more time and reading, I might unearth something a little more satisfactory, however.

In the meantime, I believe there is sufficient evidence to establish at the very least a solid prima-facie case.

Are you familiar with the works of Thomas Jentz and Hilary Doyle (continuing the work of the renown German AFV author, Walter Spielberger)?

Jentz and Doyle have dedicated decades of thorough and intensive research into the composition of their books, which are among the most highly respected and relied upon publications ever produced on this subject. They work almost exclusively from authentic German records and documents, supplemented by their own observations and measurements of surviving vehicles in museums etc.

In 'Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-1945', there is a chronological list of modifications to the Tiger. Among other mods introduced from April 1944, it includes:
"Beginning with Fgst Nr 251075, wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch artillery shell splinters and bullet splash (my emphasis) that came through the cooling air grates on the rear deck."
It should be noted that the fuel system, as well as the cooling system, was extremely vulnerable and there was significant risk if any shrapnel, bullets or bullet splash entered the engine compartment. The fuel system consisted of a number of separate tanks with numerous lines and other components, having well in excess of 100 connections. Even with the most fastidious maintenance, leakage - and the consequent buildup of petrol vapour - was always a problem.

The Panther and King Tiger had much the same problems, using simlar engine/cooling/fuel system arrangements and, like the Tiger, they had large areas of vulnerable grille openings in the engine decks. In Jentz & Doyle's 'Panther Tank - The Quest for Combat Supremacy', they say the following:

"As an expedient to increase protection against strafing aircraft and splinters from artillery shells, steel covers were installed over the air intake and exhaust louvres on the rear deck"
These are illustrated by technical drawing and match the photographs I have seen showing them installed on Panthers. They were usually fabricated from the 5mm thick 'Schurzen' anti-bazooka plates that were used for side protection.

There is also mention of the same modification on King Tigers, in their book 'Germany's Tiger Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production and Modifications', where they state:
"As reported on 28 February 1945, Wa Pruef 6 experimented with a Tiger II (Fgst.Nr 280404) by covering the air intake gratings on the rear deck with thin steel plates to prevent damage to the radiators caused by bullets from strafing aircraft or shell fragments." In this instance, however, it has not been determined how often, if ever, this modification was actually implemented but we can see that it was seriously considered nevertheless.


While the risk from artillery, mortars, shell splinters etc was much the same for most of the war, the risk from strafing aircraft was not. By 1944/45, Allied air superiority was almost total and they could roam about the battle areas pretty much at will. German armoured vehicles could be, and often were, subjected to air attacks at a level and frequency they had rarely experience before. Whilst a single strafing run from a lone aircraft was most unlikely to cause much damage, it was a different matter when there were repeated runs from groups of aircraft. And this could happen several times in the course of a day!

What the above extracts (together with other evidence) do show beyond dispute is that, in the closing stages of the war, the Germans were becoming much more concerned than they had previously been, about the possibility of bullets from strafing aircraft entering these openings.

If and when I find something more specific, I can post it but I think the existing evidence is good enough. You might rate it as a 'minute' chance (and earlier in the war, maybe it was) but it seems patently obvious to me that during the latter part of the war at least, the Germans did not share this view.


Best regards,
panther3485

Gibbage1
02-18-2006, 11:18 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Arms1
02-18-2006, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Hunter82:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

Just saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

the last place i'd want to be is inside that tank, even if the armour wasn't penetrated the shards shearing off the inside of the turret's armour belt wouldnt be pleasant, the oddest thing i have found with this debate is that many assume that the armour needs to be penetrated to knock the vehicle out. all you really need to do is good and rattle the crew and your work is done! 8x.50 will rattle anyone's cage pretty good

Xiolablu3
02-19-2006, 12:15 AM
Thanks for that post, I really dont think its likely but if I find anything on the subject then I will post it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Arms1
02-19-2006, 12:53 AM
AFV on the road in first pass looks to me to be a panther or jagdpanther; these 47's would have done more than one pass on this convoy, we all saw the fuel go up; any naval historian also knows that the splinters caused from a hit penetrating or not will render a turret or battle station inoperable. its almost gauranteed that this AFV is inoperable after this attack.

panther3485
02-19-2006, 02:24 AM
Hiya again, Xiolablu3

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You are of course free to believe whatever you like but I must confess, you are really beginning to lose me.

Since specific mention has been made, in a variety of authenticated German sources, showing clearly that they were sufficently concerned about the risk of strafing from Allied aircraft (as well as from the usual shell fragment hazard) to improvise extra protective measures, why are you not satisfied?

I am an armour enthusiast with the emphasis on 'enthusiastic' - in short, I love my tanks! My love affair with armour has been longer and deeper than with planes so, if I'm gonna be 'biased' or 'take sides', it won't be with the strafers! (I'm free of any such bias in any case.)
Having said that, if there was any available evidence to 'prove' their invulnerability (or, in this case to 'disprove' their vulnerability), then believe me, mate, nobody would be keener than me to find that evidence!

Do you really think I would take a position on this without careful research and evaluation?
(Surprised if you think I would)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Fact is, they were vulnerable in that way. I'd like nothing more than to be proved wrong, but I'm confident I won't be.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But, as I said, believe what you will.


Best regards,
panther3485

Grendel-B
02-19-2006, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by Arms1:
all you really need to do is good and rattle the crew and your work is done! 8x.50 will rattle anyone's cage pretty good

Like a rain on the umbrella.
Mate, reality check. Tanks are made to withstand cannon hits. Machinegun bullets arrive in a stream, not concentrated, not giving any kind of shock to the crew members inside.

Put a thousand kilo bomb next to the tank, and that shock will rattle it allraight. But not a short stream of bullets bouncing off the armor.

CD_kp84yb
02-19-2006, 03:10 AM
The vehicle that you see burning is just a simple fueltruck like this

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/blitzsk1.jpg

A vehicle that was part in this convoy was not shot at but i thought it was a sd.kfz.250

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/sdkfz.jpg

The tank on the road is moving fast( in the beginnin), it has no turret , first impression was jagpanther, but that doesnt match The reardeck is too small. So i think its a STUG III.
whatever it wasnt stopped either it keeps drivin. The pilots missis alot you can see how he shoots in front of the tank, and he manage to get some hits on the side, but the angle is complete wrong to do serious damage.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/stugIII.jpg

The one in the field is not moving, looks like he is covering the other, again alot of misses, you can see brown clouds of dust.

These two tanks/afv dont belong to the convoy you see later in the movie. the fields are completely different. there are no other vehicles also.Another hint is the lightning of the picture, thes sun is different angle you dont see large shadows of the 2 tanks/afv. you cant see shadows at all.

So the movie of the convoy must be taken in with the sun low at the horizon late afternoon. the strafing of the 2 afv's must be midnoon.



Thats all i can make of it

have fun with it

panther3485
02-19-2006, 03:42 AM
Hiya, Arms1


Quote 1:
"the last place i'd want to be is inside that tank, even if the armour wasn't penetrated the shards shearing off the inside of the turret's armour belt wouldnt be pleasant...."

You sound like a naval man! [Sorry, I'm being pedantic I suppose, but none of the German tank turrets had 'armour belts'.]
With respect to Tigers, Panthers, King Tigers, JagdPanthers and JagdTigers, There would be no 'shards' shearing off the inside, at least not with .50 cal gunfire. There generally wasn't, even with hits from much larger calibres than that. This was due not only to the thickness of the armour, but its composition.


Quote 2:
"....the oddest thing i have found with this debate is that many assume that the armour needs to be penetrated to knock the vehicle out. all you really need to do is good and rattle the crew and your work is done! 8x.50 will rattle anyone's cage pretty good"

Sorry, no. In general, the 'many' are in fact assuming correctly. Regarding all rifle/MG ammunition, A/T rifle, cannon shells and most tank guns up to about 75mm or so, against a Tiger, failure to achieve penetration means virtually zero likelihood of serious effects on the crew inside the tank. This holds true even with multiple hits. And in almost all cases, failure to penetrate is highly likely.

Against .50 cal, the Tiger's only truly significant vulnerability is from the abovementioned engine deck grille openings. Otherwise, 8 x .50 or even 18 x .50 will have negligible serious effects against the Tiger.
Somebody else mentioned possible damage to periscope glasses, radio antenna mounts, external stowage etc. That would be about it.


Quote 3:
"...any naval historian also knows that the splinters caused from a hit penetrating or not will render a turret or battle station inoperable. its almost gauranteed that this AFV is inoperable after this attack."

Hits from .50 cal against heavy German armour almost invariably did not cause internal splinters of any sort whatsoever. The effect on such vehicles, (barring previously mentioned lucky entries through openings in the armour) would be negligible . If the vehicle in the video was a heavy German tank (by no means certain, from what I could see), its inoperability as a consequence of .50 cal strikes is very, very far from guaranteed.
Naval data are of little relevance here.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 07:19 AM
"It should be noted that the fuel system, as well as the cooling system, was extremely vulnerable and there was significant risk if any shrapnel, bullets or bullet splash entered the engine compartment. The fuel system consisted of a number of separate tanks with numerous lines and other components, having well in excess of 100 connections. Even with the most fastidious maintenance, leakage - and the consequent buildup of petrol vapour - was always a problem."

***Why its not so big problem with P47 engine when direct hits wiht HMG and Cannons dont cause fire, and there wasnt armor plates around the engine, wasnt it front section which had something for cover the engine?? im airplanes its the different by with the tank engine, what differencies there was so that Jug engine, or whatever engine, was able to take hits from 20mm cannon HE rounds withtout catching in fire, most of the cases??? can someone explain this difference, why Tiger engine behind armor plates which is more than what .50cal can penetrate, still "able" to light in fire more than some aircfraft engines, which dont have any armour around them?? do i need to twist your own knife in your own belly, still more?
Now. we want splinters do do damage to ground targets, which still is secondary option in FLIGHT SIM, than that the aircraft engine hits...***

Its just how much we want to believe in our OWN cause...

Grendel-B
02-19-2006, 07:48 AM
Most of this discussion is fueled by clueless people, who just don't know anything about the subject. Let it go, please. Medium / heavy tanks were NOT destroyed by .50s. End of discussion.

Even more, few tanks were destroyed from aerial attack at all.

British War Office analysis of 233 destroyed Panther tanks in 1944 revealed, that only 14 of those were destroyed by aerial attack. 11 with rockets, 3 with cannons.

During battle of Mortrain 7-10. August RAF and USAAF air forces claimed destruction of 252 German tanks destroyed. Germans only had 177 tanks and tank destroyers in that battle. Of those, 46 were lost. Nine were destroyed by aerial attacks. Seven by rockets, two by bombs.

During the German retreat to Seine, 388 AFVs were destroyed and examined. Of those only 13 were destroyed by aerial attack.

During the battle of Ardennes, of 101 destroyed AFVs only seven was destroyed by aerial attack. Claims were for 90.

During WHOLE Normandy campaign only about 100 tanks were destroyed to Allied air attacks. NONE of those were destroyed by .50s. NONE.

And this number from combination of British and American battlefield studies. No Germans tanks were destroyed by .50s during the battle of Normandy, German retreat or during battle of Ardennes. NONE. See?

If you disagree, find studies that show otherwise. Until that, the British War Office's and American battlefield research team's examinations are better proof than your guesses.

Btw, the supporters of "bouncing bullets to tank's soft underbelly" should check some tank specs to see much thick armor all the medium and heavier AFVs really had on their underside. It's generally so thick, that a .50 bullet wouldn't penetrate it even when fired point blank from 90 degrees...

SnapdLikeAMutha
02-19-2006, 07:54 AM
Come on now Grendel-B, you know as well as I do that the people posting these things wouldn't want to sully their elevated minds with anything a sordid and base as evidence and hard facts! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
02-19-2006, 08:16 AM
Hi there, Stafroty


Quote:
"***Why its not so big problem with P47 engine when direct hits wiht HMG and Cannons dont cause fire, and there wasnt armor plates around the engine, wasnt it front section which had something for cover the engine?? im airplanes its the different by with the tank engine, what differencies there was so that Jug engine, or whatever engine, was able to take hits from 20mm cannon HE rounds withtout catching in fire, most of the cases??? can someone explain this difference, why Tiger engine behind armor plates which is more than what .50cal can penetrate, still "able" to light in fire more than some aircfraft engines, which dont have any armour around them?? do i need to twist your own knife in your own belly, still more?
Now. we want splinters do do damage to ground targets, which still is secondary option in FLIGHT SIM, than that the aircraft engine hits...***
Its just how much we want to believe in our OWN cause..."


I'm not too sure I entirely understand what you're asking, but I'll try my best to explain.
Stated briefly, there is no comparison between the two situations.

First, the radial engine of the P-47 was air-cooled and during flight, there was a constant, high-volume flow of air through the inside of the engine cowling, around the cylinders, exiting mostly via the cowl flaps. There was little chance of a buildup of petrol vapour around the engine itself. If a fuel connection near the engine was leaking a little, the vapours would immediately be swept away.
This was not the case with the Tiger tank, where there was barely sufficient airflow to feed the carburettors and radiators. Even that airflow had to be channeled to certain parts of the engine bay, leaving most of the rest with substantial 'traps', or cavities where petrol and/or petrol vapours could accumulate if there was a leak. A leak could start and the crew would not immediately be aware of it, perhaps not until the next regular maintenance stop.

Second, the P-47's engine and fuel tanks did not share the same compartment. But in the Tiger, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, fuel lines, engine etc were all sharing the same basic compartment. Ventilation was from the top only and relied completely on the fans.

In short, the vulnerability was created by the armoured chamber around the engine, which acted as a trap for petrol vapour. And there were so many lines and connections that the chance of one leaking was fairly high. To attempt to ventilate the entire engine compartment, in such a manner as to adequately and constantly clear all fumes, was not feasible within the paramaters of armour protection that were demanded in the Tiger's design.

In addition, that armoured compartment acted as a trap for any shell fragments or bullets that might enter through the ventilation grilles. Instead of passing right through (as they would generally do when hitting an aircraft), they would ricochet around inside the engine compartment and, still very hot, come to rest inside. There was substantial risk of damage to radiators (which would quickly immobilize the tank) or damage/ignition of the fuel system.

In addition to the possibility of punctured fuel tanks from entry of shell splinters or bullets, the hazard from fuel vapour alone was such that sometimes in the early months of these tanks' deployment (and this happened even more to Panthers), a spontaneous fire could start. This could occur without any hostile action whatsoever and without any damage to the engine! Fire extinguishers were tried but they had to catch the fire early to be effective.

Certain fuel system design improvements, together with rigorous maintenance procedures, dramatically reduced the risk of spontaneous fires, to the point where crews could be confident, but the risk never entirely disappeared. This is another reason why the Germans were so concerned about the entry of bullets/bullet splash and/or shell fragments, into the engine compartment.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-19-2006, 08:28 AM
Hiya, Grendel-B


Great post, thanks for providing that additional info! The figures you mentioned for German tanks destroyed in those actions are, AFAIK, quite correct.

I am not 100 percent in agreement with your conclusions (maybe 95 percent) but our positions are so very close, the difference isn't worth worrying about!!!!!

Any yes, a lot of these guys lack good knowledge of armour, but please, be patient with them!


Thanks again and best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-19-2006, 09:01 AM
Uhm panther the engine, radiator/fans and fueltanks were not in the same compartment in the tiger/panter and their family.
The engine of panther/tiger were in seperated compartment, you can see it in the photo when you scroll to page 3.
the wall is 10 to 15 mm but the fuel lines and coolant tubes(lines) go through that wallyou can see that also.
Now the tiger is an early version, it is at Boyington museum (GB)
here is the photo again and where the guy stand thats where the engine sits

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/4755_a_1_sm.jpg


and a clear picture of a kingtiger (a part of it) dug out of the ground

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/bodenfund_koenigstiger_2.jpg
here you can see where the radiator pipse come into the enginecompartment. its the hole (plate is missin because the tanks has been blown up)

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/bodenfund_koenigstiger_1.jpg


Btw i realy think that the afv on the road is a STUG III or IV i made a probe , its the only one who's shape comes near the one in the movie.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/test.jpg

I know its hard to identify it for 100% but it not a heavy tank i couldn't see a turret and compared to the road( it isnt exactly a highway) 3 to 4 meters its weidth is i guess 2,5 meters


cheers

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:17 AM
First, the radial engine of the P-47 was air-cooled and during flight, there was a constant, high-volume flow of air through the inside of the engine cowling, around the cylinders, exiting mostly via the cowl flaps. There was little chance of a buildup of petrol vapour around the engine itself. If a fuel connection near the engine was leaking a little, the vapours would immediately be swept away.

=======So, how can one make leak on fuel tank, and make it on fire then, on fast moving airplane?, how small leak you think would make 20mm cannon on anything with HE ammo? or how many leaks at around hit zone with fragments of round itself and parts of the plane? with your thinking, airplanes werent ever burning, when they were in air. i remember one pilot account which nicely tells about guns and effectiveness: Saburo Sakai: he gave hundreds of light machinegunhits on the US plane ahead of him, Saburo was wondering, why plane was keeping level flight, he Flew next to plane only to see that plane was full of small holes, and pilot was wounded cause of light arms fire. Sabure again set his plane behind enemy, and shot one shot per cannon, on its engine, causing it to burn and go down, this was because he didnt want to kill the pilot, as he felt sorry for him.=======

This was not the case with the Tiger tank, where there was barely sufficient airflow to feed the carburettors and radiators. Even that airflow had to be channeled to certain parts of the engine bay, leaving most of the rest with substantial 'traps', or cavities where petrol and/or petrol vapours could accumulate if there was a leak.

=======for sure, if you pour gasoline over exhaust pipes of the engine which are HOT, and, if engine block was shot open, there is device makin sparks yes? also, exhaust pipes could shot open, so there would be get the heat for igniting the fuel, as well enought heat for igniting could be get from HEI ammo, the incendiary part, yes?
of course not with your mentality. What else explanations you get for your biased thinking about Jug engine and others, like FW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif========


A leak could start and the crew would not immediately be aware of it, perhaps not until the next regular maintenance stop.


=====if leak is that small, does it really bother? btu sure if its 0n Tiger, its matter life and death, yes?======

Second, the P-47's engine and fuel tanks did not share the same compartment.

======can you define, how is the Fuel transferred to engine? with magic?? what about oil? =======

But in the Tiger, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, fuel lines, engine etc were all sharing the same basic compartment.

=====yes, everything and every part waiting for just that one lucky shot from .50cal what YOU NEED TO GIVE TO IT, it seems========


Ventilation was from the top only and relied completely on the fans.

======does your car engine need fan? when its parked and engine running? what kind of proof is that?========

In short, the vulnerability was created by the armoured chamber around the engine, which acted as a trap for petrol vapour. And there were so many lines and connections that the chance of one leaking was fairly high.

====== i think there was much more connections and lines in Jug engine, as it was radial engine, did the fans of the Tiger, keep all the vapours inside the tank? just for makin it easy for air attackers?, is that the same reason, why Molotov cocktails were so efficient? is that the reason why Finnish army even got factory (alc producing plant) to make molotov cocktails for close range weaponry (actually, they needed to be touchin the tank, for gettin the bottle over engine air takes, this way, shuttin engine cos of no air to keep system running. also, burgning electricity cables to make shorcuts.. what would fire make there, there is witnesses, where there been enemy tank, defenders couldnt make engine stop, so, one of them took Jerry can and pour it on the tank, explosion of jerry can. the pourer flew but was quit ok. Still, fire in engine comppartment isnt treated as kill, even if the fire is from its own gas or from outside.=======

To attempt to ventilate the entire engine compartment, in such a manner as to adequately and constantly clear all fumes, was not feasible within the paramaters of armour protection that were demanded in the Tiger's design.

===Fumes were 100% explosive, and for sure, did explode the tank in bits if there was even spart near the tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif====

In addition, that armoured compartment acted as a trap for any shell fragments or bullets that might enter through the ventilation grilles.

==== have you seen Star wars, the first movie,ever? its like Han Solo and others are trapped in carbage crushin machine, and solo shots one shot with his laser pistol, round goind all around.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif====

Instead of passing right through (as they would generally do when hitting an aircraft)


=======what you mean here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif you mean, you need it to be like in arcanoid, one hit isnt enought, you need to hit same place 3 times, before you get that lego to disappear.... or do you mean, that shots goes throught AC engine without doing anything??
have you ever heard, that "Beliefs move mountains"?======

, they would ricochet around inside the engine compartment and, still very hot, come to rest inside. There was substantial risk of damage to radiators (which would quickly immobilize the tank) or damage/ignition of the fuel system.

====== You sure think, that this same is not possible with Jug, because some of the Jugs, which took hits on them, in some way or other, made them Immune to evertyhing? have you ever thought, that, those cases were still, rather unique things to happen, you havent seen planes which didnt survive, havent you, you can see them only in staticstics, which doesnt tell anything to you=========

In addition to the possibility of punctured fuel tanks from entry of shell splinters or bullets, the hazard from fuel vapour alone was such that sometimes in the early months of these tanks' deployment (and this happened even more to Panthers), a spontaneous fire could start.

=======so, only these tanks had problems of this kind?? other tanks didnt burn because of those reasons?. have you ever seen car, a normal car, which been burnt up just as its been parked its engine shut off? you dont even need power or heat to make that happen. shortcuts did happen, no need to get fuel in it. everything happened adn will happen. Drop your bias from this issue.======

This could occur without any hostile action whatsoever and without any damage to the engine! Fire extinguishers were tried but they had to catch the fire early to be effective.

===== yea, and how it differs to these days?? In Irag, there was M1Abrams hit with Bazooka, in its engine compartment, it caught in fire, crew emptied on it several fire extinquishers, and even poured the water in it, still flames did go out, but just for couple of secs, just to flame up again. ========

Certain fuel system design improvements, together with rigorous maintenance procedures, dramatically reduced the risk of spontaneous fires, to the point where crews could be confident, but the risk never entirely disappeared.

=======can you be confident in airliner when it takes off or lands? you dont have to answer me, only to yourself only. keep in mind that what happens every years, somewhere in world. it still is there, even nowadays, even if we dont want to think or accept it, because it would make us scary about it, right?=======


This is another reason why the Germans were so concerned about the entry of bullets/bullet splash and/or shell fragments, into the engine compartment.

====== were and are Germans only ones worried about this? if are, why are others so stupid not to take it in consideration???======

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hiya, Grendel-B


Great post, thanks for providing that additional info! The figures you mentioned for German tanks destroyed in those actions are, AFAIK, quite correct.

I am not 100 percent in agreement with your conclusions (maybe 95 percent) but our positions are so very close, the difference isn't worth worrying about!!!!!

Any yes, a lot of these guys lack good knowledge of armour, but please, be patient with them!


Thanks again and best regards,
panther3485

========Glad that we have experten here=======

Stafroty
02-19-2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
Uhm panther the engine, radiator/fans and fueltanks were not in the same compartment in the tiger/panter and their family.
The engine of panther/tiger were in seperated compartment, you can see it in the photo when you scroll to page 3.
the wall is 10 to 15 mm but the fuel lines and coolant tubes(lines) go through that wallyou can see that also.
Now the tiger is an early version, it is at Boyington museum (GB)
here is the photo again and where the guy stand thats where the engine sits

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/4755_a_1_sm.jpg


and a clear picture of a kingtiger (a part of it) dug out of the ground

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/bodenfund_koenigstiger_2.jpg
here you can see where the radiator pipse come into the enginecompartment. its the hole (plate is missin because the tanks has been blown up)

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/bodenfund_koenigstiger_1.jpg


Btw i realy think that the afv on the road is a STUG III or IV i made a probe , its the only one who's shape comes near the one in the movie.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/test.jpg

I know its hard to identify it for 100% but it not a heavy tank i couldn't see a turret and compared to the road( it isnt exactly a highway) 3 to 4 meters its weidth is i guess 2,5 meters


cheers


mate, that colour pic where is stug3 is next the place i live at. Finnish Panzer Museum at Parola. Im member of it, as well. just as side note, the panzer quild (panssarikilta) is keepin up that Museum, just as an note, again.

panther3485
02-19-2006, 09:27 AM
Hiya, CD_kp84yb,

Quote:
"Uhm panther the engine, radiator/fans and fueltanks were not in the same compartment in the tiger/panter and their family.
The engine of panther/tiger were in seperated compartment, you can see it in the photo when you scroll to page 3.
the wall is 10 to 15 mm but the fuel lines and coolant tubes(lines) go through that wallyou can see that also.
Now the tiger is an early version, it is at Boyington museum (GB)
here is the photo again and where the guy stand thats where the engine sits"

Er, yeah, sorry CD_kp84yb - I was trying to simplify my explanation to Stafroty and I'm guilty of the cardinal sin of over-simplification here! I'm well aware of the compartment dividers you have mentioned (having built detailed models with full interiors, and I'm currently building a Panther with full interior detail! As you might imagine, this required comprehensively detailed knowledge of interior layouts!

But, speaking in the most basic terms, these AFV's all had three main compartments:

(a) Driving compartment, housing the driver and hull gunner/radio operator
(b) Fighting compartment, with commander, gunner and loader in the turret
(c) Engine compartment, housing engine, fuel system, cooling system etc.

And yes, the driving and fighting compartments were not fully physically separated as such, whereas both were divided from the engine compartment by a bulkhead.

And yes, the engine compartment, in turn, was sub-divided as you have shown. However, I did not feel it was necessary to go into this detail in my explanation to Stafroty (not that he couldn't understand it; just that my post was already long-winded enough).

The essential points that I was trying to get across to him, were so that the important differences between the aircraft situation and the tank situation could be highlighted, without resorting to too much technical detail.

Hope you'll forgive me for trying to keep it simple! Most of these guys have very little knowledge of tanks and I don't think it's a good idea to try to feed them too much information in one sitting! My intentions were good!


Thanks and best regards,
panther3485.

CD_kp84yb
02-19-2006, 09:35 AM
no hard feelings here, but i thought it was handy, you might get the idea that the engine wasnt protected at all, that give people stupid idea's i think.

edit:

have you any info about the russian T34 and its engine bay and radiator, cos im lacking them.

Thanks

panther3485
02-19-2006, 09:47 AM
Hiya, CD_kp84yb

Thanks. I wasn't trying to convey the idea that the engine was unprotected, and I hope that's not the idea anyone got.

My point is simply that the engine compartment generally was a vapour trap, constituting a risk under certain conditions. The entry of stray shell or bullet fragments could damage not only radiators but certain parts of the fuel system. This adds to the risk.

In my explanation to Stafroty, I was merely trying to help him understand the differences, between how certain events would affect a tank differently than an aircraft, due to differences in the way they are built.

Seems he hasn't been helped very much, but I tried, and did so with the best of intentions.

Anyway, thanks again
panther3485.

panther3485
02-19-2006, 10:17 AM
Hiya once more, Stafroty

Please don't take offence. I wasn't intending to insult you or belittle you in any way at all.
Please accept that I was genuinely trying to help you.

My knowledge of tanks generally, and WW2 tanks in particular, has been built up through more than forty years of enthusiastic and intensive study, fuelled by a passionate embrace with the hobby of building scale models.

Over the years, I have built literally hundreds of models, some of which have been sold and many have been on public display. Some models are shells only, others have full interior details, and I frequently have to scratch-build the details myself.

This requires very detailed and in-depth study of my subjects. My personal AFV reference library at home covers a good portion of one of the walls in my study, and the quest for further knowledge continues.

I would hesitate to rate myself as an 'expert', but in most situations I find myself, with most people, the flow of knowledge is generally one way (me to them). Occasionally, I encounter an individual whose knowledge approaches, matches or exceeds my own but this is rare, due mainly, I believe, to the highly specialized nature of the subject matter. Let's face it - not too many people share an enthusiasm for the subject to this extent.

Again, I apologize if I 'aimed too low' or somehow offended you when I answered, but I was having difficulty accurately guaging exactly where you were coming from with your question. Part of your post said:

Quote:
"can someone explain this difference, why Tiger engine behind armor plates which is more than what .50cal can penetrate, still "able" to light in fire more than some aircfraft engines, which dont have any armour around them??"

And I genuinely wanted to help you. I did not want to insult you and I'm very sorry if somehow I did.

But if you don't want me to try to answer any of your questions again, that's fine, please just say so and I won't. I can take a hint and I know when my input is not wanted.


Peace and best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-19-2006, 10:23 AM
Hi again, CD_kp84yb

Just picked up the edit question regarding the T-34. Yes, I have considerable information on the T-34 (one of my favourite tanks!)

Will do a bit of digging and get back to you. In the meantime, it's very late here (01.20 in the morning) and I have to get up for work, so I'm going to bed now.

Will catch you again on this thread later, if it's still there! Otherwise, you are welcome to PM me anytime.


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-19-2006, 10:20 PM
Hello again, Stafroty

Since you have not yet responded to say that you don't want me to answer, what about your post dated Sun February 19 2006 08:17 (bottom of page 4)?

Are you really serious about all this?

Would you like me to respond, or not?

If you are genuine about everything you said in that post, I believe a response would be appropriate, since there appear to be some very serious misunderstandings.

If I do not hear from you, then I think perhaps I should respond anyway, if only for the sake of some others here, who might get the wrong idea.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 02:52 AM
by panther:
"In my explanation to Stafroty, I was merely trying to help him understand the differences, between how certain events would affect a tank differently than an aircraft, due to differences in the way they are built."


yes, because, tanks have armour covering the engines, airplanes dont need that because airstream is protectin them. did i now got your simplified point?

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
no hard feelings here, but i thought it was handy, you might get the idea that the engine wasnt protected at all, that give people stupid idea's i think.

edit:

have you any info about the russian T34 and its engine bay and radiator, cos im lacking them.

Thanks


try to find this book: http://www.panssarimuseo.fi/Myytavat/kirja_punaiset_panssarit_t.jpg
"red panzers" by Pekka Kantakoski, would help you bit with russian tanks. not the bible but by the "expert" of Finnish army about Russian tanks. dont have the ISBN number in hands now. i got that book at different adress, 6km from here and im lazy ***.

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hello again, Stafroty

Since you have not yet responded to say that you don't want me to answer, what about your post dated Sun February 19 2006 08:17 (bottom of page 4)?

Are you really serious about all this?

Would you like me to respond, or not?

If you are genuine about everything you said in that post, I believe a response would be appropriate, since there appear to be some very serious misunderstandings.

If I do not hear from you, then I think perhaps I should respond anyway, if only for the sake of some others here, who might get the wrong idea.


Best regards,
panther3485

Dude, i was sleeping, and i got life to "run" even if im not workin, im not sitting ALL day here, like many would assume http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

yes, why would engine got more damaged by shrapnels than with direct fire? why cannot fuel lines of aircraft be shot more easily than from tank which has armour around engine? you for sure have seen guncam films, where planes are on fire, even if they fly, right?

see my point now? im not saying that there would not be some gasoline/vapours in engine compartment, or oil or other fluids, its just that there would not be huge amounts of them. how well are fuel lines and others protected in tiger? as modeller, you can answer this question too.


sorry if this feels like hit under the belt to you. i just was straight.

panther3485
02-20-2006, 03:38 AM
Hi there, Stafroty

Quote 1:
"....yes, because, tanks have armour covering the engines, airplanes dont need that because airstream is protectin them. did i now got your simplified point?

Well, no, I'm afraid not. I was not saying that the airstream 'protects' the plane, at least not in the way you seem to think I meant it. (I shall explain more in my next post)


Quote 2:
"Dude, i was sleeping, and i got life to "run" even if im not workin, im not sitting ALL day here, like many would assume

yes, why would engine got more damaged by shrapnels than with direct fire? why cannot fuel lines of aircraft be shot more easily than from tank which has armour around engine? you for sure have seen guncam films, where planes are on fire, even if they fly, right?
see my point now? im not saying that there would not be some gasoline/vapours in engine compartment, or oil or other fluids, its just that there would not be huge amounts of them. how well are fuel lines and others protected in tiger? as modeller, you can answer this question too.

sorry if this feels like hit under the belt to you. i just was straight."

I appreciate that you have a life too (I assumed that anyway). I also had to go to sleep, then to work, then to shop etc, before coming home and posting here again. I think we are on opposite sides of the World, so our time schedules would be out of whack anyway!

Yes, it did feel like a 'hit below the belt', and I couldn't understand why. I think the problem has been understanding each other, more than anything else and this is neither your fault nor mine. It just happened.

I've done my best to read your posts and I hope when you see my next post, I'm not too far from what you meant. (I think I understand most of your points and where I am not so sure, I am making my best guess).

I am currently preparing a detailed answer to one of your previous posts, which should be ready soon. I hope this will help us to understand each other better.


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
02-20-2006, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
have you any info about the russian T34 and its engine bay and radiator, cos im lacking them.

Thanks T-34 info http://www.gjames.com.au/chris/index.html

panther3485
02-20-2006, 09:10 AM
Hiya again, Stafroty

Sorry about the delay, but I underestimated just how long it would take me! Here goes:


My Quote 1:
First, the radial engine of the P-47 was air-cooled and during flight, there was a constant, high-volume flow of air through the inside of the engine cowling, around the cylinders, exiting mostly via the cowl flaps. There was little chance of a buildup of petrol vapour around the engine itself. If a fuel connection near the engine was leaking a little, the vapours would immediately be swept away.

Your Answer 1:
€œSo, how can one make leak on fuel tank, and make it on fire then, on fast moving airplane?,€¦. €¦. with your thinking, airplanes werent ever burning, when they were in air€¦..€
My response 1:
You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
I wasn€t stating that fires are unable to start in a moving airstream.
I was merely highlighting the difference in potential for petrol vapours to accumulate in the enclosures around each engine.

In the case of the Tiger (and, for that matter, to a greater or lesser degree, most tanks) the armoured compartment can become a €˜vapour trap€, that allows fuel vapours to accumulate in pockets. This generally could not occur in the area surrounding the engine of a P-47 in flight.

In addition to this, with a more substantial leakage (from whatever cause) in a tank, you can also get puddles of spilt fuel that do not readily drain off. This also would be most unlikely in the enclosure around the P-47€s engine.

Hence, in addition to whatever other hazards there may be, in the case of the tank we also have the distinct possibility of spilled fuel and/or fuel vapours that tend to accumulate, rather than being cleared. This means a more or less constant threat, at least until the cause of the leakage/spillage is found and repaired.


My Quote 2:
This was not the case with the Tiger tank, where there was barely sufficient airflow to feed the carburettors and radiators. Even that airflow had to be channeled to certain parts of the engine bay, leaving most of the rest with substantial 'traps', or cavities where petrol and/or petrol vapours could accumulate if there was a leak.

Your Answer 2:
€œfor sure, if you pour gasoline over exhaust pipes of the engine which are HOT, and, if engine block was shot open, there is device makin sparks yes? also, exhaust pipes could shot open, so there would be get the heat for igniting the fuel, as well enought heat for igniting could be get from HEI ammo, the incendiary part, yes?
of course not with your mentality. What else explanations you get for your biased thinking about Jug engine and others, like FW€

My Response 2:
Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you referring to the potential for fire if the P-47 engine is damaged? If so, I would have to agree with you that this potential does exist, which would also be true of pretty much any engine that suffers a direct hit sufficient to cause the sort of damage you mentioned. But the problem is, this is not really relevant to what I was talking about.

Tank engines obviously have more protection from smaller calibre hits than aircraft engines (on account of the armour compartment surrounding them). However, that is only one of a number of different kinds of risks. In battle, some risks are greater for aircraft than for tanks. Some other risks are greater for tanks than for aircraft. By all means, compare the risk of tank €˜A€ with tanks €˜B€ and €˜C€. Compare the risk of aircraft €˜A€ with aircraft €˜B€ and €˜C€. But comparing risk for an aircraft with risk for a tank is of limited usefulness in this discussion. It is impossible to make an €˜apples for apples€ evaluation if we use these kinds of comparisons.


My Quote 3:
A leak could start and the crew would not immediately be aware of it, perhaps not until the next regular maintenance stop.

Your Answer 3:
€œif leak is that small, does it really bother? btu sure if its 0n Tiger, its matter life and death, yes?€

My Response 3:
First, even smallish leaks could lead to build-up of fuel vapour in the engine compartment area. It doesn€t take long.
Second, I didn€t say that the leaks were always necessarily €˜small€. Sometimes they were more than that and created €˜spill€, not just vapour. After that, it depended on the circumstances, as to how long it would be before a leak was detected. The degree and duration of risk could vary considerably.
Third, I am not trying to say that this problem was exclusive to the Tiger, nor even that it was confined only to German tanks (though the Panther was quite bad to begin with).


My Quote 4:
Second, the P-47's engine and fuel tanks did not share the same compartment.

Your Answer 4:
€œcan you define, how is the Fuel transferred to engine? with magic?? what about oil?€

My Response 4:
How fuel is transferred is one thing. Distance and separation of components is another. As a general rule, fire is more likely to engulf a whole system quickly, when all the various system components are clustered very close together in one main compartment. However, this is another factor and this is where I somewhat over-simplified my previous explanation, in an attempt to be brief. My apologies for that; I shall now clarify this point also.

The rear third (approximately) of the Tiger€s hull was the €˜Engine Compartment€. This in turn, was divided again into essentially three €˜partitions€. .

The central partition housed the engine, along with many of the fuel system€s parts (including feeds for 4 Solex double carburettors), lines, connectors etc. It was not ventilated as such; normally, the only significant intake of air was for the air filters/carburettors and this had armoured covering. [The Tiger had also been designed with a schnorkel attachment point, so the engine could breathe during deep wading, but after the initial production batches this was not used.]

Each of the two side partitions housed fuel tanks, lines etc, together with the radiators, cooling fans and ducting. These partitions were quite well ventilated, in particular via the ducting for the radiators but there was also €˜flow-by€ ventilation over the fuel tanks. The side partitions were relatively open to the air through the grilles above (they had to be, to permit the required cooling air flow). All of this helped considerably to release fumes from the side partitions only , but was of little help if there was any significant amount of spillage from larger leaks or punctures.

Although the partition walls effectively separated the central partition from the two outer partitions, all three contained major parts of the fuel system which, among other things, required openings in the partition walls for hoses etc. If any sort of serious fire started in one partition, and could not quickly be extinguished, it would soon spread to the others and engulf the whole Engine Compartment area.

To answer the question in your later post, apart from the vehicle's external armouring and the partition walls, there was no additional protection for any of these components, at least, not in the basic design of the tank. However, as mentioned in my other posts before, improvised protection was later made for the fuel tanks, which, along with the radiators, were found to be quite vulnerable to damage from bullets/bullet splash/shrapnel entering through the large openings in the ventilation grilles. This didn€t solve the problems altogether, of course, but it did help.


My Quote 5:
But in the Tiger, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, fuel lines, engine etc were all sharing the same basic compartment.

Your Answer 5:
[I] €œyes, everything and every part waiting for just that one lucky shot from .50cal what YOU NEED TO GIVE TO IT, it seems€

My Response 5:
No, not just specifically .50 cal. Anything metal that could fly fast enough, hit hard enough and was small enough to enter those grille openings. The damage might have obvious, immediate effects, but not always. In some cases, it might not be noticed until it was too late (for example, overheating and immobilization of the vehicle at a critical time, due to cooling system damage.)
Sources of such potential damage included various kinds of small arms, MG fire (whether from an aircraft or otherwise), or merely the €˜splash€ from such gunfire. And also, of course, many types of shell splinters and shrapnel. Their kinetic energy, combined with the fact that they were also usually extremely hot, constituted a significant hazard. Fuel could spill from a punctured fuel tank, and ignite. Fuel vapour, or fuel spillage from leaks, could be ignited.


My Quote 6:
Ventilation was from the top only and relied completely on the fans.

Your Answer 6:
€œdoes your car engine need fan? when its parked and engine running? what kind of proof is that?€

My Response 6:
This was only stated to emphasize that ventilation relied on the fans, with air flow both entering and exiting through engine deck grilles. The Tiger€s airflow requirements (more than many other tanks) dictated the size of these openings to be very large. This allowed effective cooling but at the same time, it also meant greater vulnerability vis- -vis air bursts or air attack, given that all grille openings faced squarely upwards and had no cover.


My Quote 7:
In short, the vulnerability was created by the armoured chamber around the engine, which acted as a trap for petrol vapour. And there were so many lines and connections that the chance of one leaking was fairly high.

Your Answer 7:
€œi think there was much more connections and lines in Jug engine, as it was radial engine, did the fans of the Tiger, keep all the vapours inside the tank? just for makin it easy for air attackers?, is that the same reason, why Molotov cocktails were so efficient? is that the reason why Finnish army even got factory (alc producing plant) to make molotov cocktails for close range weaponry (actually, they needed to be touchin the tank, for gettin the bottle over engine air takes, this way, shuttin engine cos of no air to keep system running. also, burgning electricity cables to make shorcuts.. what would fire make there, there is witnesses, where there been enemy tank, defenders couldnt make engine stop, so, one of them took Jerry can and pour it on the tank, explosion of jerry can. the pourer flew but was quit ok. Still, fire in engine comppartment isnt treated as kill, even if the fire is from its own gas or from outside.€

My response 7:
(a) Comparison with the P-47 is not really relevant, for reasons already mentioned above.
(b) The fans would help to clear fumes from the two side partitions of the engine compartment but would have no effect on the central partition. Nevertheless, in the side partitions, fuel spillage could still be started from a splinter or bullet/bullet fragment puncturing a fuel tank/line and a fire could start if the spilled fuel ignited.
(c) Molotov cocktails act in a different way, as flammable liquid that is already burning will enter the openings in the rear deck of the tank.
(d) Fire in the engine compartment, if not extinguished fairly quickly, will result in very serious damage and immobilization, at least. This did not always necessarily lead to total irrecoverable loss (as a number of less extensive burn-outs could be repaired), but often it did. In any case, the tank was, for all intents and purposes, out of action for the duration. Please yourself whether or not you regard this as a €˜kill€.


My Quote 8:
To attempt to ventilate the entire engine compartment, in such a manner as to adequately and constantly clear all fumes, was not feasible within the parameters of armour protection that were demanded in the Tiger's design.

Your Answer 8:
€œFumes were 100% explosive, and for sure, did explode the tank in bits if there was even spart near the tank€

My Response 8:
(a) Explosion from petrol vapour is not always certain (depends partly on mix of air/oxygen with the fumes in a certain range of ratios). Sometimes, you can get an effect that might be described as €˜flash ignition€, without much in the way of a perceptible €˜explosion€ (really, a minor type of €˜explosion€ but when there is less containment). Either way, it€s dangerous and certainly a fire risk, definitely not good for the tank!
(b) Explosions, if confined to the engine compartment area, would generally not €˜explode the tank in bits€. It normally wouldn€t even if APHE shot, from another tank, penetrated the engine compartment and exploded. Often the engine hatch, grilles, and other relatively €˜loose€ parts on the deck would be blown open and/or upwards, releasing the forces of the explosion like a €˜safety valve€ and leaving the main armour shell essentially intact (this wasn€t always the outcome of an engine compartment explosion, but it was the usual one that could be expected in most cases). If the fire burned long enough and hot enough, ammunition within the tank would then cook off, creating more large explosions, but even this sometimes did little more than blow open hatches, loosen the turret from the ring, lift the turret roof etc (occasionally turret blows right off). By this stage, torsion bars would collapse from the extreme heat, lowering the tank noticeably (you can see this effect in some photos of burned-out Tigers and Panthers).

When you see photos of Tigers and Panthers literally €˜blown to bits€ they have usually been subjected to one of the following:

(a) Heavy aerial bombardment/direct hit with large bomb
(b) Heavy artillery bombardment/direct hit with very large shell
(c) Heavy naval bombardment
(d) Placement of large explosive charges inside the vehicle, by the crew, to avoid capture of abandoned vehicle.


My Quote 9:
In addition to the possibility of punctured fuel tanks from entry of shell splinters or bullets, the hazard from fuel vapour alone was such that sometimes in the early months of these tanks' deployment (and this happened more to Panthers), a spontaneous fire could start.

Your Answer 9:
€œso, only these tanks had problems of this kind?? other tanks didnt burn because of those reasons?. have you ever seen car, a normal car, which been burnt up just as its been parked its engine shut off? you dont even need power or heat to make that happen. shortcuts did happen, no need to get fuel in it. everything happened adn will happen. Drop your bias from this issue.€

My Response 9:
No, this has been known to happen with some other tanks. There is no bias. However, the subject of the thread has discussed German tanks generally and the Tiger in particular, so I am focussing on them. [Sure, some other tanks had similar problems but other factors were not always the same.]
Having said that, there were peculiarities associated with the German €˜heavies€ (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger etc) that do rate special mention (we€ve already discussed the design and size of the engine grilles, their positioning on the vehicle etc). There was also, particularly with the Panther, early teething troubles that in a number of cases caused spontaneous fires (but less often with the Tiger).


There was more in your post, but I think I have probably answered enough. I hope this has helped to clear up the main misunderstandings.


I was trying to avoid going to this much detail in the first place, but I took shortcuts and it backfired on me! So, I guess I deserve the fatigue I'm beginning to feel now.


Best regards,
Panther3485

panther3485
02-20-2006, 09:30 AM
Hi, CD_kp84yb


Haven't forgotten your request, but as you can see I have been a tad busy.

Will get back to you as soon as I can.


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-20-2006, 09:51 AM
Well thanks for the links, realy apreciate it, i will try to find the book.

Now i had some spare time so i scanned a cut out of a king tiger, i have scaled it down ALOT, so i hope it wont be to big, had a hard time scanning also hahahaha because of the size, and the putting pieces together.

It give an idea how full a tank was.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/Tiger2.jpg

regards

edit: lol we all work hahaha now thats a **** hobby i know.

luftluuver
02-20-2006, 10:31 AM
Can find all kinds of Tiger info on this site, http://tiger1.info/

OberUberWurst
02-20-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
http://artofwar.ru/img/l/lomachinskij_a_a/text_0180/destroyed-m1a1-abrams.jpg

I suppose this Abrams got into the line of fire of a HumVee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Stafroty
02-20-2006, 12:56 PM
ill answer tomorrow (after some 12 hours from this, if i have time then, im now really tired.¨'

sorry that i was **** head earlier http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

panther3485
02-20-2006, 04:04 PM
Hi, CD_kp84yb

Thanks for posting that pic of the King Tiger. Yes, it does give a good overall impression and the Tiger and Panther were similarly crammed with gear and had the same general layout and distribution of components (with some small differences).

[In the King Tiger, I seem to recall reading that there were 180 connections in the fuel system!!!!!]

My books contain many such illustrations but I have much better and moret 'technical' ones of individual compartments/partitions and their components, both drawings and photos, in some books.

Somebody mentioned in a previous post, how I can scan pictures, then host them, so I can post here. Haven't learned how to do it yet, though. Now it looks as if I'll really have to!


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-20-2006, 04:06 PM
Hi, Stafroty

Thanks, and no worries - we all have our moments.

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

Just posting quick before I go out to work. Looking forward to hearing from you and will check later today.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-21-2006, 03:38 AM
Hiya, CD_kp84yb

luftluuver did provide an interesting link to the T-34 (which I had a quick look at - it does seem to provide a reasonable amount of info).

Was this enough, or would you like more? I can help explain aspects of interior layout, if that would help. Later on down the track, when I work out how to post illustrations, I can do that as well.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-21-2006, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hiya again, Stafroty

Sorry about the delay, but I underestimated just how long it would take me! Here goes:


My Quote 1:
First, the radial engine of the P-47 was air-cooled and during flight, there was a constant, high-volume flow of air through the inside of the engine cowling, around the cylinders, exiting mostly via the cowl flaps. There was little chance of a buildup of petrol vapour around the engine itself. If a fuel connection near the engine was leaking a little, the vapours would immediately be swept away.

Your Answer 1:
€œSo, how can one make leak on fuel tank, and make it on fire then, on fast moving airplane?,€¦. €¦. with your thinking, airplanes werent ever burning, when they were in air€¦..€
My response 1:
You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
I wasn€t stating that fires are unable to start in a moving airstream.
I was merely highlighting the difference in potential for petrol vapours to accumulate in the enclosures around each engine.

In the case of the Tiger (and, for that matter, to a greater or lesser degree, most tanks) the armoured compartment can become a €˜vapour trap€, that allows fuel vapours to accumulate in pockets. This generally could not occur in the area surrounding the engine of a P-47 in flight.

In addition to this, with a more substantial leakage (from whatever cause) in a tank, you can also get puddles of spilt fuel that do not readily drain off. This also would be most unlikely in the enclosure around the P-47€s engine.

Hence, in addition to whatever other hazards there may be, in the case of the tank we also have the distinct possibility of spilled fuel and/or fuel vapours that tend to accumulate, rather than being cleared. This means a more or less constant threat, at least until the cause of the leakage/spillage is found and repaired.



*****i think we understood both of this wrong in the start. i was bringing up the point, that how is P47 engine more capable of dealin damage than tieger tank would be dealing fire.
See, people mostly think, that P47 engine is something more than an engine, even if it had hits on engine and it made it home, same think did happen with other planes. Same thing happened with other planes, that engine hits were enought to bring plane down, anyplane. Those lucky times where Jug pilots survived are there in history, jsut to tell that they were lucky, not because of marketing of that plane(or is it) if you ask the pilots who flew those badly damaged planes themselfs, they would definatly say that they didnt trust the engiene 100% even when under fire. it was engine among other ones. in game some engines take Much more hits than others, just bacause they have bigger HIT POINTS and ARMOUR value. , like Jug, Late US fighters (corsair etc) and FW, and some others. this was the point i was taking here, the cross examine the tiger tank killing mentality (its engine) versus Jug or others.*****

My Quote 2:
This was not the case with the Tiger tank, where there was barely sufficient airflow to feed the carburettors and radiators. Even that airflow had to be channeled to certain parts of the engine bay, leaving most of the rest with substantial 'traps', or cavities where petrol and/or petrol vapours could accumulate if there was a leak.

Your Answer 2:
€œfor sure, if you pour gasoline over exhaust pipes of the engine which are HOT, and, if engine block was shot open, there is device makin sparks yes? also, exhaust pipes could shot open, so there would be get the heat for igniting the fuel, as well enought heat for igniting could be get from HEI ammo, the incendiary part, yes?
of course not with your mentality. What else explanations you get for your biased thinking about Jug engine and others, like FW€

My Response 2:
Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you referring to the potential for fire if the P-47 engine is damaged? If so, I would have to agree with you that this potential does exist, which would also be true of pretty much any engine that suffers a direct hit sufficient to cause the sort of damage you mentioned. But the problem is, this is not really relevant to what I was talking about.

*****it is kinda relevant with this issue, after all. becauce, there is people with this mentality, that their ride cannot be destroyed easily, as there were cases in history, as people was lucky and unlucky. i yet cant understand what kind of engine without armour cover can withstand hit or hits from 20mm HEI, depends of course the hit location, but, oil lines, fuel lines, spark plug cables,, everyting were there, as well as in tank engine, and i think that AC engine has them more tightly packet than tank with some extra room cause of its not so needed high speed character was not so needed as it was with AC:s.
and, you here assume, that tank engines has to leak fuel whatever right fromt he start, but AC engines arent? why are AC:s in top conditition and tanks are not? why not bring them both under same rules. and even beacuse of that, there still is Flight"sim" we play. Use rockets or bombs if you get pissed off because of tigers, like they used to kill them in real*****

Tank engines obviously have more protection from smaller calibre hits than aircraft engines (on account of the armour compartment surrounding them). However, that is only one of a number of different kinds of risks. In battle, some risks are greater for aircraft than for tanks. Some other risks are greater for tanks than for aircraft. By all means, compare the risk of tank €˜A€ with tanks €˜B€ and €˜C€. Compare the risk of aircraft €˜A€ with aircraft €˜B€ and €˜C€. But comparing risk for an aircraft with risk for a tank is of limited usefulness in this discussion. It is impossible to make an €˜apples for apples€ evaluation if we use these kinds of comparisons.

******is the mass what tank engine has to drag along withitself more than the mass what propellor has to drag with grippin the air. this is one risk tanks have bigger than AC:s, its quite soft to make propellor go around when you compare it to tracks, which pulls some +50ton mass all around. I still say, that AC engine is MUCH more ease to be disabled with even light machinegun fire, any of the directions. (well, fuselage(and all what is inside it) covers engine from 6oC shots. there isnt much fragments going at engine, but whole ammo fo anykind, not those light pieces.*******

My Quote 3:
A leak could start and the crew would not immediately be aware of it, perhaps not until the next regular maintenance stop.

Your Answer 3:
€œif leak is that small, does it really bother? btu sure if its 0n Tiger, its matter life and death, yes?€

My Response 3:
First, even smallish leaks could lead to build-up of fuel vapour in the engine compartment area. It doesn€t take long.
Second, I didn€t say that the leaks were always necessarily €˜small€. Sometimes they were more than that and created €˜spill€, not just vapour. After that, it depended on the circumstances, as to how long it would be before a leak was detected. The degree and duration of risk could vary considerably.
Third, I am not trying to say that this problem was exclusive to the Tiger, nor even that it was confined only to German tanks (though the Panther was quite bad to begin with).


*****so tank engines should leak right from the start so you could light up them with .50cal? how about same with shermans and other tanks, as well, 7,92mm machinegun should be able to turn anytank as flaming pit? How much you think those tanks were shot at with light, heavy and even cannon fire during war, you think that no HOT fragment ever fell from the Armor grilles at the engine compartment? Thos tanks, every tank almost were target for any gun there was, just for possibility to lock turret on its place with lucky shot at turret ring.

Some told that Grusader tanks were able to put up on fire, if just round did go over exhaust gases close enought, so, it would mean, that there is vapours of gasoline, unburned in the exhaust gases, id say. tigers and panthers had exhaust pipes in the end of the tanks.******

My Quote 4:
Second, the P-47's engine and fuel tanks did not share the same compartment.

Your Answer 4:
€œcan you define, how is the Fuel transferred to engine? with magic?? what about oil?€

My Response 4:
How fuel is transferred is one thing. Distance and separation of components is another. As a general rule, fire is more likely to engulf a whole system quickly, when all the various system components are clustered very close together in one main compartment. However, this is another factor and this is where I somewhat over-simplified my previous explanation, in an attempt to be brief. My apologies for that; I shall now clarify this point also.

*****doesnt mean anything, there were armour between those compartments, with small holes. now you prefer that gasoline would leak those amounts that it would go through all the holes. How much you want to destroy those Tiger tanks with .50cals? why did they even use or carry bombs, if .50cals were enought? *****

The rear third (approximately) of the Tiger€s hull was the €˜Engine Compartment€. This in turn, was divided again into essentially three €˜partitions€. .


******'
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/4755_a_1_sm.jpg

http://www.matotoys.com/images/big/newitems/LS03256/Smoke%20Tiger%20tank-1.jpg

see first pic, it clearly shows, where is Engine, in the middle of the radiarors, between armoured walls, now, you say, that fragments of what soever were able to go thru grilles, go thru that wall and then ignite the tank. sure. how many holes you see between radiator and engine compartment in upper pic where fragmenst could penetrate the wall. or were .50cals able to fly first 90deg dive thru grilles, then turn 90deg cuver and penetrate that wall between compartments??******


see that photo,

The central partition housed the engine, along with many of the fuel system€s parts (including feeds for 4 Solex double carburettors), lines, connectors etc. It was not ventilated as such; normally, the only significant intake of air was for the air filters/carburettors and this had armoured covering. [The Tiger had also been designed with a schnorkel attachment point, so the engine could breathe during deep wading, but after the initial production batches this was not used.]

*******and?*******

Each of the two side partitions housed fuel tanks, lines etc, together with the radiators, cooling fans and ducting. These partitions were quite well ventilated, in particular via the ducting for the radiators but there was also €˜flow-by€ ventilation over the fuel tanks. The side partitions were relatively open to the air through the grilles above (they had to be, to permit the required cooling air flow). All of this helped considerably to release fumes from the side partitions only , but was of little help if there was any significant amount of spillage from larger leaks or punctures.

*********you really ask one from the million shot in the game, how can you be so sure,that it isnt modelled right now? or, if you talk about real life, we need some report fromt the side which were under attack and only weapons used were .50cals, which also made tanks die.*********


Although the partition walls effectively separated the central partition from the two outer partitions, all three contained major parts of the fuel system which, among other things, required openings in the partition walls for hoses etc. If any sort of serious fire started in one partition, and could not quickly be extinguished, it would soon spread to the others and engulf the whole Engine Compartment area.

******how often have you been witnessin that? or is this in your wish list? i undrstand you to assume and hope alot.*******

To answer the question in your later post, apart from the vehicle's external armouring and the partition walls, there was no additional protection for any of these components, at least, not in the basic design of the tank. However, as mentioned in my other posts before, improvised protection was later made for the fuel tanks, which, along with the radiators, were found to be quite vulnerable to damage from bullets/bullet splash/shrapnel entering through the large openings in the ventilation grilles. This didn€t solve the problems altogether, of course, but it did help.

*****show me P47 or FW, or corsair, anything, which has more protection around its critical parts than does Tiger have. Why dont you whine for better ignition of those items in game, not for tiger? and why only tiger? wasnt Sherman using Gasoline? why you have this BIAS in your destination?********

My Quote 5:
But in the Tiger, fuel tanks, fuel pumps, fuel lines, engine etc were all sharing the same basic compartment.

Your Answer 5:
[I] €œyes, everything and every part waiting for just that one lucky shot from .50cal what YOU NEED TO GIVE TO IT, it seems€

My Response 5:
No, not just specifically .50 cal. Anything metal that could fly fast enough, hit hard enough and was small enough to enter those grille openings. The damage might have obvious, immediate effects, but not always. In some cases, it might not be noticed until it was too late (for example, overheating and immobilization of the vehicle at a critical time, due to cooling system damage.)
Sources of such potential damage included various kinds of small arms, MG fire (whether from an aircraft or otherwise), or merely the €˜splash€ from such gunfire. And also, of course, many types of shell splinters and shrapnel. Their kinetic energy, combined with the fact that they were also usually extremely hot, constituted a significant hazard. Fuel could spill from a punctured fuel tank, and ignite. Fuel vapour, or fuel spillage from leaks, could be ignited.

******If there is holes between walls seperating both sides, it means, that: any round, first hits grilles, then it should hit the floor, then ricoched towars hole and there, it should hit the floor. right? if you want radiator damage, it still doesnt blow up in real, it just makes thermometer cauges show high temps, till cauge starts to show somethign else than liguid temp, that would inform the crew/driver, that there is leak in the radiator system, because of the air attack. Again if you look at the 3 compartment picture, where radiator is lifted on its place, does it look, like that radiator has some armour on its top? didnt they take Air threat in adress when they were plannin tigers?
you have an significant hazard in somewhere else than IN tiger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif******

My Quote 6:
Ventilation was from the top only and relied completely on the fans.

Your Answer 6:
€œdoes your car engine need fan? when its parked and engine running? what kind of proof is that?€

My Response 6:
This was only stated to emphasize that ventilation relied on the fans, with air flow both entering and exiting through engine deck grilles. The Tiger€s airflow requirements (more than many other tanks) dictated the size of these openings to be very large. This allowed effective cooling but at the same time, it also meant greater vulnerability vis- -vis air bursts or air attack, given that all grille openings faced squarely upwards and had no cover.

******is there any tank which ventilation, coolin isnt relief of fans? and it seems, that you can hit the FAN wing, not the fan engine itself.


http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/breda07.jpg tiger

http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/Panther_D31.jpg tiger

http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/koblenzPant8.jpg Panther G

http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/Overloon02.jpg Panther

http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/PanEng1.jpg (http://members.tripod.com/%7Edietmagic/PanEng1.jpg) panther

http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/PanEng7.jpg (http://members.tripod.com/%7Edietmagic/PanEng7.jpg) panther


http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/PanEng7.jpg (http://members.tripod.com/%7Edietmagic/PanEng7.jpg) panther

and, it seems that the holes werent direct thru the grilles, Just like is in Leopard 2 and Abrams tail section, you cant shoot thru them without cannon, they ricoched the rounds at direction where they are no harm. sure, you can shoot thru them with 25mm bushmaster AP ammo (sabot?) as was done in Irag, at least one abrams was disabled by own Bradley fire from rear.

posted panther pics as well, as it would be next in line.
What is diffence of RHa and face hardened steel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif?
********


My Quote 7:
In short, the vulnerability was created by the armoured chamber around the engine, which acted as a trap for petrol vapour. And there were so many lines and connections that the chance of one leaking was fairly high.

Your Answer 7:
€œi think there was much more connections and lines in Jug engine, as it was radial engine, did the fans of the Tiger, keep all the vapours inside the tank? just for makin it easy for air attackers?, is that the same reason, why Molotov cocktails were so efficient? is that the reason why Finnish army even got factory (alc producing plant) to make molotov cocktails for close range weaponry (actually, they needed to be touchin the tank, for gettin the bottle over engine air takes, this way, shuttin engine cos of no air to keep system running. also, burgning electricity cables to make shorcuts.. what would fire make there, there is witnesses, where there been enemy tank, defenders couldnt make engine stop, so, one of them took Jerry can and pour it on the tank, explosion of jerry can. the pourer flew but was quit ok. Still, fire in engine comppartment isnt treated as kill, even if the fire is from its own gas or from outside.€

My response 7:
(a) Comparison with the P-47 is not really relevant, for reasons already mentioned above.

*****you say that Jug/FW/corsair etc hard engines are too hard to take out? *******

(b) The fans would help to clear fumes from the two side partitions of the engine compartment but would have no effect on the central partition. Nevertheless, in the side partitions, fuel spillage could still be started from a splinter or bullet/bullet fragment puncturing a fuel tank/line and a fire could start if the spilled fuel ignited.
(c) Molotov cocktails act in a different way, as flammable liquid that is already burning will enter the openings in the rear deck of the tank.
(d) Fire in the engine compartment, if not extinguished fairly quickly, will result in very serious damage and immobilization, at least. This did not always necessarily lead to total irrecoverable loss (as a number of less extensive burn-outs could be repaired), but often it did. In any case, the tank was, for all intents and purposes, out of action for the duration. Please yourself whether or not you regard this as a €˜kill€.

*****you just still want to kill everything with .50cal? have they tried .50cals against satellites? battleships at least would sink http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif******

******As you notice, i tired with this stupid issue.********


My Quote 8:
To attempt to ventilate the entire engine compartment, in such a manner as to adequately and constantly clear all fumes, was not feasible within the parameters of armour protection that were demanded in the Tiger's design.


Your Answer 8:
€œFumes were 100% explosive, and for sure, did explode the tank in bits if there was even spart near the tank€

My Response 8:
(a) Explosion from petrol vapour is not always certain (depends partly on mix of air/oxygen with the fumes in a certain range of ratios). Sometimes, you can get an effect that might be described as €˜flash ignition€, without much in the way of a perceptible €˜explosion€ (really, a minor type of €˜explosion€ but when there is less containment). Either way, it€s dangerous and certainly a fire risk, definitely not good for the tank!

******Tank would suffer alot if gasoline would bit burn there, you sure know everything about tanks, and still are stucked with one idea. you sound like Buzzaw, abit. I wasnt serious witht the explosion, you know? ive burned my hand making 95 octane fuel "explosions" when was younger http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) did even pour my bare hand with fuel and ignited it. not many sec could keep it still http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (everything gotta be tested mentality) ******

(b) Explosions, if confined to the engine compartment area, would generally not €˜explode the tank in bits€. It normally wouldn€t even if APHE shot, from another tank, penetrated the engine compartment and exploded. Often the engine hatch, grilles, and other relatively €˜loose€ parts on the deck would be blown open and/or upwards, releasing the forces of the explosion like a €˜safety valve€ and leaving the main armour shell essentially intact (this wasn€t always the outcome of an engine compartment explosion, but it was the usual one that could be expected in most cases).

*********small amount of pressure, isnt enought to throw looseparts like Grilles open if its fuel vapours which ignites, they might move upwards, but not flew open.
Even small abount of HE, like in cannon round (APHE) would not be enough for that. (of course, it should be one helluca big APHE round with lots of He stuff in it. you seem to have picture where engine compartment explosion (by what?) made tanks go bits? because of those pictures, or because direct hit of the bomb? or because of the demolition exlosives? where have yuou got the idea that engine compartment would explode like Devil itself? from movies? with your mentality, Car engine should be able to explose as well and torn the car in pieces and pour in flames just when bumber touches other cars bumber******


If the fire burned long enough and hot enough, ammunition within the tank would then cook off, creating more large explosions,

******cookin off means that powder would burn up creating over pressure and high temp in tank. later on, would the HE warheads start to burn, or even explode. You can burn TNT, it would not explode, but, if you even hose it with water, big chansed that it WILL explode. even bit of Ke is enought for it to bang. dunno about detonators of the rounds, they have hexogen or such, which still is placed inside TNT in many times*****


but even this sometimes did little more than blow open hatches, loosen the turret from the ring, lift the turret roof etc (occasionally turret blows right off). By this stage, torsion bars would collapse from the extreme heat, lowering the tank noticeably (you can see this effect in some photos of burned-out Tigers and Panthers).

*****to get turret fly you need to explode the HE stuff itself, like on turret ring hit on T-72 etc, to soften up parts, it needs quite alon time to make it happen, and now you want that happen instant because of small spark you want to go through armour wall? or because already damaged engine/fuel lines leakin fuel for just for you to be able to put em on fire.

What would make those systems to leak fuel so much? how are the lines going at engine, just below grilles?? so those grilled direct ammo on them just to make fuel leak, makin it easy for air attackers to disaple tiger which were in other means almost impossible, before achilles, long barreled (british) sherman...?*******

When you see photos of Tigers and Panthers literally €˜blown to bits€ they have usually been subjected to one of the following:

(a) Heavy aerial bombardment/direct hit with large bomb
(b) Heavy artillery bombardment/direct hit with very large shell
(c) Heavy naval bombardment
(d) Placement of large explosive charges inside the vehicle, by the crew, to avoid capture of abandoned vehicle.

******yes. Or placement of large explosive amounts because they cant kill the crew with any other means, like was with one KV in Finland back in war. it wasnt be able to destroyed with molotov cocktails, engine shut down, crew was inside, alive. they had to put much TNT somewhere over/under that tank to blow it in bits, cos crew didnt surrender, and they were threat to Finns, as guns were working. so, it was blow to pieces, and there was made propaganda picture where ground forces were walkin with panzerfausts on their shoulder, as proving how effective those Fausts were..******

My Quote 9:
In addition to the possibility of punctured fuel tanks from entry of shell splinters or bullets, the hazard from fuel vapour alone was such that sometimes in the early months of these tanks' deployment (and this happened more to Panthers), a spontaneous fire could start.

Your Answer 9:
€œso, only these tanks had problems of this kind?? other tanks didnt burn because of those reasons?. have you ever seen car, a normal car, which been burnt up just as its been parked its engine shut off? you dont even need power or heat to make that happen. shortcuts did happen, no need to get fuel in it. everything happened adn will happen. Drop your bias from this issue.€

My Response 9:
No, this has been known to happen with some other tanks. There is no bias. However, the subject of the thread has discussed German tanks generally and the Tiger in particular, so I am focussing on them. [Sure, some other tanks had similar problems but other factors were not always the same.]
Having said that, there were peculiarities associated with the German €˜heavies€ (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger etc) that do rate special mention (we€ve already discussed the design and size of the engine grilles, their positioning on the vehicle etc). There was also, particularly with the Panther, early teething troubles that in a number of cases caused spontaneous fires (but less often with the Tiger).

****Ever thought it would been marketing of those very same tanks after the war what was used by allies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif have you readed about the abrams which caught in fire in Irag? i bet is didnt go public much, just because of marketing those, its big money there is in them. of course there was problems on tanks, every tank had problems and always are having. you know statictics about Kursk bulge battle? only minority of german tanks were lost because of the Russian fire, but because of the mechanical problems, or mines, no time to fix track as russians were advancing. how many of the russian tanks drove in their own mines, many http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif*****

There was more in your post, but I think I have probably answered enough. I hope this has helped to clear up the main misunderstandings.

****yes, i now understood your points and what you want, even if it is not realistic.****


I was trying to avoid going to this much detail in the first place, but I took shortcuts and it backfired on me! So, I guess I deserve the fatigue I'm beginning to feel now.


Best regards,
Panther3485


****I again was harsh, as usual, my fault, but, this way, i get more action http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) i do not have anything against you, but, i cannot agree on all. i think we should discuss in MSN about these issues******

panther3485
02-21-2006, 07:15 AM
Hello once more, Stafroty


Thank you for your detailed response.

Unfortunately, my optimism regarding a better understanding between us has proven to be unfounded. Far too many of my statements are still being misunderstood.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

You appear to be genuinely trying to get through to me and I have most certainly been trying my very, very hardest to get through to you, but it just isn't working.

If your responses are a true indication of the level of understanding between us, the situation appears to be just about hopeless.
The feedback I got from your last post clearly shows that, not only have most of the previous misunderstandings gone unresolved, there are now even more fresh misunderstandings.

I can only blame myself, because my feeble and miserable efforts to communicate have obviously been totally inadequate. Like most of us, I have had a few awkward moments on occasion. But never before have I failed so badly, when trying to communicate with another person on this forum.

Under normal circumstances, I would respond again, in detail, to each of the previous points that has been misunderstood (which in this case, was most of them) and then I would try to address the fresh point also. However, I am afraid that this would continue to mushroom outwards, as it has already, into an even greater disaster.

To spare us both any further pain and fatigue that would most likely result from more of my feeble and useless efforts, I have decided to quit. I just can't inflict any more of this on you, or on the other people reading this thread, who I am now feeling very sorry for.

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to humbly apologize not only to you, but to all the other poor readers of this thread, who have had to put up with my woefully inadequate posts and abysmally poor communication skills.

All of this failure is, without doubt, entirely my fault and I should never have tried to help you. I deeply regret having done so.


Go in peace, Stafroty.
Live a happy life, and I beg you, please try to forget my pathetic, unworthy utterances.

I promise not to bother you again.


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-21-2006, 09:42 AM
het panther about the hosting or attaching pics.

Here is a short tutorial.

Make an account at

http://www.photobucket.com/

or

http://imageshack.us/

I use photobucket, its dam easy to work with.
Now login to for example photobucket.
Hit create an album (create sub album)

Then hit hit search files ( brew directory for pics) when you have multiple pics ,just hit submit multi . wait a few seconds ,pick the pics you wanto upload. and click submit.

Now when they are uploaded you see (scroll down) the pics.
Click the URL and hit copy (rightmouse button)

Now when you wanna show pics here, just hit reply or new topic.
When you look at the box you see a small thumbnail of a image, click that and a poppup opens, hit paste (right mouse button) and click ok. voila your pic is added. Now the pic is shown were the cursor is
. have fun with it.

Ow i have lots of info bout german tanks lesser bout US and Russian and the rest, japanese "tanks" none to zero, they are lesser in interest for me.

Edit: dam typo's hahaha


regards

panther3485
02-21-2006, 10:40 AM
Thanks, CD_kp84yb

Will check this out tomorrow (bed time again!)


Goodnight and best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-21-2006, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hello once more, Stafroty


Thank you for your detailed response.

Unfortunately, my optimism regarding a better understanding between us has proven to be unfounded. Far too many of my statements are still being misunderstood.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

You appear to be genuinely trying to get through to me and I have most certainly been trying my very, very hardest to get through to you, but it just isn't working.

If your responses are a true indication of the level of understanding between us, the situation appears to be just about hopeless.
The feedback I got from your last post clearly shows that, not only have most of the previous misunderstandings gone unresolved, there are now even more fresh misunderstandings.

I can only blame myself, because my feeble and miserable efforts to communicate have obviously been totally inadequate. Like most of us, I have had a few awkward moments on occasion. But never before have I failed so badly, when trying to communicate with another person on this forum.

Under normal circumstances, I would respond again, in detail, to each of the previous points that has been misunderstood (which in this case, was most of them) and then I would try to address the fresh point also. However, I am afraid that this would continue to mushroom outwards, as it has already, into an even greater disaster.

To spare us both any further pain and fatigue that would most likely result from more of my feeble and useless efforts, I have decided to quit. I just can't inflict any more of this on you, or on the other people reading this thread, who I am now feeling very sorry for.

In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to humbly apologize not only to you, but to all the other poor readers of this thread, who have had to put up with my woefully inadequate posts and abysmally poor communication skills.

All of this failure is, without doubt, entirely my fault and I should never have tried to help you. I deeply regret having done so.


Go in peace, Stafroty.
Live a happy life, and I beg you, please try to forget my pathetic, unworthy utterances.

I promise not to bother you again.


Best regards,
panther3485


gotta say, i understand your points panther, i just mean, that in many of those, you need luck, to have effect, which, game doesnt model http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
and if it would model, ehy wouldnt it model engine problems for aircrafts as well. we had it like that and it wasnt fun to fly some coop missions, as everyone wanted brand new engine. there is some complaints still about the paintshop of the cockpits.. its worn.

and, even if you play it like you are sorry etc, doesnt chance the thing to other side, you know?
if things didnt go like you would have expected, why not call it anymore discussion but fight etc? you sure are man who can stand harsh talking, or are you something else?
this harsh way dont have to hurt your feelings if you dont allow it to, you dont have to take it on to your blame, that way beggin understandment. I know your points and if i proved them wrong (there isnt much holes between engine and radiator spaces, all visible now in those earlier pictures, are covered with somekind of devises which i dont want to start name, as you yourself would know them already.

jds1978
02-21-2006, 04:38 PM
Has the possibility of internal flaking of the armor been discussed yet?

While this would not disable the tank it could definitely kill or maim a crew member or two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bastables
02-21-2006, 04:58 PM
British and American reserch groups investigating the battlefields of nomandy on german tank losses show out of 121 PIV studied only 9 were hit by airweapons of these only 2 were destroyed by aircraft cannon, the other 6 from aircraft rockets.

Of the 40 tigers only one was hit by air weapons.

Panthers, the largest killer was crew abandonment (empty fuel tanks) and self destruction during the retreat 80% of losses in auguest. only 6% of panthers lost were due to air weapons.


The russians deplying 2.3cm cannons, rkts, bombs hollow charger bomblets rated airpower as accounting for only 2 to 5% of german armour losses in 1943. Read Ian Goodersons Allied Fighter bombers vurses Geraman armour in north west europe, myths and realities. He uses operational reserch teams accounts and studies that were carried out on the normandy battlefield. SHEF operational accounts.

Similar reports exist of the increadnbly suprising poorness of air power in general destroying tanks in korea. Aircraft there packing the 50cal wonderweapon and the much more powerful 2cm hisapno suza's just like wwII

NonWonderDog
02-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
Has the possibility of internal flaking of the armor been discussed yet?

While this would not disable the tank it could definitely kill or maim a crew member or two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Spall from the inside of the armor just *won't* happen from 50 caliber ammo. It's impossible.

Tell me, if mere machine gun ammo could kill all the occupants of a tank, why would heavy armor even EXIST? The fact is that Tiger tanks could be reasonably expected to take 60mm rounds to the front armor and survive to return fire. Machine gun rounds would just bounce off.

Spall is a real problem from larger rounds, though. I don't know anything about spall liners in WWII tanks, but they might have *something* there.

crazyivan1970
02-21-2006, 05:00 PM
I think i am going to ban Hunter for this mess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
02-21-2006, 05:37 PM
Bastables, and others, read

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

Texan...
02-21-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If there was anything but a minute chance of this happening then there would have been some defence improvised for it. (such as a metal cover over the radiator)

I have never seen any Tiger with any sort of defense, which lets face it would be very very easy to make. An engineer in the field would have racked something up if it would be needed, like the panels they made and welded on to protect against bazookas.

Has anyone found any quotes from books by German Tankers who say they were attacked by aircraft and their MACHINE GUNS disabled our Tiger?

"Starting with Fgst.Nr.251075 in April, 1944, wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks, DW to Tiger I
Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle

Also:

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

Yes it is a scale model, but rest assured the modeler used combat photos to do his work from, because I've seen them. Can't find them posted on the net and I am in no mood to scour my libray half the evening then scan, post, blah blah. Also, yes it is a late model Jagdpanther. I for one am not all hung up on Tigers only. Be sure that Tigers, Panthers and other kitties could be disabled by aerial M2 Browning fire.

Treetop64
02-21-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
im afraid you can get rid of herpes much much easier

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 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Really!!!

Tell Me!!!

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

Stafroty
02-21-2006, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Texan...:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
If there was anything but a minute chance of this happening then there would have been some defence improvised for it. (such as a metal cover over the radiator)

I have never seen any Tiger with any sort of defense, which lets face it would be very very easy to make. An engineer in the field would have racked something up if it would be needed, like the panels they made and welded on to protect against bazookas.

Has anyone found any quotes from books by German Tankers who say they were attacked by aircraft and their MACHINE GUNS disabled our Tiger?

"Starting with Fgst.Nr.251075 in April, 1944, wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks, DW to Tiger I
Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle

Also:

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

Yes it is a scale model, but rest assured the modeler used combat photos to do his work from, because I've seen them. Can't find them posted on the net and I am in no mood to scour my libray half the evening then scan, post, blah blah. Also, yes it is a late model Jagdpanther. I for one am not all hung up on Tigers only. Be sure that Tigers, Panthers and other kitties could be disabled by aerial M2 Browning fire. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


what if those plates were fitted because of bit begger parts, stuckin between coolin fan blade and armour grille, making Fan to stop, would that be the possible reason, why there was planned to make such plates?

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:28 AM
"The main reason for the poor results of air attack on tanks was lack of suitable armament. Machine guns and cannons had sufficient accuracy, but lacked the power necessary to produce more than superficial damage. Heavy bombs could destroy a tank, but it took a direct hit, which was very difficult to achieve. The vaunted rockets had sufficient penetration capabilities. Trials against captured German Panther tanks showed that the rockets could penetrate the armour except on the front of the tank.5 The accuracy of the rockets was however alarmingly low, even when fired in salvos of eight. At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4 %.6 On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower."

compare to sim, those rockets. Russians were WAY ahead off nowadays rocket accuracy. wonder what kind of rockets they got now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif at least in films, where KA-52 or such fires rockets, the accuracy of those aint the same, not even close.. i think they lost the sharpest edge on that after WW2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

(edit: not saying that german or US rockets would be realistic. they only arch, but thats all, vertical stability is excellent....more than on MK108)

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:

what if those plates were fitted because of bit begger parts, stuckin between coolin fan blade and armour grille, making Fan to stop, would that be the possible reason, why there was planned to make such plates?

Wow. A last desperate attempt. Too bad, it holds no water. In order to stop FOD or Foren Objects, they would simply put a wire mesh in the vents. #1, it allows much more airflow, and #2, its much lighter and cheaper.

You dont use iron plate to keep twigs and stuff out of a vent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng1.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng7.jpg

As you see in the images above, thats what they use too keep FOD out. But that aint gonna do squat for splinters or bullets.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:

what if those plates were fitted because of bit begger parts, stuckin between coolin fan blade and armour grille, making Fan to stop, would that be the possible reason, why there was planned to make such plates?

Wow. A last desperate attempt. Too bad, it holds no water. In order to stop FOD or Foren Objects, they would simply put a wire mesh in the vents. #1, it allows much more airflow, and #2, its much lighter and cheaper.

You dont use iron plate to keep twigs and stuff out of a vent http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng1.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/PanEng7.jpg

As you see in the images above, thats what they use too keep FOD out. But that aint gonna do squat for splinters or bullets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why you assume i am desperate??
why would i be desperate??
What i would lose, if tigers would blow up from first .50cal hit on turrent front in this simulation? would it be the truth after that is modeled? or would it chance the Truth?
is AC disabled when it takes hit on its radiator?

can you show what kind of stuff is inside side on those grilles? what is under them? is there all the important things just below them?
are those grilles like Funnel, directin shrapnels right at the sweet spot?

Why are you so desperate to make something unrealistic while you dont have anything which would prove you. you are leaning on one in a million chance here. no reports show or back up your "claim" (=wish)

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 12:36 AM
http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


read this counter propaganda gib.

hmm.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


read this counter propaganda gib.

hmm.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

YA. As we all know, if its posted on the internet, it must be true!!!! Not.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stafroty:
http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


read this counter propaganda gib.

hmm.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


so, what you say, must be the truth? i know, its truth for you as you cannot recon the situation around you, or in you

YA. As we all know, if its posted on the internet, it must be true!!!! Not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bastables
02-22-2006, 02:17 AM
I think there is a hint of desperation here. People on the evolution of this forum have slipped from 50cal's kill tigers. To 50cals shoot thin deck armour. to 50cal somehow proven unable to penatrate deck armour to bounching deforming 50cal rounds penatrating belly armour that is double the thickness of deck armour.

Now we're reduced to wafferarmentment clearence for units in the field fitting wood or 5mm skirt armour against shell splinters as proof that 50cals were leathel vurses tanks because of low probablitiy rounds rattling around and finding a way to explode radiators and open cooling areas with ducts seprated fuel crew compartment and engine bay.


Ignore allied SHEF studies showing that aircraft were terrible at killing tanks considering the numbers of attacks carried out, the number of planes deployed even vurses panzer and stug battlaions caught in the open traveling to normandy or during offiensive operations.

Now to the field modifcations vurses splinters and aircraft weapons. It's intresting to note that the Panther ausf F (which is in Jentz book) recives none of these modifcations. This is intresting as the mounting of cut up 5mm skirts armour was mearly a clearence to units in the field to carry it out. This modifcation was never standred or factory mounted and unlike other useful mods made to the ausf G was not made standred with the new ausf F chassies.

Also another thing why if 50cal were so effetive that the ausf F only had the forward decking areas up armoured. I'll tell you why: becasue when panthers we're travling down slopes even high incidence strikes by 8,5cm and 7,6cm guns did penatrate the upper decking and turrent deckign armour. Intresting to note engine decking armour remanied the same. Engine decking configuration did not include cut up armour skirts over the airvents or crew heating fan.

Another point of perspective. Zimmerit couting was another field applied mod and carried out by all units until the authorizing order was removed. Compare the sheer avilability of German tanks with zimmerte vurses this skirt reaction to the low incidence of air vent destruction.


Semi circuler rings for camoflage mountings were factory implmented in march 45. 5mm skirt cut ups were never factory standred, the 5mm skirts were instead still mounted to protect the lower hulls. Even the unautorised field modifcation of tracklinks and hull road wheels on turrent or upper side armour are more prevalent.

The unautorised field modifcation of moving the gun cleaning containers from the side to the end of the rear decking was more prevalent than cut up skirt armour.

Texan...
02-22-2006, 03:00 AM
It's mind-blowing how dense some folks are. Some of you are still going on about armor penetration.....wow.

Krizz1972
02-22-2006, 04:12 AM
Be sure that Tigers, Panthers and other kitties could be disabled by aerial M2 Browning fire.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

panther3485
02-22-2006, 05:07 AM
Hello Stafroty,

In my previous post, I said:
"I promise not to bother you again."
I forgot, of course, that there is nothing to prevent you from posting to me.

I could ignore you but that would be rude.
Another choice would be not to return to this thread, but then I would miss out on some interesting stuff that members might be posting.

You seem to think that you understand my points as I meant them to be. If your answers to me were genuine, that is simply not true .
In fact, some of the misunderstandings have been so bad that I had trouble believing they were genuine.

My attempts to fix the problem with further explanation failed badly and in some cases only produced more misunderstandings. This is why I got to the point of despair and simply decided to give up.

Your last post confirms to me that the situation has not improved and appears to be getting worse. The points you seem to believe you have 'proven wrong' are points that I was not making!

The best thing for both of us, I think, is to just let it go, OK?


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
02-22-2006, 05:22 AM
In August of 1944, he moved on to train in the Me109G Gustav. This training included gunnery practice. With a minimum of instrument training, Gottfried was cleared for combat. He and a handful of fellow graduates were assigned to Jagdgeschwader 53 ?Pik As?, stationed near Aachen, Northwest Germany. Their assignment there was to engage the escort fighters of the waves of U.S. B-17?s in order to allow neighboring Focke Wulf 190 units to attack the bombers themselves.
Gottfried was considered a newcomer, referred to by his elder pilots as a ?Haes-chen?, or ?Little Rabbit?. As such, he was assigned to be an observer of tactics. During one of these early missions, the pilot of a British Spitfire took him for easy prey. However, after a 15-minute dogfight, Gottfried disabled the Spit, forcing the pilot to bail out. The English pilot parachuted down near the JG53 base and was taken prisoner. Leutnant Gottfried Dulias and Leftenant Fred Browning had the opportunity to discuss the dogfight and the fliers? life in general. Gottfried commented that he believed that it was the superiority of his plane and not necessarily his skill that earned him this first victory.
John Manrho:
I have never heard of a Gottfried Dulias as a fighter pilot, never heard that somebody wuth that name scored 5 victories and there is i.m.h.o no record showing a loss of a Bf 109 with a pilot of that name. Does anybody has hard evidence or is this a big fake?

Dulias also claimed he shot down some I-16 just before becoming a POW of the Russians.

Kutscha:
In Micheal Maslov's monography he says:

- no I-16s reported in the VVS from early 1944 on the EF
- 1 I-16 in the Northern Fleet airforce as of 1-1-45
- all I-16s (~40) removed from PVO service mid 1944

The only unit operating the I-16 was the 888th IAP in the Far East.

Jochen Prien:
From what I have gathered so far I can only offer my personal and private opinion and that is that I don't believe a word of the "career" of this Leutnant; may be he was with the Luftwaffe and even JG 53 as some part of the ground staff and may be he was a Russian POW but so far I have found no piece of information that would lend any credibility to his story.

Having spoken to many former fighter pilots in my time it strikes me that in his account "Lt." Dulias never mentions any names of his Kommandeur, his Staffelkapit¤n, his Kaczmarek or his close friends. Nor does he become specific about the unit he flew with - I can hardly remember any of the veterans I have spoken with in the past who didn't recall what Staffel he belonged to because the Staffel was their - if I may put it this way - home and family.

Then it strikes me that the locations where he - according to his story - saw combat do not really match with JG 53. No part of JG 53 was ever stationed at Aachen and it would be very odd to name Aachen instead of the Feldflugpl¤tze and Einsatzh¤fen from which III./JG 53 did actually operate during this time. There were other prominent places closer to the respective airfields. North of Budapest doesn't convince me either. If he were with that unit he must have been first with III./JG 53 and later with I./JG 53. I don't know of many pilots who were posted in this direction during this time.

Two Spitfires in the West without any further information - how to comment on that. Three I-16 Ratas in the East in January / February 1945 seems totally unbelieveable and as such was hardly a question of mis-identification; if it were a case of the latter, then other pilots of I./JG 53 would also have claimed Ratas around this time which in fact they didn't. Or were those Ratas reserved for Lt. Dulias ?

So at the end of the day to me it all appears to be a badly pieced together fabricated "combat career" the like of which we have seen before. The reaction of "Leutnant" Dulias not to enter into this dicussion and not to offer any tangible proof for his story doesn't really add to his credibility. But, again, this is just my personal point of view and I would not have any problem to make my excuses to Mr. Dulias if he were able to give appropriate substance to his extraordinary exploits.

Jochen Prien:
fiurther to my recent message I would like to add that during my work on the history of JG 53 I have never come across anybody who mentioned a Lt. Dulias; I have spoken to Hans Ring about him and he too could only state that he had never heard of a German fighter pilot of that name nor that he had any documentary trace that a Lt. Dulias ever claimed to have shot down a British or Russian a/c, be it with JG 53 or any other unit.

from this thread, http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1947&highlight=Gottfried+Dulias

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Dulias is a good story telling.</span>

Just to many holes in his 'history' to believe what he says about shooting down a Spitfire. Besides JG53 was never stationed near Aachen in late 1944.

panther3485
02-22-2006, 05:23 AM
Hello luftluuver,

Thanks for posting that link regarding Allied Air power. I was already familiar with much of its content but there was one potentially important part that made me think.

Until now, I have generally regarded German sources on these matters as being reliable. I have to some extent revised my opinion on this.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hello Stafroty,

In my previous post, I said:
"I promise not to bother you again."
I forgot, of course, that there is nothing to prevent you from posting to me.

I could ignore you but that would be rude.
Another choice would be not to return to this thread, but then I would miss out on some interesting stuff that members might be posting.

You seem to think that you understand my points as I meant them to be. If your answers to me were genuine, that is simply not true .
In fact, some of the misunderstandings have been so bad that I had trouble believing they were genuine.

My attempts to fix the problem with further explanation failed badly and in some cases only produced more misunderstandings. This is why I got to the point of despair and simply decided to give up.

Your last post confirms to me that the situation has not improved and appears to be getting worse. The points you seem to believe you have 'proven wrong' are points that I was not making!

The best thing for both of us, I think, is to just let it go, OK?


Best regards,
panther3485


i still know your wish list. and i know your points. I also understand, that you runned out of "what if" comments. Its just mumbling. If you have some serious information, show it please, not just talking what spit brings to your lips, this is how it is easy to understand and will be understand. What makes you different than what i am? you quit easy, when you meet little resistance, Im not the one you have to persuade, Im one who asks you information what i find is needed. your believing about issues is not same as information, or same as reports made by German tiger crews, about .50cal attack. you can assume alot just because you been readin books, seen pictures and build models. you are not the only one done that, or only one who has formed opinion how things should be.
Be a man and stop cryin like lady as man dont understand what you are saying, explain your thoughts better, so it would be: Without Bias, explain things so those could not be misunderstood, etc etc. Your post rightaway had Bias in them, you just want tigers dead, no matter how.
Makin models and lookin pictures and readin text is theory and forming opinions by them, practice what it was in REAL back then, is different thing.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 08:20 AM
luftlover..

"Kutscha:
In Micheal Maslov's monography he says:

- no I-16s reported in the VVS from early 1944 on the EF
- 1 I-16 in the Northern Fleet airforce as of 1-1-45
- all I-16s (~40) removed from PVO service mid 1944

The only unit operating the I-16 was the 888th IAP in the Far East."

Notice, those are still reports only. What happened to all those I-16.s`? all were shot down`? or scrapped?
what if some squadrons didnt play it "fair game" for their commanders, that they "hid" I-16 from them without listing it in reports?

what if that same I-16 then gets shot down? can they report something to be missing which already "havent been there"?


there is lots of writers and people, on which you lean your trust? what makes others more to be trusted for? How you trust on reports, cant they ever be wrong?

they can, of course. you just dont happen to see anything else, than quotes after quotes, but never see the situation what made those people to form their opinion or reports. you only got peoples word for that, so have i.

panther3485
02-22-2006, 09:08 AM
Stafroty,

The mere fact that you accuse me of having a 'wish list', on its own, is sufficient evidence that you either misunderstand me or are deliberately misrepresenting me.

Also, to accuse me of 'bias' is blatant misrepresentation. No such bias exists, either 'against' the Tiger tank or 'for' the .50 cal - yet you insist on repeating these ideas.

The Tiger is one of my favourite tanks (though the Panther is my outright German favourite) and I have no special regard or affection for the .50 cal! My comments were carefully worded to cover all of the following:
(a) Some small arms fire
(b) Any MG fire (.303, .30 cal, .50 cal or whatever, from an aircraft or not)
(c) Shell splinters, shrapnel etc etc.
NOT JUST .50 CAL!!!! If I haven't been able to get even that simple, basic idea across, what hope is there for anything else?

Added to that, I have never mentioned 'modelling in the game', but somehow you seem to think that's relevant to what I'm talking about. IT ISN'T. For the purpose of this discussion I don't care about modelling in the game!

Many of the things you seem to think I mean are not what I stated. Added to that, you seem to attribute motives and intentions that simply do not exist .

I am not quitting for having met 'little resistance', I am quitting because you have chronically and repeatedly either misunderstood, misrepresented, distorted or unreasonably extended from my statements. And it looks as if you would continue to do so, no matter what. Why should other members of this forum, who want to read the thread, be subjected to any more of this?

As for 'explaining my thoughts better', I have tried my very best to do that, but my best has been proven inadequate. Even though I previously accepted full responsibility for the communication failure, and have apologized, this is still not good enough for you!!!!!

Any further communication between the two of us, on this subject, seems certain to be completely without value for either of us! It is a waste of your time and mine!

Do yourself, and especially the long-suffering readers of this thread, a big favour and LET IT GO!!!!!


panther3485

NonWonderDog
02-22-2006, 10:36 AM
All right now, some tank crews were apparently afraid enough of shell fragments or bullets or hailstones or whatever to mount planks above the radiator openings. What does this silliness have to do with anything?

Doesn't it seem logical that if these covers didn't work, they would have just mounted bigger ones? If they were actually afraid of 50 cal ammo, couldn't they have *easily* mounted a 3/4 inch steel plate over the grates, thus COMPLETELY protecting the radiator system from aircraft machineguns?

Yet this was never done. Even if something was mounted over the radiators, can't we assume that the tanks in the game have this modification? Is that too much of a stretch?

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Stafroty,

The mere fact that you accuse me of having a 'wish list', on its own, is sufficient evidence that you either misunderstand me or are deliberately misrepresenting me.

****You fail to see that, i know, its damn hard to see it in "myself"******

Also, to accuse me of 'bias' is blatant misrepresentation. No such bias exists, either 'against' the Tiger tank or 'for' the .50 cal - yet you insist on repeating these ideas.

******why it isnt then against all tanks then? why only against tiger? why should not every tank be the same? thats Bias enought for one day. You yourself were talkin about Tigers and .50cals yourself. now, you deny it.******

The Tiger is one of my favourite tanks (though the Panther is my outright German favourite) and I have no special regard or affection for the .50 cal! My comments were carefully worded to cover all of the following:
(a) Some small arms fire
(b) Any MG fire (.303, .30 cal, .50 cal or whatever, from an aircraft or not)
(c) Shell splinters, shrapnel etc etc.
NOT JUST .50 CAL!!!! If I haven't been able to get even that simple, basic idea across, what hope is there for anything else?

**** so, airburst artillery rounds are the key of the this day, was it that reason, why there were such in back in history? how big chances you think there is to light up tanks gasoline/vapours which for sure are in gaps where air never changes. if there would be such planes, would it mean, flames would as well die because there would be no air for it to burn. i see your need here****

Added to that, I have never mentioned 'modelling in the game', but somehow you seem to think that's relevant to what I'm talking about. IT ISN'T. For the purpose of this discussion I don't care about modelling in the game!

****you been witnessing tiger tanks, and other tanks in action? how easy they would ignite on fire? you only have your assumes. which is fuel fumes ignition temperature? how hot you think those fragments would become?? at after 600´C there starts to show some red glow when its completelly dark.*****

Many of the things you seem to think I mean are not what I stated. Added to that, you seem to attribute motives and intentions that simply do not exist .

****you dont have motives? so why are you then posting here?****

I am not quitting for having met 'little resistance', I am quitting because you have chronically and repeatedly either misunderstood, misrepresented, distorted or unreasonably extended from my statements. And it looks as if you would continue to do so, no matter what. Why should other members of this forum, who want to read the thread, be subjected to any more of this?

****you sound like spoiled kid who dont get his mind throught right away. you blame it all on the others, because they dont understand your way of thinking. its always others fault,not yours. you hope that everyone thinks like you, what makes others think that maybe you are wrong, and they are not? you still dont have any more info on the issue, you started to cry rightaway when met some opposition. no matter if you tried to "say it nicely" (=brainwash with snake talks, gentle way, still speakin rubbish), now, you arent anymore nice here.****

As for 'explaining my thoughts better', I have tried my very best to do that, but my best has been proven inadequate. Even though I previously accepted full responsibility for the communication failure, and have apologized, this is still not good enough for you!!!!!

*****maybe you just dont wits to it then?? you get angry as you run out of understandment? dont worry, its normal reaction, thats how mind protects itself. if one apologize, does that mean, that opposition should be shut up and swallow all what cry baby says?*****

Any further communication between the two of us, on this subject, seems certain to be completely without value for either of us! It is a waste of your time and mine!

*****sure if you say it so, you lock things here up because of your anger*****

Do yourself, and especially the long-suffering readers of this thread, a big favour and LET IT GO!!!!!

*****you try to make me feel quilty just because you dont have much guts/brains to explain things any better? why cant you make it, if you see it as the best solution there is? isnt it better, thta anyone does what they see to be best for them?****


panther3485


if i apologize, does it make me speak truth ??? or does it make lies to be easier to be believed as truth? does it enchance the emotions of the people about the issue, makin them feel quilty about themselfs??

luftluuver
02-22-2006, 11:23 AM
So, you are calling Micheal Maslov a liar? Your suposition is absurb. Why don't you ask Christer Bergstrom who writes the Black Cross Red Star series of books.

How many other claims for I-16s were there in 1945?

Strange that none of the respected writers can find no mention of this LW ace, G Dulias, in unit histories. Neither is there a claim of 2 Spitfires by this LW ace, G Dulias, in Tony Wood's LW claim lists.

Btw, II. and III./JG53 were stationed miles away from Aachen when G Dulias claimed his 2 Spitfires. You would think this LW ace would remember places like Eindoven, Darnstadt, Bad Lippspinge, Sachau and Paderborn.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
So, you are calling Micheal Maslov a liar? Your suposition is absurb. Why don't you ask Christer Bergstrom who writes the Black Cross Red Star series of books.

****did i call them liar? did you rightaway step on your toes?
its just how much weight you give for their opinions and report diggin, you seem to think there cant be errors of anykind?*****

How many other claims for I-16s were there in 1945?

***how the h*ll i would know, do not trust the books so much, or claims or anything. it doesnt even matter, after all what something or someone says/claims/lies*****


Strange that none of the respected writers can find no mention of this LW ace, G Dulias, in unit histories. Neither is there a claim of 2 Spitfires by this LW ace, G Dulias, in Tony Wood's LW claim lists.

****its Up To You, who you see respected.
If Writer writes in book something which is against your way of believing how things were, you dont respect him right?****

Btw, II. and III./JG53 were stationed miles away from Aachen when G Dulias claimed his 2 Spitfires. You would think this LW ace would remember places like Eindoven, Darnstadt, Bad Lippspinge, Sachau and Paderborn.

****Well, at least he has Much more bigger oppoturnities to have been in there than you. Its your word against his. its all the same what there happened, as we already have the results in our hands. you just dont have problems because you believe in someones else words than his.*****

Platypus_1.JaVA
02-22-2006, 12:45 PM
I always enjoy a good fight between people about a subject that is of absolutely no concern to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif For the reasons of pure personal entertainment, I would not like to disturb these people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

However, I would like to add some to the discussion. Might it be possible that ALL tracked vehicles wich where German where called tigers? Tiger is a widespread and familiar name. And recognizing tanks from an aircraft might be pretty hard. Recognizing a type of vehicle is very complicated when you are thundering down from 3000 feet with 500 or 600 km/h. Have you ever flown a small aircraft and looked down? Did you see all the cars? could YOU tell wich car was wich? I did not. And there wasn't even anyone trying to kill me too.

Simply said, "Tiger" might be a name for German tanks or even German tracked vehicles. Including vehicles wich where easier to take out.

luftluuver
02-22-2006, 01:59 PM
Stafroty: The only one that is full of it is you, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">TROLL</span>.

The biggest 'story' teller is this LW ace, G Dalias. His story is so full of holes that the all the navies of WW2 could sail through those holes without scrapping any paint.

HayateAce
02-22-2006, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
All right now, some tank crews were apparently afraid enough of shell fragments or bullets or hailstones or whatever to mount planks above the radiator openings. What does this silliness have to do with anything?

Doesn't it seem logical that if these covers didn't work, they would have just mounted bigger ones? If they were actually afraid of 50 cal ammo, couldn't they have *easily* mounted a 3/4 inch steel plate over the grates, thus COMPLETELY protecting the radiator system from aircraft machineguns?

Yet this was never done. Even if something was mounted over the radiators, can't we assume that the tanks in the game have this modification? Is that too much of a stretch?

Wow, you're really just banging around on your keyboard, aren't ya?

Good luck with that.

http://home.houston.rr.com/epasveer/TypingMonkeyLarge.jpg

Grendel-B
02-22-2006, 02:43 PM
panther3485,
Btw, Just would like to let you know that I appreciate your input here, and your willingness to see things in an intelligent way. Not enough of those in any forum. Looking forward if you have any further interesting comments.

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Doesn't it seem logical that if these covers didn't work, they would have just mounted bigger ones? If they were actually afraid of 50 cal ammo, couldn't they have *easily* mounted a 3/4 inch steel plate over the grates, thus COMPLETELY protecting the radiator system from aircraft machineguns?


Those tanks had BIG engines, and needed a LOT of air to cool them. They simply could not compleatly cover the grates with plate!!! The tank would overheat VERY quickly and be useless. Its that simple.

Copperhead310th
02-22-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
As a former tank commander in the US Army I find the thought of the M2 killing tigers completely absurd.

But what cool is how many people think it's possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Dam Zen how much more PROOF do you guys need?
i'm shocked really. "As a former tank commander in the US Army" i would expect you to know better. Here we have:

1. A WWII VERTERAN P-47 Pilot providing the audio & describing in detail how they would straif tiger tanks & <span class="ev_code_RED">DESTROY</span>them in combat using the 8browning m2 .50 cals on the jug.

2. Actual vintage wwII guncam footage (IN COLOR EVEN) showing exactly what the WWII Thunderbolt Pilot is describing in the audio.

Honestly you guys can NOT still cling to the falsehood of tigers with stadning a P-47 attack
under the face of such overwhelming eveidence.
to do so would be pure stupidity. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

you canall raise these now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
P-47 vs Tiger Tank = P-47 Wins. lol.

NonWonderDog
02-22-2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Doesn't it seem logical that if these covers didn't work, they would have just mounted bigger ones? If they were actually afraid of 50 cal ammo, couldn't they have *easily* mounted a 3/4 inch steel plate over the grates, thus COMPLETELY protecting the radiator system from aircraft machineguns?


Those tanks had BIG engines, and needed a LOT of air to cool them. They simply could not compleatly cover the grates with plate!!! The tank would overheat VERY quickly and be useless. Its that simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Come on. There is no difference between a 1/16" plate and a 3/4" plate in terms of airflow. Both are impermeable.

The argument that tank crews were forced to mount plates above the radiators in order to protect from guns, and were thus vulnerable to guns, just does not make any sense from any perspective.

If the plates worked, end of story. If the plates didn't work, there was nothing to prevent them from mounting thicker plates that would work. If the plates were rare, it's probably because there was no real need for them. In any case it's no argument for making tiger tanks vulnerable to machineguns in the sim.

Or would the bullets now ricochet off the rear deck, off the plate, and into the radiator with enough energy to destroy the engine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
02-22-2006, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Or would the bullets now ricochet off the rear deck, off the plate, and into the radiator with enough energy to destroy the engine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You dont need to pearce armor and get into the engine bay to knock out a tank. Like I said earlier, those open grates lead directly into the radiator. Those are not armored AT ALL!!! One hit. One bullet, getting into there and the tank is useless till they can get a repair crew in to fix it.

Thats what those plates are for. To keep a bullet or splinter from entering that grate. The plate may not prevent all the damage, but it will help.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
As a former tank commander in the US Army I find the thought of the M2 killing tigers completely absurd.

But what cool is how many people think it's possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Dam Zen how much more PROOF do you guys need?
i'm shocked really. "As a former tank commander in the US Army" i would expect you to know better. Here we have:

1. A WWII VERTERAN P-47 Pilot providing the audio & describing in detail how they would straif tiger tanks & <span class="ev_code_RED">DESTROY</span>them in combat using the 8browning m2 .50 cals on the jug.

2. Actual vintage wwII guncam footage (IN COLOR EVEN) showing exactly what the WWII Thunderbolt Pilot is describing in the audio.

Honestly you guys can NOT still cling to the falsehood of tigers with stadning a P-47 attack
under the face of such overwhelming eveidence.
to do so would be pure stupidity. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

you canall raise these now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
P-47 vs Tiger Tank = P-47 Wins. lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


what you see there burning? i see the fire comes from middle of something, cant reckon from what, from open turret? from Jerrycan on side of the turret? or is it just Decay fire jsut for those cases to get enemy stop firing? all you got is audio from pilot who werent so slow and didnt have so much time to inspect more close what took out the tank.

Stafroty
02-22-2006, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Or would the bullets now ricochet off the rear deck, off the plate, and into the radiator with enough energy to destroy the engine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You dont need to pearce armor and get into the engine bay to knock out a tank. Like I said earlier, those open grates lead directly into the radiator. Those are not armored AT ALL!!! One hit. One bullet, getting into there and the tank is useless till they can get a repair crew in to fix it.

Thats what those plates are for. To keep a bullet or splinter from entering that grate. The plate may not prevent all the damage, but it will help. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

from some pics, you are able to see, that those holes on Grilles Doesnt direct the bullets and splinters at direction of radiator, there is angles on them which arent there for no purpose,if you care to look at them.

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 12:50 AM
a good read:

good read is: http://www.netstoreusa.com/hjbooks/071/0714650528.shtml

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:

from some pics, you are able to see, that those holes on Grilles Doesnt direct the bullets and splinters at direction of radiator, there is angles on them which arent there for no purpose,if you care to look at them.

Your wrong.

The back exhaust vents are angled at about a 40 degree angle to the back. A strafing aircraft hitting from the back would have a direct rought into the radiator. Even higher or lower angles, a bullet entering that vent would be directed into the radiator.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/explain.jpg

Look at the aft vents. Clearly the vent is angled RIGHT INTO the radiator.

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 01:34 AM
Let me put it simply, for the simple minded people. Like Stafroty.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/vents.jpg

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 04:37 AM
so, how can you ignite radiator fluids?

is there anything under Grilles than radiator?

all i can see is open back, or closed back , but nothing what shows the grille design (yes im bone head)

but, now you have some point in here. next is to prove, how it differs to other tanks? or are they all the same? or is the tiger the only one who can have its radiator hurt?
Still there is question for some to answer, is there clean radiator under the grille? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

NonWonderDog
02-23-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Let me put it simply, for the simple minded people. Like Stafroty.

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/vents.jpg

Heh! You've got a better chance at hitting the lottery.

OldMan____
02-23-2006, 07:06 AM
Lol! Do you guys really beleive is that easy to make ahit on these tiny spaces? LOOOLL.


I could make the calculation, but won´t even take the time for that. Just try to measure the amount of milliseconds that a strafing P47 would be in correct angle to do that. The comapre to rate of fire of guns and you will see that the chance of making it is as small as you can ever concieve.

Aaron_GT
02-23-2006, 07:10 AM
Gibbage, those require a really steep dive angle. Most strafing is from a much shallower angle. If you draw lines on the diagram at shallow angles the chances of a clean bounce through are much smaller.

panther3485
02-23-2006, 07:33 AM
Hiya, Grendel-B

Quote:

"panther3485,
Btw, Just would like to let you know that I appreciate your input here, and your willingness to see things in an intelligent way. Not enough of those in any forum. Looking forward if you have any further interesting comments."

Thanks very much for the support, I do appreciate that very much. I'm sure most members here can 'tell the difference', if you know what I mean.

I've been a member of this forum for a few years now and I think it's fair to say I find almost everyone friendly and agreeable, regardless of their views on any subject. I've helped a few people out now and again but perhaps most important, I have also learned quite a lot as well.

There is always more to be discovered!


Thanks again and best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 09:09 AM
Gibbage1, i was just thinkin, that what is that armour lookin thing on the upper rear part of the radiator, which are on the rear side of it where is the attacments for incoming and outcoming fluids, is that the armour plate covering the radiator trellis?

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/4755_a_1_sm.jpg

Then next question is, that is the radiator just on the way where the Grills on the read would show in your pic they are?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/vents.jpg

if there is slanting armour plate over the radiator, it would bounce the ammunition, or, if its level, like most of the tigers main armors are, is it how thick? like in car?
if there is radiator for war usage tank, would it be wise to make it as easy to destroy like in airplanes/cars? or would they think about covering it somehow? wouldnt it be the same if there would be no grills at all then?

is the radiator right at the direction where the rear part grille holes are pointing at? or are they pointing Over the radiator at front section? i think yes as the first pic doesnt accuratelly tell how high that radiator is from the bottom.

panther3485
02-23-2006, 09:19 AM
Hello OldMan_, Aaron_GT and others who may be interested


The drawing offered by Gibbage1 was helpful, in so much as it shows some of the possible angles of entry into the engine deck grating, together with an approximate idea of the positioning of the radiator.

But don't get too carried away with your impressions of what you see. Important detail here: It is not to scale .

It is important to note the size of the openings themselves. In relation to even a .50 cal bullet, they were considerably larger than the drawing suggests.

If you make the mistake of taking this as being to scale, even if you assume the bullets shown in the drawing are .50's, then this would make the grille openings about 25mm (one inch) wide!
Even a superficial examination of the grille openings shows they were much larger than that.

Measuring from an accurate scale model (sorry, no real Tiger!) they seem to have been about 60-70mm (2.4-2.75 inches) from front to rear. That's five or so times the width of your .50.
They were also between approx 160-190mm (6.3-7.5 inches) from side to side.

These openings were grouped tightly together, with separations (ribs, framework, whatever you want to call it) roughly around 20-25mm. Each front grille had more than thirty such tightly clustered openings, each rear grille 25 or so.

Also, there has been much focus on the radiators (yes, they are vulnerable) but little on the fuel tanks here. There was one large fuel tank in each side partition, in front of the radiators, positioned under the larger (forward) grilles.

But don't think for one moment that the designers of the Tiger were stupid. They were aware of vulnerability to shell splinters, bullet splash/bullets etc. The grilles were designed with deep walls. They were also designed with certain curves; partly to enhance airflow but some consideration was also given to deflection angles.

Also, by dividing the engine compartment into three main partitions, the partition walls themselves would:

(a) Considerably reduce ricochet movement of flying fragments/bullets etc that might enter the grilles, thus decreasing potential for damage.
(b) In the event of a fire, slow down its spread, improving crew safety, their chances of extinguishing the blaze and preserving the vehicle.

The partition walls also, of course, provided structural support for the decking, hatches, grilles etc.

So, considerable thought had already gone into these matters in the original design of the tank. The designers' solutions did undoubtedly reduce the risks, as far as was considered reasonable at the time, but some recognized risk remained.

As already documented, additional 'improvised' measures were taken. Of these, perhaps the internal protection for the Tiger's fuel tanks was the most significant, as they were recognized to be still fairly vulnerable. This measure was taken quite some time before the 'external plates rigged over the grilles' idea (which was in any case, on Panthers and Jagdpanthers, not Tigers AFAIK).

So, was immobilization or loss of a Tiger, by entry of 'hostile hardware' of any sort entering through the grilles, a reasonable possibility? Yes, it was.

Was it likely to be among the most prominent causes of vehicle disablement/loss? No.

What were the chances, really?

I wouldn't say they were 'minute' or 'insignificant', but I believe they were relatively small.

And, apart from this one relatively small risk, Tigers were not vulnerable to MG fire of any calibre . The idea that you might have a reasonable chance of disabling (much less destroying) a Tiger, or any other German 'heavy', with such an attack has to be seen as very optimistic.


Best regards to all,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-23-2006, 09:43 AM
The drawing that gibbage made is not correct, if you look at the picture, you see that the rearwall is under the same angle, the vents dont have 45 degrees, its 80 degrees in comparison to the deck. It looks like they are at 45 because as i edited in the picture, the center of the photo is focussed on the engine and using a 35mm camera and standing on the deck gives that disturbed picture.
the wall in the maze are thicker on the under side and smaller in the top.

You can not know how a bullet bounces of, its not 45 degrees in 45 degrees out, to much not controllable influences in. ( hard to explain in a foreign language.
EDIT: But the bullet never continues with its point forwards, it will spinn as hell around rotating over every axis. End of edit

I will show you how it looks like from 40 to 50 degrees, and now watch carefull.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/5904_b_4.jpg

Ok now back to the colum, why hasnt anybody noticed that the tanks and the scene where one truck is already burning and another truck is starting to burn, are NOT the same footage, WATCH the shadows and lightning ot doesnt compare at all.

The first scene shows one turretless tank driving on the road the other unidentified tank is sitting in the field.
The rest of the footage shows a convoy of softtargets, they DONT move, they have stopped abandond the vehicles and search for cover,
When you are in a tank you dont need to search for cover cos you are safe for bullets, but you keep driving to prevent bombs hits.


have fun with it

panther3485
02-23-2006, 09:55 AM
Hiya CD_kp84yb,

Forgot to mention earlier, I believe your interpretation of the video footage could easily be correct (still very difficult to tell, though). But whatever the vehicles are, it seems fairly certain there are no Tigers among them!


Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
02-23-2006, 10:01 AM
A site with lots of links to Tiger info, http://www.alanhamby.com/tigerlinks.html

Be sure to check out this site, http://tiger1.info/

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 12:12 PM
CD_kp84yb, did you yourself take that foto of that Tiger?

Does those Holes go Directly throught the deck armour, like in this picture:

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/vents.jpg

or is there curve, which makes the entering bullets bounce at direction of rear wall at the rear grille holes?

does those holes on nose side, lead the ammo on what way? by quick thinking, how many bounces would it take minium for bullet to hit radiator or anything critical inside there?

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 12:14 PM
Panther, of course, anything is possible, "wonders" or lucky things for sure sometimes happen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif everyone gets lucky at least once per lifetime.

CD_kp84yb
02-23-2006, 12:40 PM
No the holes dont go that way. Now take a look at the last pic i posted, do you see any black??? there is no lightbulb mounted underneath the grating, you are looking directly at the wall , the wall of the last covers the one in front under that angle. Ok made a pic and Luftlover has placed some links also, (now some people dont trust internet in this case in other cases they do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif)

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/eikels.jpg

EDIT: MUHAHAHAHAHAHA stupid i drawn the wrong one hahahahaha that is what you get if you do it from memory recall, hahahahahaha a big OOOOOOOOOOPSSSS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

I dont work with internet i only use docs or copy's of the docs in the original language. I use internet for photo's and when i have time i travel to the place and take pics myself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
here is the Jagtiger

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/jagdtiger3.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/jagdtiger.jpg

And a engine of a panther fired up , kewl sound

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/image5.jpg


Have fun with it and pls look to pics and links without the usual coloured glasses . Then you see more details

again Cheers, regards and have fun with it

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 01:33 PM
is this the way how holes are on armor?:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/eikels.jpg


is there possibility to bullet go directly at radiator throught these holes? or at anything else important, thats the issue here i think http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 02:25 PM
This is whats directly under the large grates.

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/photos/4755_d_6_sm.jpg

I would like more photo's of this vent. To see if it is an un-interupted path. It seems just stupid for it not to have some sort of secondary protection under the vents!

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 02:42 PM
Here is a good photo.

http://tiger1.info/saumur/mayb/bz26.jpg

On the left is someones foot. Those are big friggen vent holes!!!!

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 02:45 PM
I also found this.

http://tiger1.info/saumur/mayb/comp2.jpg

In close inspection, the path into the radiator is not direct. There is an S curv blocking direct entry. But a bullet getting into there can still rocochet around a bit. Its less likley to get a hit into the radiator, but when A P-47 is pumping a few hundred bullets into the back of that, and a few get in, it can do some damage to the radiator.

CD_kp84yb
02-23-2006, 02:54 PM
good to see, that you are now investigate the Tiger 1.

Ok This tiger in the last pic , has the modification for the fueltank, (wood for catching shellfragments).
The need for the wood was simple, you shoot a time fused shell above the tank ( Hahaha you need a few till you have the correct distance) and the hail of shrapnell could damage (mind could) the fueltank.The damage depends how big the shrapnell was, thats why i said could.
Now an exploding shell sends its shrapnel away with great speed, thats why they fitted the wood above the fueltank.

cheers

edit 2: i mean the pic you posted above the one above this reply.

Thanks for pic viking that piece of the site was down yesterday

Stafroty
02-23-2006, 10:11 PM
i got Flu http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Texan...
02-23-2006, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:


http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/image5.jpg




Nice photos! Oh could I have used the one of the Panther engine a few months ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Anyway, I think some folks just aren't getting it. Maybe until they sat inside a bullet proof bubble and had a P47 strafe them with all 8 a'blazing.....nah they still wouldn't get it. Of course the initial video presented doesn't prove a thing. It was a trolling expedition. Most of us agree the first AFV is a Jadgpanther. Like I said before, I don't care about the whole Tiger thing. They only made 1,500 so they were rare and irrelevant battle pieces. What the video DOES show, is the incredible amount of lead tossed out by a Jug. I don't care what you say, once the bullet stream crosses the back deck with those large open grates, the chances are good that something in the fuel/oil/water compartments is getting chewed up.

Next stop for the Panzer is one of these:

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

Gibbage1
02-23-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Viking-S:

The wedge shaped protection plates can also be seen in this photo of a destroyed Tiger

Viking

Thank you very much! That photo tells a lot. I honestly think the fuel tank is rather safe. In order for a .50 to penetrate it, it would need to dive at a 90 degree angle so it would get an in-interupted hit. Even once it penetrated, it would not have much power to do much. It would most likley just deflect whatever it hits into the radiator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
02-24-2006, 03:17 AM
Hiya, Texan

Quote:
"I don't care what you say, once the bullet stream crosses the back deck with those large open grates, the chances are good that something in the fuel/oil/water compartments is getting chewed up."

Dismiss my opinion lightly if you want, as is your right, but I honestly believe this is exaggerated.

Only a very small proportion of shot/splash, if any, would actually enter the grilles and then it would be perhaps 50/50 chance (my guess), at the most , that any significant damage would be done. The actual severity and urgency of damage would also be subject to a great range of variations.

The risk was there, but it was a small risk (though not negligible) IMHO. Though this is obviously still just my opinion, I think it's a fairly well informed one (based on many years study of this general subject and intimate knowledge of the external and internal structure of these vehicles).


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-24-2006, 04:44 AM
Hiya, Gibbage1

Some good enthusiastic posts from you!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm particulary pleased with your open-minded approach and the fact that you are ready to take fresh information on board.

Now we start getting to the 'nitty gritty':

Your Quote 1:
"Thank you very much! That photo tells a lot. I honestly think the fuel tank is rather safe. In order for a .50 to penetrate it, it would need to dive at a 90 degree angle so it would get an in-interupted hit. Even once it penetrated, it would not have much power to do much."

Over the years, I've seen an interesting variety of photos of these compartment interiors. Some show protective plates for the fuel tanks, some seem not to. The interior models and cutaway drawings I've seen appear mostly not to show them; however:

For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that these plates were present on every single one of the 1,354 Tigers that were built.

That now brings us back to Jentz & Doyle's magnificent books, widely recognized in the AFV enthusiast community as being among the most thoroughly researched, authoritative and best detailed on WW2 German tanks.

To quote from their book on the Tiger:

"April 1944: Beginning with Fgst Nr 251075, wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch artillery shell splinters and bullet splash that came through the cooling air grates on the rear deck."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Based on our assumption above (that the protective plates were present on all Tigers), does it not seem interesting that additional protection was deemed to be appropriate? More on this shortly.


Your Quote 2:
"It would most likley just deflect whatever it hits into the radiator"

Gibbage, you are thinking very well here, mate!

So now, on to the radiators:

Another member posed the question asking what were the items attached to the top/rear of the radiators, and was this any kind of armour protection.

These were in fact combined fan housing and ducting structures and each one housed two fans. They were made of relatively thin sheet steel, so not a great deal in the way of armour as such. Nevertheless, these ducts and their fans would certainly have helped to inhibit or slow down the passage of any shrapnel or bullets entering the (smaller rear) grilles that were above them.

The fronts of the radiators were a different proposition, however, and these were completely unprotected. The fuel tanks were in front of them and were sloped down backwards, towards the radiators, to permit air flow (thus creating the 'wedge shape' already mentioned).

The addition of plate to these sloping faces of the fuel tanks would, while affording considerable protection to the fuel, ironically provide an almost ideal 'deflection surface', angled towards the exposed front faces of the radiators!

Now, do we think that this might explain the phrase "....to catch artillery shell splinters and bullet splash...." from the quote in Jentz & Doyle's book? (catch?) I'm just speculating here, but interesting idea, huh?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-24-2006, 06:02 AM
Test pics:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/st-basil1.gif


http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/stbasil.gif



http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/soborvasily.gif


If this turns out alright, I've done it, thanks very much CD_kp84yb


Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-24-2006, 06:14 AM
Yaaayyyyyyy!!!!!

Thanks CD_kp84yb

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Looks like I got the hang of this hosting & posting business.

Now to the wife's computer for some scanning.

Will follow up with intro pic of T-34 some time soon.

(P.S. Would like to visit Russia some day - got pics from travel posters!)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best regards,
panther3485

panther3485
02-24-2006, 07:53 AM
Hiya again, CD_kp85yb

Here goes with a tank pic:



http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e333/panther3485/t3485one.jpg


This is a 1945 model T-34-85, as per Korean War, only minor changes from late WW2. Like your King Tiger pic, it gives good overall impression and idea of layout.

You can see the engine is much further forward than on Tiger, Panther etc, due mainly to transmission/final drive being at rear of tank instead of front. Radiators are longitudinally (rather than transversely) mounted, one each side of engine. Two of the fuel tanks are visible (one near radiator, another in side pannier just under turret).

The tall squarish shaped upright structures (you can see one each side of fuel tank near radiator) are housings for the Christie style suspension springs.

Also have comparable pic of WW2 T-34-76.

You probably have the info you need by now, from the links posted, but give me a holler if you have any questions.

Being able to do this now is good, but I'm a bit concerned - by using pics from books, am I not breaking copyright laws?


Best regards,
panther3485

NonWonderDog
02-24-2006, 08:05 AM
It's fair use, probably. It's definitely illegal in some country or another, but it would be defensible in international court.

Not that anyone would care enough to sue.

panther3485
02-24-2006, 08:21 AM
Thanks, NonWonderDog

Guess I can relax, then!

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

Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-24-2006, 08:48 AM
Copyright??? I think when you open the sources (mention the name) you will be allright.
Hehe i have seen my work also on a english site, (enlargened oilpan for a car) well i didnt care.

And thanks for the picture ,Panther.

I drove the T34/85 10 years ago in scheveningen it was here and used for a tv show, compared to modern tanks, ouch ,same goes for tiger and panther (last one had diesel engine, shame)

Its bloody hard to get in the driversseat, hahaha when you are not 20 years old, in the t34.
The loader had to run with the rotation( the one i was in had no turretfloor)

back to the picture, where is the fan??? Is it that bladed thing where the starter engine grabs the flywheel (hope this is the english word) hmmm that could be clutchcooling , or is it simply not visible in this pic?



Ok For the texan man here you will find the engine from the panther ( jagdpanther actualy) in the links Its one hell of a restauration these guys do, i mean they got them from shooting ranges , where the jagdpanthers acted as hard target.


http://www.sdkfz.com/site/collection.php

here is the result
http://www.military-odyssey.fsnet.co.uk/mo/jagdpanther.html

look what those guys do Hats off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

When i have the time i surely will visit them.

Btw way in the film that cant be a jagpanther, the reardeck is to small, when you have a modell just stop the film and position the model in the same angle. it doesnt compare.

thnx again for the t34

Edit: dam typo's hahahaha well i wont be surprised if there are lots more

panther3485 hahahaha now i see it, your name is a mixture of panther and T34/85 , hahah i thought there were 3450 guys with the name panther.

Lol look who is talking kp84yb is the licenseplate number of my favorite car i have. (got 2 and a bike lol)

panther3485
02-24-2006, 08:59 AM
Hi, CD_kp84yb

Yes, the fan is the large-diameter 'bladed looking' object between the starter motor and the engine. You are right there.

You lucky bugger, driving a T-34 and a Panther and Tiger!!!!

And I'd be happy to punish my 52-year-old body to get into the driver's seat. Plenty of time later, to relax in spa and rub muscles!!

How come you didn't examine the T-34 much more closely when you were driving it? Weren't you given the chance? I would have been all over it like a madman!!! (And even more so with the Tiger and Panther - a real treat!!!!!)


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-24-2006, 09:12 AM
I had to drive the dam thing of the truck, and shows dont have much time, so of the truck let the candidates run some laps , and back on the truck, and there she went back to the owner, if i remember correct it came from jugoslavia or the former east germany , but im not sure

the panther is in Germany i was there for my work, but i didnt drive it myself, hehehe its a tank from a society, those guys are not to keen to let strangers drive ( especialy me, im rough with armour, thats how they tought it me, drive like a sissy and you get stuck in the field or loose a track)so i was the tankcommander for the ride, hahaha


Ok now back to the fueltanks, the wood could and will do something against the ricochets. Goto a shootingclub and look what they have in front of the concrete, yup wood.
I saw it on alot of military shootingranges with concrete covers ( to prevent that people shoot over the target, the bullet will travel a long way , So the placed the concrete bars above the shooting range, i have never seen ricochets, but we fired 7,62x51 Nato, FAL and MAG.

Now a fragment of a bullet or a ricochet isnt a perfect penetrator, fragment has no mass ( compared to the bullet) and the bounc of the bullet consumes alot of energie and speed.
The bouncing bullet also loose alot of speed (thus energie), but enough to damage a radiator if there is no wood, now if there is wood it will be "catch" by the wood, i guess
A direct bullet will surely bounce off , the plating is under an angle.
Now with wood the bullet will go through the wood and meets the steel plating, it will try to penetrate if it doesnt succeed it has lost alot of energie and will try to bounce, but it cant get out of the wood, its trapped under the wood ( hard to explain in foreign language)
(test it it with a bullet, puss it under an angle on a steel plate and feel what the bullet tries to do, again hard to explain, lol there is a liitle differnce in pussing the bullet and firing i know hahaha)
Now for a shell exploding above the tank , yup the shrapnel is dangerous , its like small bullets (same or even higher speed, depending on the amount of explosives) when those come inside they will bounce into radiator or even penetrate the tank, now wood of lets say 3 or 4 cm (30 to 40mm) or thicker,( dunno how thick they where), lets the shrapnell loose speed ,and prevent the bouncing to the radiator.
Look at trees after shelling, you dont wanna saw them it cost a sawingblade.

Now thats what they tried to reach with the wood, imho
Cheers

panther3485
02-24-2006, 09:29 AM
Hi again, CD_kp84yb

Quote:

"panther3485 hahahaha now i see it, your name is a mixture of panther and T34/85 , hahah i thought there were 3450 guys with the name panther.


Correct again!

Of all the tanks in WW2, my top two favourites are the T-34 and the Panther.

To build models I actually prefer the T-34-76 over the -85, but the T-34-85 was a better chance in combat against the Panther (compared to -76), so; better balanced in combat, better balanced in my name!


Best regards,
panther3485

CD_kp84yb
02-24-2006, 09:55 AM
T34/76 the micky mouse early , dam the commandant had to play gunner and commander but also had to stick his head out to have a view.
The later 76 was better, he got a cupola if im am correct.

i think thats why the 85 was better, and a better gun also plus a gunner. plus some more mods ,
AH for the 85 you can see by the turret where they were made on some of them, there was a factory that pressed the whole turret out of one plate of steel, like a helmet, by using a 50000 ton press . shame tamya didnt made a model of that one, it looks nice

BTW i have sended you a PM

panther3485
02-24-2006, 10:53 AM
Hiya CD_kp84yb

Yes, the T-34-76 was steadily improved throughout it's production life and the late 1943 version (not very many in service before '44) had a cupola, at long last!

Main reasons for -85 being better:

(a) More powerful gun (obviously)
(b) Three-man turret

The 85mm gun helped to restore a measure of parity, as the 76mm was falling behind against the newer German tank designs and even the later PzKpfw IV, with the L/43 or L/48 75mm gun, was a tough opponent.

The three-man turret was a long overdue improvement. As you mentioned, in the -76 the commander also had to function as the gunner; a fairly serious detriment to combat efficiency.

There was a small trade off with the increase in weight, but even so the T-34-85 remained faster and generally more agile than most of its serious rivals.

The 'pressed whole turret' you refer to was actually a version of the T-34-76 model 1943. The finished product did indeed resemble a helmet! The roof, sides, front and rear were forged in one piece in the special press, as you said.

They were only manufactured at one factory, the Uralmash plant at Sverdlovsk (but also used by two other factories). 2,670 of these turrets were produced.

As for models, Tamiya did release a version with that turret some years ago, but it was a limited production run and there are not many around now. Funny enough, I saw one in my local hobby store just a few months ago but I'm not sure if it is old stock.

But all the Tamiya T-34's are showing their age as kits and they have some scale inaccuracy issues. The newer Dragon kits are more accurate in this regard. I have considered purchasing the Tamiya kit with the Uralmash turret and just using that turret on a Dragon T-34-76 kit.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-24-2006, 11:01 AM
Rear:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/jagdtiger.jpg

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/5904_b_4.jpg



Front Grille Fuel tank Cover from rear:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/plate1.jpg





Set up of the fuel tank and radiator with fans:

http://www.tiger-tank.com/secure/photos/4755_d_6_sm.jpg


Deck above:

http://tiger1.info/saumur/mayb/bz26.jpg



Deck from side showing the grilles configuration:


http://tiger1.info/saumur/mayb/comp2.jpg


Rear Grilles make bullets and fragments bounce some 2 times before exiting grille, then, those fragments are flying towards rear wall of the tank where those once a more, 3th time have to bounce towards radiator. Just check how the Grilles are made from the "Deck from side showing the grilles configuration" pic, it clearly shows the direction where sh1t is flying after it leaves grille. remember that grilles are entered from rear direction, some 45 deg, and stuff comes out 90degree at other direction downwards towards rear wall.

Then, check from which way front grilles are entered from, they also make that 90degree turn, towards nose of the tiger tank, towards V shaped fuel tank cover bottom (**** collector).
Those fan blades themself in the rear section doesnt show thick, but the fans engines looks like been covered with armour, and i THINK the blades themselfs arent the softets or most hardest metal.

Was the wooden collector inserted after the fans on the rear section or over the fuel tank section? i could not rightaway understand the point of inserting wood to fuel tank side of the radiator , well, if it would been deltawood, there would no be need for grilles or armour at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Also, Front Grilles, make alse 2 bounces on ammo/fragments, when they leave grille below, fragments are flying towards that V shape armor plate bottom, which also have its front edge (closest to camera) bended up, so, fragmenst are collected on it, which then is cleaned when grille is lifted on from its position.

CD_kp84yb
02-24-2006, 11:32 AM
the wood was above the fueltank, when you look at the pic with the shoes on it you can see the planking.


Btw a jagdtiger/konigtiger and panther family have a different set up, in where the parts are placed in comparison to tiger 1 . i have posted a pic of a tiger 2 that has been cut out.

edit: lol page 5 already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Stafroty
02-24-2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
the wood was above the fueltank, when you look at the pic with the shoes on it you can see the planking.


Btw a jagdtiger/konigtiger and panther family have a different set up, in where the parts are placed in comparison to tiger 1 . i have posted a pic of a tiger 2 that has been cut out.

edit: lol page 5 already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


planking?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif what does that word mean? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

yea, i see somekind of oblique lines there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif hmm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif eye opening http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif are those wood or cast. id say wood.

so, why would there be wood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif just for suckin in the fragments?

is there force in any AC cannon ammo(AP) that wood and V shaped thingy?, seems its on 45 degree slope against grilles http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif but, it for sure leads accorging to my new understandment the fragments towards radiator, even if there is bend on the V shape fuel tank protector thingy edge.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v125/F16_fatboy/plate1.jpg


is there anything on the rear low edge on that V thingy which would stop deflected ammo before radiator? it looks really stupid that way. well, it maybe needed quite a near ~70-110 degree dive to hit thru those holes on front grille.
is that all there is? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

well, nothing lasts forever, even my "believes" have to chance.

oh, about fuel lines, there is them but under thta v shape thingy, so does need quite alot luck to hit them there doesnt them Panther? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-24-2006, 12:41 PM
with plankin i ment wooden strips.

wood ah wood is soft so the fragments wont bounce off, but will penetrate the wood.
for the rest , i cant exactly read what you mean

im fubar with english also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

panther3485
02-24-2006, 07:34 PM
Hi Stafroty,

Quote:
"oh, about fuel lines, there is them but under thta v shape thingy, so does need quite alot luck to hit them there doesnt them Panther?"

Yes, you are correct. Positioning of parts means hit on fuel line is extremely unlikely.

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

Main risk from fuel lines/connections was small chance of leaking, and connections through partitions, which could spread fire if crew unlucky enough for fire to start and if fire is not put out soon. This risk was not high(designers did their best to reduce such risk) and was made even less with some improvements and very careful maintenance.

With steel plate over fuel tank but no wooden planking, greatest remaining risk is to radiator. Addition of wooden planking later (from April 1944) helped very much to reduce this risk also.

Also, be careful when looking at unassembled parts in some photos. When museum staff working on tank (cleaning, restoring etc) parts are temporarily sometimes not in correct position to each other.

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

Best regards,
panther3485

luftluuver
02-24-2006, 07:40 PM
Didn't the Tiger have a fire suppression system in the engine compartment?

panther3485
02-24-2006, 08:04 PM
Hi luftluuver,

Yes, it did. From memory, I believe this was known to have worked fairly well in some situations, but not others. I seem to recall reading that efforts were made to further improve this.

As mentioned previously, designers employed every reasonable measure they could think of to reduce all kinds of risks (not just fire or radiator damage) but there were still ongoing improvements during the service life of the vehicle.

The Tiger was the premium German tank. Huge efforts and resources were put into it. (All tanks are valued but the Tiger was an order of magnitude higher.) It was a precious asset and all possible measures to protect the Tiger, and its extremely valuable highly trained crew, were going to be taken!


Best regards,
panther3485

Gibbage1
02-24-2006, 09:46 PM
Panther. As a 3D modeler, I have a very good eye for shapes and how things work and fit. That wedge shaped plate I think is PART of the upper grill, and is LOWERED into place above the fuel tanks. I dont think its armor per-se, but thick metal construction. I think why you have not seen this peace much in drawings is maybe because its typically "lifted" out and away to show off whats under it! Look at the lip at the top of that grate, and it fits in with the gaps in the open area.

I think that metal protection is standard. It would be compleatly foolish to have an un-interupted path to the fuel tank!

Your correct about the fans being behind the radiator. Also typical radiator construction of the days was aluminum vains or brass, and very thin at that! You wont need much velocity to puncher it. A slow leak wond do much from splinters, but a deformed .50 cal will make a mess.

I think if you pump enough HMG rounds into the back of the Tiger, something may get through. 1 bullet has very little chance, but your not going to hit with just 1 bullet with a P-47 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyone can do the math. 8 guns at 800RPM (Average) is 6400 bullets. Thats about 107 rounds per second. You get 3 seconds of firing, and thats 320 rounds. Now, lets say the pilot sucked hitting a big fat target and only got 20% hits. Thats 60 hits. The grill covers 10% of the back, and thats 6 hits into the grill.

This is all VERY rough math. So thats 6 .50's into the grill, now your slim chances just went up x6.

But thats my openion.

panther3485
02-24-2006, 11:09 PM
Hiya Gibbage1,

Thanks for the thoughts.

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

As a 'physical 3D' modeller myself, and having built working models as well as static display models (planes, ships and tanks), I share a similar very good eye for these things myself and I tend to be very pedantic about details - to the point where even some of my fellow modellers think I'm a pain in the @rse!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

It was already apparent to me that the plating you speak of is, at least in the cases shown in the pics on this thread, integral with or fixed to the grating and yes, it also seemed to me that it would be lifted away if the grille was removed.

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

By the way, some of the drawings etc I've seen do show these plates - it's just that many do not. Also, a good number of them show reference to the grilles in place, or raised, not just 'removed'. Of course, one cannot necessarily by any means, assume absence of a structure in a drawing to really prove anything as such, since details are sometimes removed for clarity.

Nevertheless, It's just that I tend to be cautious about making totally positive statements, if there is some doubt or vagueness in my recollections of what I've seen. (I have a reasonable memory but I don't particularly specialize in the Tiger - there are vast amounts of data to be recalled, on many different types and that's only the tanks!)
I've seen so many pictures/drawings over so many years, some of them not in my own books, and it isn't always possible to immediately find/refer directly back to all of them, despite the size of my home library.

I was just erring on the side of caution, as, short of diving through many books (which I'm prepared to do a bit of, but there are time limits), I was not 100 percent sure from memory if this was standard fit from the very beginning. HOWEVER, since I agree it makes sense, I'm inclined to believe it was standard and therefore, as stated previously, I think we should proceed on that assumption (unless proven otherwise). Fair enough?

Your conclusions regarding the probability of bullet entry are somewhat different from mine. I too have 'done the maths' but you have to have an accurately quantifiable, reasonably verifiable level of probability to begin with.

Whatever probability you start with, this is then of course multiplied by factors like the number of aircraft strafing, the number of passes they make etc etc. This is then varied considerably by other factors, such as strafing angle (height and direction), aiming expertise of the pilot etc.

We can certainly agree to differ, but I rate the chances of bullet entry (depending on above factors and others) as varying from 'highly improbable' through to 'somewhat likely', in the worst case scenario. I don't think the latter scenario would have been particularly common.

You then, of course, have to try to estimate the probability of serious damage following said entry. As stated before, I don't think this was any more than 50/50, at most, for each entry (all types, not just .50) and may well have been less when protection was improved.

That's just my opinion (albeit, from my knowledge and estimation, a very reasonable one) and you are of course entitled to yours, so I don't see a huge gulf between us, just something of a difference, perhaps, in how highly we rate the probability of damage!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I like your posts very much and hope to see more of them on other threads as well!


Best regards,
panther3485

Gibbage1
02-24-2006, 11:44 PM
One thiung I have figured out through the years of modeling based off drawings is, two sets of drawings are NEVER the same. EVER! No matter how detailed they are, they always have some differances.

In that case, I take 1 of 2 options. #1, find a photograph. Those dont lie. If I cant find a photo, I find the middleground between the two drawing's. Its not easy for me to do that since I know it will most likley be wrong, but sometimes you cant model everything 100%.

You and I are very much in the same trade and profession, just in a differant medium.

BTW, do you have any experance in working with foam modeling? I was thinking of making my own RC model. Find out how much I really do understand about aerodynamics as a hobbiest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
02-25-2006, 12:33 AM
Hiya again, Gibbage!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I agree with you entirely about drawings, you always have to be careful and like you, I use photos for reference whenever possible. And even then , IMHO, you still have to be cautious with interpretation and situational context!

Even examining the 'real thing' sometimes has its traps. More than one model kit has been produced from painstaking measurement and examination of 'museum' examples, only to later discover (after consumer backlash) that the subject has been modified or altered in some way, so that it no longer completely accurately reflects what it is supposed to be! [Tamiya 1/48 Gloster Meteor F.1, anybody?]

I have not done much foam modelling as such (in the sense you ask), and probably my greatest use of foam as a modelling medium was back when I used to build terrain models, during the latter stages of my Army service.

I built some flying aircraft models, from my early teens to mid twenties, but little since then. I'm planning to get back to it because my son, now almost 11 yrs old, is starting to take a keen interest in the idea. Near our neighbourhood, we have a large and well organized Radio Control Model Aircraft club and we are planning to get involved with them. Revision and up-dating for me, exciting new challenges for my son!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Best regards,
panther3485

Gibbage1
02-25-2006, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:

Best regards,
panther3485

Cool. I will PM you. You sound like someone I can get to like.

Copperhead310th
02-25-2006, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Stafroty:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
As a former tank commander in the US Army I find the thought of the M2 killing tigers completely absurd.

But what cool is how many people think it's possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Dam Zen how much more PROOF do you guys need?
i'm shocked really. "As a former tank commander in the US Army" i would expect you to know better. Here we have:

1. A WWII VERTERAN P-47 Pilot providing the audio & describing in detail how they would straif tiger tanks & <span class="ev_code_RED">DESTROY</span>them in combat using the 8browning m2 .50 cals on the jug.

2. Actual vintage wwII guncam footage (IN COLOR EVEN) showing exactly what the WWII Thunderbolt Pilot is describing in the audio.

Honestly you guys can NOT still cling to the falsehood of tigers with stadning a P-47 attack
under the face of such overwhelming eveidence.
to do so would be pure stupidity. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

you canall raise these now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif
P-47 vs Tiger Tank = P-47 Wins. lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


what you see there burning? i see the fire comes from middle of something, cant reckon from what, from open turret? from Jerrycan on side of the turret? or is it just Decay fire jsut for those cases to get enemy stop firing? all you got is audio from pilot who werent so slow and didnt have so much time to inspect more close what took out the tank. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"all you got is audio from pilot"

Stafroty,
With the Guncam footage to suport it....is this NOT good Enough? Who the Sam hell are you buddy to question this mans integrity? He is not the ONLY PILOT to make this very same claim. So you're going to expect people to belive you.......Over A:
WWII VET.
A PILOT WITH MORE REAL WORLD FLYING TIME THAN YOU & POSSIBLY 5 OF YOUR BUDDIES COMBINED
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
FLEW THESE MISSIONS IN COMBAT
SERVED HIS COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
RISKED LIFE & LIMB FOR FREEDOM OF OTHERS
THAT SAW THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EYES
DID THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN HANDS

So now. How much Flying time do you have in real life combat?
How much flying time in a real Republic P-47?
How many tanks have you attcked?
Where were you in 1943?

luftluuver
02-25-2006, 02:50 AM
Copper, is your BP 220 over 150?

Bet if you lived at the North Pole, I could sell you a freezer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Brotrob
02-25-2006, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

With the Guncam footage to suport it....is this NOT good Enough? Who the Sam hell are you buddy to question this mans integrity? He is not the ONLY PILOT to make this very same claim. So you're going to expect people to belive you.......Over A:
WWII VET.
A PILOT WITH MORE REAL WORLD FLYING TIME THAN YOU & POSSIBLY 5 OF YOUR BUDDIES COMBINED
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
FLEW THESE MISSIONS IN COMBAT
SERVED HIS COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
RISKED LIFE & LIMB FOR FREEDOM OF OTHERS
THAT SAW THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EYES
DID THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN HANDS

So now. How much Flying time do you have in real life combat?
How much flying time in a real Republic P-47?
How many tanks have you attcked?
Where were you in 1943?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...

but wait..

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

...

seems to be a really dangerous lorrydriver then...

Stafroty
02-25-2006, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by CD_kp84yb:
with plankin i ment wooden strips.

wood ah wood is soft so the fragments wont bounce off, but will penetrate the wood.
for the rest , i cant exactly read what you mean

im fubar with english also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

yes, will penetrate and go in the wood, and maybe, stuck on the wood.

Stafroty
02-25-2006, 05:05 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi Stafroty,

Quote:
"oh, about fuel lines, there is them but under thta v shape thingy, so does need quite alot luck to hit them there doesnt them Panther?"

Yes, you are correct. Positioning of parts means hit on fuel line is extremely unlikely.

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

Main risk from fuel lines/connections was small chance of leaking, and connections through partitions, which could spread fire if crew unlucky enough for fire to start and if fire is not put out soon. This risk was not high(designers did their best to reduce such risk) and was made even less with some improvements and very careful maintenance.

With steel plate over fuel tank but no wooden planking, greatest remaining risk is to radiator. Addition of wooden planking later (from April 1944) helped very much to reduce this risk also.

Also, be careful when looking at unassembled parts in some photos. When museum staff working on tank (cleaning, restoring etc) parts are temporarily sometimes not in correct position to each other.

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

Best regards,
panther3485


i just want to bring this to "public".
If there is gas tank, and if there is something where to gas should go like engine, there is then lines and connections. whenever there is connections etc, there is always chance of leak, no matter what tank or vehichle it is.

Stafroty
02-25-2006, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:

"all you got is audio from pilot"

Stafroty,
With the Guncam footage to suport it....is this NOT good Enough? Who the Sam hell are you buddy to question this mans integrity? He is not the ONLY PILOT to make this very same claim. So you're going to expect people to belive you.......Over A:
WWII VET.
A PILOT WITH MORE REAL WORLD FLYING TIME THAN YOU & POSSIBLY 5 OF YOUR BUDDIES COMBINED
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
FLEW THESE MISSIONS IN COMBAT
SERVED HIS COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
RISKED LIFE & LIMB FOR FREEDOM OF OTHERS
THAT SAW THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EYES
DID THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN HANDS

So now. How much Flying time do you have in real life combat?
How much flying time in a real Republic P-47?
How many tanks have you attcked?
Where were you in 1943?

How hard is it to believe in Overclaims? hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

if in one battle there was some 140 german tanks, and over that number was claimed destroyed pretty quicky by air forces, of course there is nothing else i can trust but that pilots account like you do, otherwise you would get angly and come and try to hit me on the nose.

oh, and what you call as freedom? its just someones opinion how others should live and by under who´s control.

we for sure know what is Freedom, we hear about it every day on radio, TV and newspapers.

OberUberWurst
02-25-2006, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Copper, is your BP 220 over 150?

Bet if you lived at the North Pole, I could sell you a freezer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Blutarski2004
02-25-2006, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Stafroty,
With the Guncam footage to suport it....is this NOT good Enough? Who the Sam hell are you buddy to question this mans integrity? He is not the ONLY PILOT to make this very same claim. So you're going to expect people to belive you.......Over A:
WWII VET.
A PILOT WITH MORE REAL WORLD FLYING TIME THAN YOU & POSSIBLY 5 OF YOUR BUDDIES COMBINED
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
FLEW THESE MISSIONS IN COMBAT
SERVED HIS COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
RISKED LIFE & LIMB FOR FREEDOM OF OTHERS
THAT SAW THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EYES
DID THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN HANDS

So now. How much Flying time do you have in real life combat?
How much flying time in a real Republic P-47?
How many tanks have you attcked?
Where were you in 1943?



..... Here's another PoV from a WW2 P-47 pilot who served his country :

Robert Brulle
ANGELS ZERO: P-47 Close Air Support in Europe
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington/London
2000

Page 69.

Quote -

The reader may wonder how strafing a tank could disable it. REcall that our .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds packed a wallop that could penetrate several inches of soft (not hardened) steel. (Recall the story on our visit to the Laon railroad yard, where I followed the path of a .50-caliber armor-piercing round that went through a locomotive drive wheel.) During the war we thoughtthe penetration power of our armor-piercing round was sufficient to disable a tank by shooting off the tank treads. To research this issue and keepe the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and specialists. Their collective views are summarized below.

Note -
The authorities consulted were: Dr William A****er, Director, US Army Ordnance Museum, and
Mr Uwe Feist, German AFV historian.

The .50-caliber armor-piercing round fired from a fast-moving aircraft does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck engine compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and .50-caliber rounds were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might casue the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could just keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-45 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV ...
<snip> ... and two 50-plus-ton heavy tanks, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger.

The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated by our .50-caliber rounds and set the engine on fire, but the Panther and the Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing

...<snip>...

If we could catch the tanks while on a road march far from the front lines the sometimes carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped on the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them.

Stafroty
02-25-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Stafroty,
With the Guncam footage to suport it....is this NOT good Enough? Who the Sam hell are you buddy to question this mans integrity? He is not the ONLY PILOT to make this very same claim. So you're going to expect people to belive you.......Over A:
WWII VET.
A PILOT WITH MORE REAL WORLD FLYING TIME THAN YOU & POSSIBLY 5 OF YOUR BUDDIES COMBINED
THAT WAS ACTUALLY THERE
FLEW THESE MISSIONS IN COMBAT
SERVED HIS COUNTRY WITH DISTINCTION
RISKED LIFE & LIMB FOR FREEDOM OF OTHERS
THAT SAW THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN EYES
DID THESE THINGS WITH HIS OWN HANDS

So now. How much Flying time do you have in real life combat?
How much flying time in a real Republic P-47?
How many tanks have you attcked?
Where were you in 1943?



..... Here's another PoV from a WW2 P-47 pilot who served his country :

Robert Brulle
ANGELS ZERO: P-47 Close Air Support in Europe
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington/London
2000

Page 69.

Quote -

The reader may wonder how strafing a tank could disable it. REcall that our .50-caliber armor-piercing rounds packed a wallop that could penetrate several inches of soft (not hardened) steel. (Recall the story on our visit to the Laon railroad yard, where I followed the path of a .50-caliber armor-piercing round that went through a locomotive drive wheel.) During the war we thoughtthe penetration power of our armor-piercing round was sufficient to disable a tank by shooting off the tank treads. To research this issue and keepe the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and specialists. Their collective views are summarized below.

Note -
The authorities consulted were: Dr William A****er, Director, US Army Ordnance Museum, and
Mr Uwe Feist, German AFV historian.

The .50-caliber armor-piercing round fired from a fast-moving aircraft does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck engine compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and .50-caliber rounds were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might casue the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could just keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-45 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV ...
<snip> ... and two 50-plus-ton heavy tanks, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger.

The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated by our .50-caliber rounds and set the engine on fire, but the Panther and the Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing

...<snip>...

If we could catch the tanks while on a road march far from the front lines the sometimes carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped on the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possibly destroying them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You Crazy!!!

Copperhead kill you for freedom of believing!! he kill till u die and i die, twice at least, he is so furious!

panther3485
02-25-2006, 10:40 AM
Stafroty, hello there!

Quote:
"i just want to bring this to "public".
If there is gas tank, and if there is something where to gas should go like engine, there is then lines and connections. whenever there is connections etc, there is always chance of leak, no matter what tank or vehichle it is."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Very good, Stafroty. I agree 100% with your statement. Surely, I think everybody must agree with it. How could anyone disagree?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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


Best regards,
panther3485

Hunter82
02-25-2006, 12:11 PM
Just checkin in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

CD_kp84yb
02-25-2006, 12:12 PM
rgr http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stafroty
02-25-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Stafroty, hello there!

Quote:
"i just want to bring this to "public".
If there is gas tank, and if there is something where to gas should go like engine, there is then lines and connections. whenever there is connections etc, there is always chance of leak, no matter what tank or vehichle it is."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Very good, Stafroty. I agree 100% with your statement. Surely, I think everybody must agree with it. How could anyone disagree?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

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


Best regards,
panther3485

maybe because of the topic? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
02-25-2006, 07:52 PM
Heyyyy, Stafroty, you wonderful guy!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Quote:

"quote:
Originally posted by panther3485:
Stafroty, hello there!

Quote:
"i just want to bring this to "public".
If there is gas tank, and if there is something where to gas should go like engine, there is then lines and connections. whenever there is connections etc, there is always chance of leak, no matter what tank or vehichle it is."

Very good, Stafroty. I agree 100% with your statement. Surely, I think everybody must agree with it. How could anyone disagree?

Best regards,
panther3485


maybe because of the topic?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Stafroty, you are a gem! I'm really starting to like you now!
If you ever come to Australia, you are invited to my place for a beer and BBQ.

By the way, what's the weather like up there? Down here, it is late Summer but still very warm.

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


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-27-2006, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Heyyyy, Stafroty, you wonderful guy!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Quote:

"quote:
Originally posted by panther3485:
Stafroty, hello there!

Quote:
"i just want to bring this to "public".
If there is gas tank, and if there is something where to gas should go like engine, there is then lines and connections. whenever there is connections etc, there is always chance of leak, no matter what tank or vehichle it is."

Very good, Stafroty. I agree 100% with your statement. Surely, I think everybody must agree with it. How could anyone disagree?

Best regards,
panther3485


maybe because of the topic?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Stafroty, you are a gem! I'm really starting to like you now!
If you ever come to Australia, you are invited to my place for a beer and BBQ.

By the way, what's the weather like up there? Down here, it is late Summer but still very warm.

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


Best regards,
panther3485

hehe, thats my 2nd invite to Australia, first one promised to teach me surf with board. ;P

Headshot in there for me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Australia sounds good, not because of Kangaroos, but because its some 40`C at least more warm than in here. Now we got some under -20`C temp here :P (its freshreshing, but chilly :P)

I love you too, all the way without being Kei =)

so, i invite you then here to have some Sauna and hole in the ice swimming on lake and again in sauna and so on. feels good and is good for health http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
02-27-2006, 09:13 AM
Hi Stafroty,

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

First we have surfing, beer and BBQ's in Australia.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Then we have Sauna and swimming in ice water in Finland? (Did I get that right?).

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

Sounds like a good bargain to me!

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

But when we have finished with Sauna and ice, I would like to see some museums you've got there!


Best regards,
panther3485

telsono
02-27-2006, 10:39 AM
Concerning over counting kills of tanks. I'll find the incident recorded in this book:

Saving the Breakout : The 30th Division's Heroic Stand at Mortain, August 7-12, 1944 (Hardcover)
by Alwyn Featherston

From memory, at a certain road intersection, American anti-tank guns set up an ambush. With the heavy early morning fog, the panzers were alloe to move up very before they opened fire. Two or three panzers were destroyed outright or hors d'combat.

As the fog lifted and the intial fires on the destroyed vehicles died away the panzers became targets for roaming Typhoons and American JABO's. During the day these panzers were set upon at least twice and claimed destroyed.

There was only a rudimentarily ground control of fighter bombers at this time. Most flew as free hunters searching out anything that moved or looked like it could move. The USMC was that his time (on Leyte) developing a good system of calling in fighter-bomber support. It would be months later that this system was used in Europe, although other systems were tried, i.e. panels and colored smoke, but without dedicated and trained ground observers.

Stafroty
02-28-2006, 02:43 AM
Panther, i feel like winner here, i learned something, while many just got their point throught without anything to chance in their world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
02-28-2006, 07:49 AM
Yeah Stafroty,
I got some value from different views about the German after-action reports. One or two factors there that I had not thought of before.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

But it looks perhaps, as if our business here is just about finished?


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

Things look a bit quiet at the moment so this is more time to play FB/AEP/PF and do some work on my models!


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-28-2006, 08:15 AM
yea, things were finished even before we started to bash our mouths for it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
our argumenst or facts, or whatever we want to call them, would not change the things what have already happened. no matter how much we would believe in own issue, how hard we would to argue about it or anything. WE just cant change how it was, we just can form opinions about them with the reports, other peoples public opinions, our minds arent staying the same forever, if thoughts would be the same, it would just mean that someone would be ´Perfect´! (by his own opinion about himself)

but, was still, nice to bash mouth with you man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
02-28-2006, 08:56 AM
Agreed.

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

We can't change history.
Reckon the best we can hope for sometimes is to learn from it?

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


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Enjoyed the 'mouth-bashing' too.


Best regards,
panther3485

Stafroty
02-28-2006, 11:04 PM
we gotta learn from ourselfs. to know what we are, what we really need and for why.

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