P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality

ubject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: (Tony Williams)
Date: 9/2/03 4:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time

. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

You make an excellant case as to why something that those of us who were there
know happened, could never have happened.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I got a response from the director of THE COLOR OF WAR series which claimed
that .50 bullets were "bounced" off the ground to penetrate the bellies of
Tiger Tanks. This is what he had to say:

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

I'm still working on ripping the gun camera footage for this group.

In article , Tony
Williams writes
Alan Minyard wrote in message news:e2r6lv03q966itpnh24
...

The reference was to .303 tracer rounds. The .50 cal AP would, in all
probability, not penetrate after a ricochet, however if you can put
50-60 rounds under the belly there is a fairly good chance the one or
two will.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself (the problem with long threads!)
you need to bear the following in mind:

1. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

2. The penetration of a .50 AP round at 300 yards and 30 degrees is
just 5mm (official figures) - and that's without bouncing off the road
first).
and hitting the belly armour sideways on much of the time...

3. The belly armour of any 1944 tank is at least double that, to the
best of my knowledge.

Well, I just did the obvious and Googled for Tiger belly armour and the
rear belly plate was 25mm horizontal. Forward belly plate was 40mm.

4. In order for the bullets to bounce off the road but penetrate the
armour, the road would have to be harder than the armour plate.

At the 30 + angle required I would agree - I have seen bullets skip off
hard clay and carry on at hardly reduced velocity - but that was a graze
of just a few degrees; turning through 60 is not a serious proposition.

(That's a tip - if you ever have to build a bullet stopper, hard clay is
a beaut...)

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

I just get the feeling that after hundreds of rounds were expended at
the fuel trailer and the tank that there was so much flame and muck
flying around that any pilot might be excused for thinking that he had
unzipped the floor plates.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Dave Eadsforth
Date: 9/2/03 11:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article , Tony
Williams writes
Alan Minyard wrote in message
news:e2r6lv03q966itpnh24
...

The reference was to .303 tracer rounds. The .50 cal AP would, in all
probability, not penetrate after a ricochet, however if you can put
50-60 rounds under the belly there is a fairly good chance the one or
two will.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself (the problem with long threads!)
you need to bear the following in mind:

1. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

2. The penetration of a .50 AP round at 300 yards and 30 degrees is
just 5mm (official figures) - and that's without bouncing off the road
first).
and hitting the belly armour sideways on much of the time...

3. The belly armour of any 1944 tank is at least double that, to the
best of my knowledge.

Well, I just did the obvious and Googled for Tiger belly armour and the
rear belly plate was 25mm horizontal. Forward belly plate was 40mm.

4. In order for the bullets to bounce off the road but penetrate the
armour, the road would have to be harder than the armour plate.

At the 30 + angle required I would agree - I have seen bullets skip off
hard clay and carry on at hardly reduced velocity - but that was a graze
of just a few degrees; turning through 60 is not a serious proposition.

(That's a tip - if you ever have to build a bullet stopper, hard clay is
a beaut...)

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

I just get the feeling that after hundreds of rounds were expended at
the fuel trailer and the tank that there was so much flame and muck
flying around that any pilot might be excused for thinking that he had
unzipped the floor plates.

Cheers,

Dave

--

On the other hand he may well have destroyed the tank.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In message , ArtKramr
writes
From: (Tony Williams)
Date: 9/2/03 4:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time
. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

You make an excellant case as to why something that those of us who were there
know happened, could never have happened.

The crew of HMS Broadsword knew for sure that she was attacked by two
Dagger aircraft on 23 April 1982 during one of the Argentinean raids,
and they reported one shot down by 20mm gunfire.

They were there, are you going to disagree? Trouble is, there were four
Daggers, not two, in that flight - and all four returned safely. The
pilots were there too.


The men who were there know what happened - except that one side has to
be mistaken. Combat isn't a good place for detailed technical
evaluations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 9/2/03 11:36 AM Pacific

The men who were there know what happened - except that one side has to
be mistaken. Combat isn't a good place for detailed technical
evaluations.

For all its shortcomings it is still far and away the best place. And maybe the
only place. since everything in history originates there.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

On the other hand he may well have destroyed the tank.


Arthur Kramer

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 2:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

bject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 8:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.


Arthur Kramer

Au Contraire sir. As I understand it from all the reading that
I've done, a hell of a lot of it aircraft accident reports, that
eye witness reports aren't of much use at all.

Apparently most of them are discounted out of hand unless they
can be backed up by other means.

So it's my considered opinion that "Reasonable" is actually more
valuable than an "Eye witness" report.

So Art, let's not let your shorts get all in a knot and accuse me
of 'Not being there' and other nonsensical stuff when I have some
small bit of experience in firing machine guns from aircraft in
flight. Perhaps I could ask you the same question (but I'm too
polite to do that)
--

-Gord.


I never accused you of anything and my shorts are not in a knot. And whether
you were there or not is a matter of indifference to me. And of no relevence
to the subject at hand.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 03 Sep 2003 03:52:43 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

bject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 8:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.


Arthur Kramer

Au Contraire sir. As I understand it from all the reading that
I've done, a hell of a lot of it aircraft accident reports, that
eye witness reports aren't of much use at all.

Apparently most of them are discounted out of hand unless they
can be backed up by other means.

So it's my considered opinion that "Reasonable" is actually more
valuable than an "Eye witness" report.

So Art, let's not let your shorts get all in a knot and accuse me
of 'Not being there' and other nonsensical stuff when I have some
small bit of experience in firing machine guns from aircraft in
flight. Perhaps I could ask you the same question (but I'm too
polite to do that)
--

-Gord.


I never accused you of anything and my shorts are not in a knot.

Hey. Those are my shorts. Give them back right now! And why did you
tie them in a knot?

:P