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

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 8/5/03 8:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

What's really at play here is the fact that even today, tanks and
armored vehicles are hard on the sides and soft on the top/bottom.
Their most likely threat is from other armor or anti-armor ground
forces. When a compromise needs to be made for overall gross weight
reduction it takes place on the top and underside. For this reason,
strafing armor at high angles (dive angles, not lead angles) the
aircraft can be effective against tanks even though the armor of a
tank is usually characterized as being capable of resisting that
caliber of weapon.



Since I never attacked a tank in a fighter I am giving you hearsay from
fighter pilots who did. They described the attack this way. They would
appproach the tank and their first aim point is behind the tank. They then
walk their fire to the main body of the tank. The assumption is that the fire
that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly
where armor is very thin. It worked better if the tank was on a hard surface
rather than earth At least that is the way the story was told back then. But as
I say, I have never attacked a tank in a fighter. I am just giving what pilots
who did had to say at the time.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Dave

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality
From: Dave Holford
Date: 8/5/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


ArtKramr wrote:

The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Dave
..
As I said I never flew those missions. I am just quoting P-47 pilots who did,
as they told their stories to me.
..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

Dave Holford

Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Anti-tank mines were principally intended to immobilize a tank by blowing
off a tread or detaching a bogie wheel, not by actually penetrating the
armor.

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened. But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.


Cheers and all,

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened.

These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,
but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
rebounds from the target area.

It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
accurate. All that is pretty understandable considering the
circumstances (ground fire, 400 mph, low altitude, smoke).


But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.

The film attests that this is prett much spot on.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 8/6/03 12:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened.

These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,

It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.


but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
rebounds from the target area.

It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
accurate.

The again there were many pilots who were deadly accurate



But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.

Not true,

The film attests that this is prett much spot on.

Spot on my ass. Look at more films.




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

-snips-

It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.

The rocks I selected for stone skipping on lakes were shaped rather
differently than .50 cal MG rounds. And, were imparted a rather different
rotation.

I never tried to skip an elongated rock with a rotation at right
angles to, rather than parallel to, the water surface but I can't believe
that would work at all well.

Certainly not sufficiently well to penetrate tank armor, even the
relatively thin undersurface armor.

But, you could probably scare the hell out of the folks inside.

Cheers and all,

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

Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
bulkhead, too. Too bad for them.

Displayed at Nellis, there is a disabled T-62 that is a bit gruesome when one
looks inside. It took a kill through the armour on the side; looked like a
single shot. The tank interior was described like a convective oven for its
killing effect.
VL