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

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
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.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat
plane travelling at 300+ mph. This is from 'Air Power at the
Battlefront':

"There was also the problem of accurate target identification by
pilots hurtling at low level over a mass of vehicles obscured by smoke
and flames. Under such conditions all types of armoured vehicles, and
perhaps even some soft-skinned vehicles, could be mistaken for tanks.
In the snows of the Ardennes it was found that even small buildings
such as huts which stood out against the white background coud be
mistaken by pilots for tanks and vehicles. Moreover, what constituted
a tank was often loosely defined by pilots, a former American
fighter-bomber pilot admitting that assault guns, armoured artillery
and tank destroyers were all identified by pilots as 'tanks'."

When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

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

(Tony Williams) wrote:


When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

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

Sure sounds "Reasonable" to me... despite Kramer's very confidant
assertion to the contrary.

...but then...I wasn't there and have never done that.,,so...

--

-Gord.

On 2 Sep 2003 23:31:51 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
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.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat
plane travelling at 300+ mph. This is from 'Air Power at the
Battlefront':

"There was also the problem of accurate target identification by
pilots hurtling at low level over a mass of vehicles obscured by smoke
and flames. Under such conditions all types of armoured vehicles, and
perhaps even some soft-skinned vehicles, could be mistaken for tanks.
In the snows of the Ardennes it was found that even small buildings
such as huts which stood out against the white background coud be
mistaken by pilots for tanks and vehicles. Moreover, what constituted
a tank was often loosely defined by pilots, a former American
fighter-bomber pilot admitting that assault guns, armoured artillery
and tank destroyers were all identified by pilots as 'tanks'."

When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

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

Are the ORU reports available on line? That would be some very
interesting reading :-)

Al Minyard

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: (Tony Williams)
Date: 9/2/03 11:31 PM P

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat

So I guess that anything Ed, or Bfdrvr or Gordon (RCAF) writes is rejected out
of hand. And of course Adolph Galland's First and the Last is never to be
considered as worth anything. So the bottom line is that anyone who was there
knows nothing and those were not there know everything. Right?
Tell me what did it feel like when you were coming home from a mission on
single engine losing 500 ft/min and all alone easy pickings for any fighter
around. And what did it feel like when you stood beside the gravesite of a
friend while the Padre intoned last rights. Tell me about that. I want to know.


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

Art Kramer wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat

So I guess that anything Ed, or Bfdrvr or Gordon (RCAF) writes is rejected out
of hand.

You forgot to mention Walt BJ who, for those of us whom have
been following this thread knows, has supported your argument
as well. FWIW, I've believed your testamony the "ricochet"
technique to destroy tanks all along.

Someone even posted an mpeg video recently in which the
commentator in the video (a P-47 pilot!) backs up what you're saying.
What more do they ****ing want!?? Do they think the voice in the
video is not the voice of a P-47 pilot and is just some imposter?

(As if somebody has that much time on their hands and would
go through all the trouble to make up video for no other reason
than to win a useless argument on RAM). GMAFB!

In any event, I've been following this thread since its inception
after it spun off a question I asked about the relative killing power
of the P-51's .50 calibers versus the A-1's 20mm cannons. It doesn't
surprise me at all that these know-it-all naysayers refuse to give
you the benefit of the doubt on this one and the mere fact that this
thread is still going on (and on, and on) is simply par for the
course.

Most lay people can only think in 2-dimensions (which is one reason
why NASCAR racing has such a huge following) so the concept of a
murderous hail of .50 caliber shells ricocheting around beneath an
armored tank thereby rendering it useless is a phenomena that is
beyond their frame of reference and 2-dimensional life experiences.
Thus, they refuse to believe it, or they're simply incapable of
believing it.

-Mike ("don't bother me with the facts ma'am..." syndrome) Marron

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Mike Marron OSPAM
Date: 9/3/03 10:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time

You forgot to mention Walt BJ who, for those of us whom have
been following this thread knows, has supported your argument
as well. FWIW, I've believed you

My apologies to Walt BJ of course.

Someone even posted an mpeg video recently in which the
commentator in the video (a P-47 pilot!) backs up what you're saying.
What more do they ****ing want!?? Do they think the voice in the
video is not the voice of a P-47 pilot and is just some imposter?

The mind boggles at the closed mindedness of it all. One guy even went so far
as to claim no aircraft ever destroyed a tank. Wonder what branch he was from?
(sheesh)


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:
Mike Marron OSPAM wrote:

You forgot to mention Walt BJ who, for those of us whom have
been following this thread knows, has supported your argument
as well. FWIW, I've believed you

My apologies to Walt BJ of course.

Speaking of which, please accept my sincere apologies to
you for all those rotten things I said in the past. Truth be known,
I regard you as a true American hero and I regret saying those
things.

Someone even posted an mpeg video recently in which the
commentator in the video (a P-47 pilot!) backs up what you're saying.
What more do they ****ing want!?? Do they think the voice in the
video is not the voice of a P-47 pilot and is just some imposter?

The mind boggles at the closed mindedness of it all. One guy even went so far
as to claim no aircraft ever destroyed a tank. Wonder what branch he was from?
(sheesh)

I hear ya. As Douglas Bader would say, "illigitimi non carborundum."

-Mike (...don't let the *******s grind ya' down) Marron

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Mike Marron OSPAM
Date: 9/3/03 11:09 AM Pacific

eaking of which, please accept my sincere apologies to
you for all those rotten things I said in the past. Truth be known,
I regard you as a true American hero and I regret saying those
things.

Apology accepted and thanks for the kind words. But I was never a hero I never
did a single heroic thing. I did what we all did. I flew the missions doing
what I was trained to do. And kept flying them until the war ended Then 19
months in the Army of occupation, then went home.and never spoke of the war
again until I discovered this NG some years back. But I think wars are won not
by heroes, but by ordinary guys just doing their jobs and never turning away.

,
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 , Mike Marron
writes
You forgot to mention Walt BJ who, for those of us whom have
been following this thread knows, has supported your argument
as well. FWIW, I've believed your testamony the "ricochet"
technique to destroy tanks all along.

Someone even posted an mpeg video recently in which the
commentator in the video (a P-47 pilot!) backs up what you're saying.
What more do they ****ing want!??

A tank killed by .50" ricochets through the belly. Lots of looking done,
none found. (Lots of tanks killed or disabled by other means, none by
this method).

Do they think the voice in the
video is not the voice of a P-47 pilot and is just some imposter?

As often discussed, a pilot who's trying to hit a tank from the air (not
an easy or simple feat) while being shot at by everyone and their dog,
is not the most impartial, objective, careful or meticulous witness.

I can offer you Falklands testimony of pilots and gunners who were
convinced they'd scored lethal hits and left their targets ablaze or
destroyed... and the testimony from those targets who were barely
touched or missed completely.

Life's like that.

Most lay people can only think in 2-dimensions (which is one reason
why NASCAR racing has such a huge following) so the concept of a
murderous hail of .50 caliber shells ricocheting around beneath an
armored tank thereby rendering it useless is a phenomena that is
beyond their frame of reference and 2-dimensional life experiences.

Some of us have seen what larger calibres fail to do to thinner armour
with direct hits; and are concerned that, if this worked, where are the
wrecks?

Some of us even know a reasonable amount of ballistics and physics, and
get paid to be military analysts.

I'm not disputing it for fun, I'm arguing it because nobody's found a
tank killed by that method. If it worked and was common, there'd be
tanks with riddled bellies; if it was tried but didn't work, there'd be
no such tanks, whatever the pilots firing thought.

Thus, they refuse to believe it, or they're simply incapable of
believing it.

Is it _possible_ that you're mistaken? I'm working off evidence (no
confirmed kills, and test results for .50" and larger against armour).
I'm willing to change my mind if you can show me some examples where
this worked.

What would it take to change your mind?

--
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

ArtKramr wrote:





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


Now there is a first!

Dave