If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote: 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. Well that didn't last long! ("And whether you were there or not is a matter of indifference to me. And of no relevence to the subject at hand.") |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
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? I've also seen a History Channel document where same claim is said. That is no more believable, especially given the "quality" of their documents. Haven't seen that video mentioned for download but didn't it show a tank with fuel trailer? While the discussion is just backing on pilot claims and moving nowhere, the actual battlefield studies by British and American forces don't back the claim that belly shooting the tanks ever worked. So far the evidence - the laws of physics - claim that it is just an urban myth. Nothing more. There's enough commentary and evidence in this exact thread to back it up too. jok |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
[interesting stuff snipped for brevity] Is it _possible_ that you're mistaken? Actually no. Remember, I simply asked about the relative killing power of the P-51's .50 calibers versus the A-1's 20mm cannons. This "ricochet" thing kinda' spun off from there and I've merely been reading along. As far as I'm concerned, both sides have raised compelling arguments and you both could be right. In other words, maybe squeezing a few hundred rounds of .50 caliber underneath a German tank was an exercise in futility as you say -- but then again -- maybe it actually worked just as Art et. al. said it did even if it was only a fluke and didn't always kill the tank as advertised every single time. The bottom line is that I don't know. Neither side has definitively proven anything one way or another yet, so like I said I see no reason not to give Art et. al. the benefit of the doubt and just leave it at that. If you were down on in the deck in your P-51 armed only with ..50 caliber machine guns and a German tank presented itself why wouldn't you at least try the "ricochet" technique? -Mike Marron |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mike Marron
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: [interesting stuff snipped for brevity] Is it _possible_ that you're mistaken? Actually no. Remember, I simply asked about the relative killing power of the P-51's .50 calibers versus the A-1's 20mm cannons. This "ricochet" thing kinda' spun off from there and I've merely been reading along. As far as I'm concerned, both sides have raised compelling arguments and you both could be right. In other words, maybe squeezing a few hundred rounds of .50 caliber underneath a German tank was an exercise in futility as you say -- but then again -- maybe it actually worked just as Art et. al. said it did even if it was only a fluke and didn't always kill the tank as advertised every single time. The bottom line is that I don't know. Neither side has definitively proven anything one way or another yet, so like I said I see no reason not to give Art et. al. the benefit of the doubt and just leave it at that. If you were down on in the deck in your P-51 armed only with .50 caliber machine guns and a German tank presented itself why wouldn't you at least try the "ricochet" technique? -Mike Marron I reckon anyone would have a go on the basis that something expensive / vulnerable might get hit - especially if there's nothing else around to have a go at. Maybe the pilots were told that there was 'no' armour under the tank to improve morale - maybe intelligence actually believed it, but how many planes might have been lost to ground fire because the pilots thought they really could take out a tank with MGs? Incidentally, that video clip we've all been looking at; if you listen to the narrative it is not actually describing that particular strafe. Also, the vid shows the attack taking place from the side - if you wanted to get to the belly armour you'd approach from the rear where your bullets would not be deflected by the wheels and the tracks. And if your guns were harmonised for air fighting (convergence at 200 yards or so?) you'd be hard put to place a sustained concentrated burst in the 20 inch space between the tank belly and the road. A P38, or a Mosquito, or any other nose-mounting gun platform could do it under such rapidly changing distances, but a wing mounted battery stands a much poorer chance. Cheers, Dave -- Dave Eadsforth |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: [interesting stuff snipped for brevity] Is it _possible_ that you're mistaken? Actually no. Remember, I simply asked about the relative killing power of the P-51's .50 calibers versus the A-1's 20mm cannons. This "ricochet" thing kinda' spun off from there and I've merely been reading along. As far as I'm concerned, both sides have raised compelling arguments and you both could be right. In other words, maybe squeezing a few hundred rounds of .50 caliber underneath a German tank was an exercise in futility as you say -- but then again -- maybe it actually worked just as Art et. al. said it did even if it was only a fluke and didn't always kill the tank as advertised every single time. The bottom line is that I don't know. Neither side has definitively proven anything one way or another yet, so like I said I see no reason not to give Art et. al. the benefit of the doubt and just leave it at that. If you were down on in the deck in your P-51 armed only with .50 caliber machine guns and a German tank presented itself why wouldn't you at least try the "ricochet" technique? Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through the top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor) or more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire or at least put the engine out of action. For example, the PzKw IVG-J has hull roof armor that's 15 mm thick at 0 deg. (measured from horizontal). The hull bottom is 10mm, also at 0 deg. Stern armor is 20mm @ 78-90 deg. Best penetration is at an angle normal to the plate, so even though the stern armor is thicker than the roof or bottom, it may well provide the best (very limited) chance of penetration for a fighter attacking from a shallow dive. Data from the FM for the M2 HB .50 cal. reprinted at the following site: http://36thair3ad.homestead.com/MachinegunM2HB.html claims the following: ---------------------------------------------------- b. The following chart lists the maximum penetration in inches for armor-piercing cartridge, calier .50, M2, fired from the 45 -inch barrel (muzzle velocity 2935 feet per second): Material Inches at: 200 M 600 M 1500 M Armor plate (homogeneous) 1.0 0.7 0.3 Armor plate (face-hardened) 0.9 0.5 0.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unfortunately, we don't know the exact type of AP round (this FM dates from 1972, so it may well be using a better AP round than was available in 1944), nor do we know the impact angle at which these penetrations were measured, nor do we know how the standard plate the US uses stacks up against a similar thickness of German armor circa 1944, nor do we know how penetration is defined. The impact angle could be normal (90 deg. to the plate), or at some other angle, typically 30-60 deg. obliquity. Since the chart says "max. penetration" with no angle stated, it's not unreasonable to assume that these figures are for normal rather than oblique impact. According to Von Senger und Etterlin ("German Tanks of World War 2"), from which I got the armor specs for the PzKw IV, the armor is face-hardened, so let's use that line. Translating inches to millimeters, we get the following max. penetration at 200 / 600 / 1500m: 22.9 / 12.7 / 5.1 mm However, there are a couple of differences from the above conditions which need to be taken into account, namely the speed of the a/c adding to the effective MV, and the air-cooled a/c version of the M2 using a 36" barrel vice the 45" barrel of the ground-mount M2 HB. Assuming a maximum a/c strafing speed of 400 mph (which is probably high), that adds up to 587 fps to the MV, improving the penetration somewhat. The shorter barrel decreases the MV slightly, but at least according to my copy of "Military Small Arms of the World," not significantly, perhaps 50 fps (2900 vs. 2950). So, effective MV is likely around 3,400 fps, with impact velocity naturally being less. Let's boost penetration by a quick and dirty 20%, to account for the higher impact velocity, giving us: 28.5 / 15.2 / 6.3mm For argument's sake, then, at 200 meters an a/c strafing with .50 cal should be able to penetrate the back plate with a bit left over, IF it can hit it directly at very close to 90 degrees. It would need to make virtually a flat pass to do so. Penetrating the 15mm top decking should be possible, again at 200 meters, at some small level of obliquity but not as much as 60 degrees, which is the minimum angle given up to a 30 deg. dive by the fighter-bomber (a steeper angle almost certainly wouldn't allow the a/c to pull out of its dive at such short range and high speed). As for bouncing rounds off the ground and through the 10mm bottom of the tank, judge for yourself if you think that's likely to work, given the loss of velocity from the ground impact, the obliquity of the hit, and the other potential problems with the round. At 600m or further, forget it for all three cases. You can fudge the above numbers 10% or so either way to allow for variations in armor strength, weak seams, ammo that's slightly better or worse than standard, etc. Alright, that's for the PzKw IV, the lightest of the standard German tanks in 1944. What about the Panther or Tiger? Panther Armor, Stern plate 40 mm @ 60 Deg. from horizontal. Hull roof armor 15mm @ 0 deg. for Ausf. D and A, 40 mm @ 0 deg. for Ausf. G. Bottom armor, 20 + 13 mm (not sure what this represents). So, no chance on the stern plate or bottom plate, some slight chance on the roof plate of Ausf. D and A, none on the Ausf. G. Tiger I: Stern plate, 82mm @ 82 deg.; roof armor 26 mm @ 0 deg.; Bottom armor 26 mm @ 0 deg. No chance @ 200m or longer. Tiger II: Stern plate, 80 mm @ 60 deg.; Roof plate, 40 mm @ 0 deg.; Bottom armor, 25-40mm @ 0 deg. Again, forget it. Go for the engine gratings/intakes. Guy |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through the top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor) or more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire or at least put the engine out of action. [much good info snipped] Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units, it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often. 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/ |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Tony Williams wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote in message ... Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through the top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor) or more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire or at least put the engine out of action. [much good info snipped] Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units, it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often. That's my reading as well. Guy |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote:
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality From: Guy Alcala Date: 9/4/03 7:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: Tony Williams wrote: Guy Alcala wrote in message t... Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through the top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor) or more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire or at least put the engine out of action. [much good info snipped] Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units, it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often. That's my reading as well. Guy Your reading might have been different had you flown over a field in which Panzers had been caught in the open by P-47's and you could see the planes swarming around the tanks as they smoked, burned and exploded. And had anyone ever found, examined, photographed and documented such a field of late war _Panzers_ knocked/burned out by .50 cal. MG hits scored by P-47s or any other a/c, I'd be convinced. Since no one ever did, but they did examine, photograph and document lots of soft-skinned vehicles, SP howitzers, halftracks and armored cars which had been so knocked out, results which accord with the known penetration capability of the .50 cal. and the armor protection of those targets, I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the ground. Guy |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, reality or fiction? | [email protected] | Military Aviation | 55 | September 13th 03 06:39 PM |