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

However, I would very interested to
see the video clip.

Likewise.

Okay, I don't know if you all will be able to view this (I just got a
new video editing program), so let me know. I have uploaded the video
clip as promised...but I made it in the smallest file size
possible--and the video is not the best, but you can hear the audio
quite well. I put it in a REALPLAYER format. THe URL to download is:
www.texasairmuseum.com/temp/p47tank.rmvb

Let me know what you all think. If someone wants a super high quality
video, I can try to provide it.

"Nick" wrote in message
om

Let me know what you all think. If someone wants a super high quality
video, I can try to provide it.

I can't say for sure, but it sounds like he's talking about getting
ricochets into the fuel tank in the *trailer* the Tiger was towing, not into
the Tiger itself.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:

No, I've thought about this but it's not what he's saying. He said that
sometimes the trailer comes off and he'll just try to "bounce" the bullets
underneath the tiger's belly and penetrate the thin armor, instead. He'll find
any way he can to take it down.

I think that's what he's saying.

I agree with this too, although, like Tony and others I feel that
ricochets would have expended most of their energy and likely
wouldn't be able to penetrate much. Even .303 tracer rounds
ricochets off the ocean surface haven't much energy, their flight
path is very curved indicating they've lost most of their speed.
I've seen lots of this effect.
--

-Gord.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:

No, I've thought about this but it's not what he's saying. He said that
sometimes the trailer comes off and he'll just try to "bounce" the bullets
underneath the tiger's belly and penetrate the thin armor, instead. He'll find
any way he can to take it down.

I think that's what he's saying.

I agree with this too, although, like Tony and others I feel that
ricochets would have expended most of their energy and likely
wouldn't be able to penetrate much. Even .303 tracer rounds
ricochets off the ocean surface haven't much energy, their flight
path is very curved indicating they've lost most of their speed.
I've seen lots of this effect.

Note that a .50 cal Browning has a LOT more energy than a .303.

Al Minyard

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Alan Minyard
Date: 8/31/03 3:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Note that a .50 cal Browning has a LOT more energy than a .303.

Al Minyard


Al , that was one of the greatest understatements ever posted on this NG. But
tactfully presented. (grin)



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

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:

No, I've thought about this but it's not what he's saying. He said that
sometimes the trailer comes off and he'll just try to "bounce" the bullets
underneath the tiger's belly and penetrate the thin armor, instead. He'll find
any way he can to take it down.

I think that's what he's saying.

I agree with this too, although, like Tony and others I feel that
ricochets would have expended most of their energy and likely
wouldn't be able to penetrate much. Even .303 tracer rounds
ricochets off the ocean surface haven't much energy, their flight
path is very curved indicating they've lost most of their speed.
I've seen lots of this effect.

Note that a .50 cal Browning has a LOT more energy than a .303.

The argument as far as I'm concerned is not about energy loss from a
ricochet. It's that the .50 didn't have enough penetrative ability to
get through a tank's belly armour at what would have to be a very
glancing striking angle. Furthermore, the bullets would probably have
been destabilised by the impact with the road (assuming that they
didn't just drill into it) and tumbling on impact with the armour,
further reducing their effect.

Incidentally, while the .50 has about four to five times as much
energy as a rifle-calibre cartridge, the AP bullet has only about
double the penetration because, being wider, it takes much more energy
to push it through armour.

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 will be getting this footage on DVD which will enable us to see a better
picture quality, as well. Also, I sent an email to the show's director asking
him about this "claim". Give me a couple more days until I get the DVD.

On 1 Sep 2003 00:16:41 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 01:44:04 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(TooPlaneCrazy7) wrote:

No, I've thought about this but it's not what he's saying. He said that
sometimes the trailer comes off and he'll just try to "bounce" the bullets
underneath the tiger's belly and penetrate the thin armor, instead. He'll find
any way he can to take it down.

I think that's what he's saying.

I agree with this too, although, like Tony and others I feel that
ricochets would have expended most of their energy and likely
wouldn't be able to penetrate much. Even .303 tracer rounds
ricochets off the ocean surface haven't much energy, their flight
path is very curved indicating they've lost most of their speed.
I've seen lots of this effect.

Note that a .50 cal Browning has a LOT more energy than a .303.

The argument as far as I'm concerned is not about energy loss from a
ricochet. It's that the .50 didn't have enough penetrative ability to
get through a tank's belly armour at what would have to be a very
glancing striking angle. Furthermore, the bullets would probably have
been destabilised by the impact with the road (assuming that they
didn't just drill into it) and tumbling on impact with the armour,
further reducing their effect.

Incidentally, while the .50 has about four to five times as much
energy as a rifle-calibre cartridge, the AP bullet has only about
double the penetration because, being wider, it takes much more energy
to push it through armour.

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/

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.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

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).

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

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.

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/

Tony Williams wrote:

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).

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

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.

Beyond that, isn't there the issue of the integrity of the projectile?
After a strike pavement or a cobble, a jacketed round will deform. AP
..50" calibre, which had a jacketed antimony core IIRC, would usually
have its jacket torn off and suffer some degradation or its terminal
ballistics.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)