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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction? From: ) Therefore the conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only assumed that this technique worked. I I think we might say that you are "assuming" that the pilots telling these stories" assumed" this technique worked. right? Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:29:07 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
I don't doubt this too much, I've seen lots of tracer ricocheting from the sea surface. We used to fire Browning .303's from Lancaster nose turrets and likely 10 percent of our tracer would bounce. Hell, we used to see bits and pieces of jacket sticking into the rubber strip around the windscreens occasionally. -- -Gord. I've fired countless thousands of rounds through M2HB BMGs and richocets do occur even on seemingly soft ground (there are rocks and stones in most topsoil layers). However, the problem of geometry can't be overlooked. Any decent billiard player understands the angles problems involved. So, I find it extremely unlikely that rounds fired would: A) Recochet at the correct angle. B) The utter lack of energy retention due to bullet deformity. Oh, and the tanker's terror associated with hearing and seeing Jugs in one's immediate area is most likely the realization that those P-47s may be hauling a pair of 1,000 pound bombs and a wing full of HVARs. Sounds like wishful thinking at best. My regards, Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.netaces.org http://www.hitechcreations.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
) wrote in message . com...
As usual I mixed up terminology. Sorry about that. Therefore the conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only assumed that this technique worked. If anything worked in that attack, it was something else. And please do not birng in other craft and calibers. P-47/51 were not armed with 20/30/40/75 mm cannons. There would have been experiments presumably. There's a very interesting article about the effectiveness of Il-2 against heavy armor. Even though when anyone says Il-2 people automatically think tank-buster, the effectiveness was nearly negligent. If they got any, it was by massive application of firepower or luck. They were excellent against soft targets with rockets, bombs and guns though. That article could be found at www.batllefield.ru somewhere. Unfortunately, I could not find it just now. The site is mostly armor oriented. The favoured method for FW190s attacking soviet heavy armour over the steppes was to fly over the top of the tank and release a 250KG bomb. This would slide along the ground and impact on the tank. It was considered an accurate method. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I think we might say that you are "assuming" that the pilots telling these stories" assumed" this technique worked. right? Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: I don't assume anything. That's what the people have been saying so far. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
(John S. Shinal) wrote in message ...
aartamen wrote: Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western allies attack planes? No firsthand knowledge but plausible. Recent gun camera footage of strafing attacks shows a tremendous number of tracers on ricochet trajectories from low angle strafing passes on dirt airfields. By definition, the angle at which the bullets would strike the underside of the tank would be the same as when they hit the road in front. If the bullets would bounce off something as soft as a dirt track, why should they be able to penetrate 10mm of armour plate at the same angle? For this to work, it would first be essential for the road to be harder than the armour... Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, From: Bill Shatzer Date: 8/5/03 10:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: 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, Too bad we have no actual P-47 pilots in this NG to give us actual experience in this matter. It would save us a lot of conjecture. But I did meet some German tankers in various Munich bierstubes after the war and they said they dirtied their pants when they heard the distinctive sound (R-2800's) of P-47's overhead. There is no doubt that the P-47 pilots made such attacks, and that they believed that they worked. They weren't necessarily correct in that belief, however; as has been pointed out, the claims from RAF and USAAF fighter-bomber units were about ten times greater than the actual number of tanks destroyed. Some of the possible reasons for this are included in 'Flying Guns: World War II': "Given these unpromising circumstances, why did the fighter-bomber pilots believe that they were achieving such success against tanks? There can be no doubt that they genuinely thought that they were destroying them in large numbers. There appear to be several reasons for that. First, problems with identification. Flying a vibrating aircraft, with restricted visibility, at low level and high speed and under the stress of combat, are hardly ideal circumstances for accurate observation. Add to that the natural tendency for the size and strength of the opposition to appear magnified, and it becomes less surprising that any vaguely tank-sized object was classified as a tank – and usually a Tiger tank! Many of the "tanks" claimed destroyed were actually armoured cars, troop carriers, armoured recovery vehicles and soft-skinned transport. The second problem was the difficulty in observing the effect of attacks. The cannon shells and HMG bullets fired in strafing attacks generally carried incendiary or explosive chemicals and caused flames and smoke to erupt wherever they hit. A tank revving up its engine to get out of the way can also generate a lot of smoke. Tanks apparently covered in flames and smoke were confidently reported as "flamers" or "smokers" and claimed as destroyed, whereas in most cases they would not have suffered serious damage. The blast effect of rockets and bombs threw up enough dust and smoke to obscure the entire area, and pilots frequently believed that it would have been impossible for anything to survive. They were usually wrong. Large bombs could disable tanks with a near-miss, but RPs required a direct hit. Finally, there was the problem of duplicated claims. A disabled tank seen from the air may not appear damaged, and multiple air attacks were therefore sometimes launched against tanks which had already been knocked out." It is certainly true, however, that many German tankers suffered from a fear of the fighter bombers and some baled out of their vehicles when they arrived, even if, logically, a buttoned-up tank was the safest place to be. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|