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

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.")

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

"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

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

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

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/

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

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.


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:

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

(ArtKramr) wrote:


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.


Arthur Kramer

Especially so if you had mistakenly thought that the Jug had no
bomb capability, right?

Oh!, sorry...I had forgotten that you'd have known about that,
having 'Been there and done that'.
--

-Gord.