Plane I Would like to see #2 (Hs 129 article)

[storch]

I read in a past issue of Air and Space about a Laotian-Hmong pilot name Li Lyu who flew T-28Ds in that conflict and was credited with approximately 100 T76 kills utilizing the T-28 and 500lb GP iron bombs.  It was reported that in one instance he put the 500lb through the open cupola hatch, literally on the tank commander's head.  The odds eventually caught up with him and he was killed after his plane was hit by ground fire.  I'll see if I still have that issue lying around somewhere.  However one need look no further than Hans Rudel for an example.  In 2530 sorties he destroyed 519 Soviet tanks, mostly in a Ju-87.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Anyway here is the report on the effectiveness of 20mm vs. 40 mm:

The 20mm AP Mk III referred to was an experimental tungsten-cored ammo, never issued for service.

TW

[Crumpp]

The 20mm AP Mk III referred to was an experimental tungsten-cored ammo, never issued for service.

Interesting.  I was not impressed with 20mm performance from that report in the first place.

Crumpp

[Wotan]

I have one account of a Spitfire disabling a Tiger (rather than a panzer) with cannon fire. Bullets bounced under the tank somehow and disabled it.

'Urban myth'. Even the under side of the tiger was well amored. Some US jug pilots claimed the same thing with .50 cals.

The way tanks were stopped from the air was by destroying their support vehicles.

Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront'

Tony,

Do know the RAF hispano 'belting' for ground attack missions? Did they still carry HE?

[Angus]

I have the story on Print from first hand.
Will type it up for you;)

Not a myth....

(Might have been a Panzer though)

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Angus
I have the story on Print from first hand.
Will type it up for you;)

Not a myth....

(Might have been a Panzer though)

From which source - the German or the Allied side? And was it corroborated or just the word of one man?

Consider the following facts:

1. The fighter would have to bounce bullets or shells off the road at the same angle at which they would strike the underside of the tank. For them to bounce off the road but penetrate the tank, the road would have to be harder than the tank's armour.

2. The penetration of projectiles falls off sharply as the angle of attack on the armour reduces. For instance, the .5 AP could penetrate around 20-25mm maximum if hitting at 90 degrees, but only 5mm if hitting at 30 degrees - a typical diving attack angle.

3. Striking the road would destabilise the bullets so they would no longer strike point-first, greatly reducing their penetration.

4. The armour underneath tanks was much the same thickness as the armour on top, i.e. at least 10mm. So the chance of penetration would actually be better with a straightforward attack on the top surface - and that was very low.

5. All sorts of impossible things were solemnly reported by first-hand witnesses in WW2. Observations made from a cramped, vibrating aircraft with poor visibility which was flashing past at high speed while the pilot was supercharged with adrenaline are not, shall we say, the most reliable you will find.

TW

[Angus]

Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."

So there you go. Not really the urban myth, - doesn't get much clearer than this.
I'd however take the "Tiger" definition with a grain of salt,- could have been a Panzer of some sort, fighter pilots were maybe not the experts in recognizing tanks.
But a burnt out tank with "Bravo RAF" on the hull, hehehe.

BTW, Duncan-Smith was one of if not THE last Spitfire pilots to fire it's guns in anger,,,,,in Korea I belive.
Think it was a rocket equipped Seafire, flying off carrier.
Now again, just from memory, but the above was also pretty close to how I remembered it.

[Angus]

Oh, Tony, just saw your post.
Forgot something, - D.S. was by that time a ground attack expert, working closely with ground troops in the close support business.

There was also something that just hit me.

There are figures with muzzle velocity and penetration and so on.

A high speed strafing dive will increase the speed of the bullet by some 300 feet per second, easily.

(that is a gentle dive with mere 220 mph)

[Wotan]

It doesn’t matter if the pilot telling the story believed it, that's not evidence. Just re-read the points Tony mentioned. It doesn’t matter how fast the aircraft was moving. Once the round struck the ground it loses energy, becomes deformed and destabilizes the bullet.

There were battlefield surveys (see the link I provide above) of abandoned and destroyed tanks. None were ever found knocked out by a round entering underneath.

Some Jug pilots have said the same about .50 cals.  I read one account where a jug pilot claimed to have entombed a tank crew by spraying it with 50 cals and the resulting strikes 'welded' them in by hitting the hatch rim. It's nonsense as well.

Also, please give the original source for your recollection.

[vorticon]

he more than likely got lucky and had a few bullets going through a peice of armour that had been damaged by enemy tank fire or some such. more likely than bullets bouncing off the tarmac.

anmd before the discussion on it goes any further, read through the MANY previous things on the same thing.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Angus
Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."

So there you go. Not really the urban myth, - doesn't get much clearer than this.
I'd however take the "Tiger" definition with a grain of salt,- could have been a Panzer of some sort, fighter pilots were maybe not the experts in recognizing tanks.
But a burnt out tank with "Bravo RAF" on the hull, hehehe.

BTW, Duncan-Smith was one of if not THE last Spitfire pilots to fire it's guns in anger,,,,,in Korea I belive.
Think it was a rocket equipped Seafire, flying off carrier.
Now again, just from memory, but the above was also pretty close to how I remembered it.

Bud Anderson mentioned at the WB Con in '98 that there were a couple in his squadron that scored kills on tanks the same way because of the minimul armor protection on the belly of the tank.


ack-ack

[GRUNHERZ]

The bottom of a Tiger was too thick for any 20mm cannon to resonably penetrate in a direct hit let alone a high angle shot from a slowed, destabilized and deformed round after it bounces from the ground.  Those are the facts. This is one of the strangest theories/myths around, even moreso because the facts to discount it are so easy to come by.  And if any of you go and ask:

"But are you saying our childhood pilot heros are lying?"

My answer is no, but I am saying they are wrong.

If, if, this incident happened at all the only possibility is that the fuel was set on fire by shells coming in through the rear deck cooling grills and hitting the fuel tanks and radiators under them. This was a real vulnerability, but even the odds of this were pretty minimal.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
If, if, this incident happened at all the only possibility is that the fuel was set on fire by shells coming in through the rear deck cooling grills and hitting the fuel tanks and radiators under them. This was a real vulnerability, but even the odds of this were pretty minimal.

I would agree with this.  In this case, given they drove out to the wreck to confirm it, it would seem that the minimal odds were beaten.  Even though the pilot is wrong in how he thought he'd done it, he was right in calling it "pure luck, but very satisfying."

I have never understood any way to get the physics to work for bouncing belly penetrations.  It just can't happen.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Karnak
I would agree with this.  In this case, given they drove out to the wreck to confirm it, it would seem that the minimal odds were beaten.  Even though the pilot is wrong in how he thought he'd done it, he was right in calling it "pure luck, but very satisfying."

I have never understood any way to get the physics to work for bouncing belly penetrations.  It just can't happen.

Agree also - this is by far the most likely explanation. It was not impossible for 20mm cannon and .5 inch MGs to take out tanks in this way, just very improbable - otherwise they would have been doing it all the time and wouldn't have needed to bother with rockets and bombs.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[MiloMorai]

There was an access hatch in the bottom of the engine compartment. If this had been left off, then it is possible a 20mm could have beat the odds and entered the compartment.

This hatch can be seen in the drawing on pg 205 of the book I mentioned earlier.

Have a look at this site > 1/6 and 1/8 operating models. http://www.interdacom.ru/~tanks