Author Topic: Plane I Would like to see #2 (Hs 129 article) (Read 2990 times)

Tony Williams · « **Reply #60 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:29:30 AM »

If the tank was a burned-out wreck, it would be very hard for any casual observer to determine what set it on fire.

TW

Angus · « **Reply #61 on:** October 18, 2004, 03:00:00 PM »

with "Bravo RAF" in the soot of the hull?
found by the pilot where he reported it?

I have little doubt he set fire to a tank.
However, how, and what tank it was definately, and so on I'd take with a grain of salt.
How?
maybe incendiaries made their way through the top hatch...nasty...
maybe the tank was mounted with external fuel on the back (seen pics of that). Easily set on fire.
maybe the tanks condition was not up to standard?

I'd go for that it was not a Tiger anyway, but I have little doubt of the event.

Tony Williams · « **Reply #62 on:** October 18, 2004, 03:04:31 PM »

I wasn't doubting that the RAF attack set it on fire - merely that the observers could have known exactly how this happened. Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO.

TW

Nilsen · « **Reply #63 on:** October 18, 2004, 03:56:06 PM »

Id like the HS129, but as seen below i would prefer the ME-410.

humble · « **Reply #64 on:** October 18, 2004, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 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.

Actually the account makes perfect sense if you know anything about the tiger tank. The tank was known for ongoing leaks in fuel and hydrolics...perfectly possible for a round to spark a fire in that manner. Obviously since they were diesel engines its a bit tougher than US tanks which used gasoline but still not improbable at all. Obviously the exception that proves the rule but I'm amazed how easily you discount anything you disagree with....

humble · « **Reply #65 on:** October 18, 2004, 04:09:20 PM »

You all seem to be assuming that penatration is a requirement here. no one will argue that molitov cocktails can kill tanks...an attack on the rear of any armoured vehicle provides a real (but obviously small) chance of generating a fire thru a variety of means. It can be as simple as hitting a jerry can strapped to the back of the tank, or igniting a grease fire in the rear sprocket or igniting petrol from an existing leak. The chances of a richochet penetrating armour (in that manner) is 0.00. However, the chances of an impact on the rear hemisphere of the tank causing a catostrophic event are near zero...as an example...even if the majority of rounds are seen to go "under" a tank a single tracer round could impact the engine grill and start a fire in the engine compartment (we'll use the dirty rag theory here:))...pilot sees smoke and thinks he lit up the underside...well some handsomehunk left a rag in the engine compartment and his 1 in a million golden bb lit it off....

Angus · « **Reply #66 on:** October 18, 2004, 04:12:06 PM »

Did all the Tigers have Diesels? All german tanks perhaps?
Anyway, this here:
"Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO. "
That's why I thought it would probably not be a Tiger.

Nice Point Humble, BTW.
Hot engine oil and hydraulic oil burn quite well once their at it....

MiloMorai · « **Reply #67 on:** October 18, 2004, 04:32:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
Did all the Tigers have Diesels? All german tanks perhaps?
Anyway, this here:
"Of all of the possibilities, cannon shells bouncing up to penetrate the underside is just about the least likely IMO. "
That's why I thought it would probably not be a Tiger.

Nice Point Humble, BTW.
Hot engine oil and hydraulic oil burn quite well once their at it....

The 21 l. Maybach HL 210 P 45 of the Tiger used gasoline.

Wotan · « **Reply #68 on:** October 18, 2004, 04:37:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
Actually the account makes perfect sense if you know anything about the tiger tank. The tank was known for ongoing leaks in fuel and hydrolics...perfectly possible for a round to spark a fire in that manner. Obviously since they were diesel engines its a bit tougher than US tanks which used gasoline but still not improbable at all. Obviously the exception that proves the rule but I'm amazed how easily you discount anything you disagree with....

We are talking about bouncing rounds off the ground. That makes no sense at all.

Let's deal with that and not make unfounded rationalizations on what 'could have happened'.

I am specific in my criticism in that its a 'war time Myth' as told by some pilots that they bounced rounds off the ground and knocked out tanks by penetrating the 'soft under belly'.

Tony covered all the reasons why that is totally improbrable. Just 'boucing a round off the ground' alone is questionable.

Angus hasn't provided the opriginal source and only typed the account from recollection. Trying to put together a scenario based on 'what might have really happened' is pointless.

You can make all the guesses you want, none of them are 'proof'.

Suppose the crew abandoned the tank and then burnt it out themselves. There are plenty examples of crews abandoning perfectly functional tanks and destroying them.

See the link I provided above.

Tilt · « **Reply #69 on:** October 18, 2004, 05:05:36 PM »

Much quoted Earl (who gives a day by day diary of his war years on bigweek) was asked if he ever knew of any one killing tanks by bouncing bullets into the under belly.

Earl flew p39's and P47's as well as having test/patrol time in p51's and P 38's

He said he never heard or knew of any one who had done it but had heard the rumour...........

He said it was common practice to steer rounds into a ground vehicle by firing early and leading the dust trail into it.

There was plentiful ignorant theory during WWII just as there is about modern warfare.........

Angus · « **Reply #70 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:25:33 PM »

Hey there Wotan:
"Angus hasn't provided the opriginal source and only typed the account from recollection. Trying to put together a scenario based on 'what might have really happened' is pointless. "

I typed the account straight out of the book. My first round was from recollection which proved to be rather accurate anyway.
ISBN:0 09 950490 1

Happy now?

Wotan · « **Reply #71 on:** October 18, 2004, 06:53:41 PM »

You haven't listed the name of any book that I see. I can find it with the ISBN number now but I just re-read your posts and don't see any source listed or any book mentioned.

Unless I am missing something...

Angus · « **Reply #72 on:** October 19, 2004, 05:34:40 AM »

Duncan Smith's Autobigography
"Spitfire into battle"

joeblogs · « **Reply #73 on:** October 19, 2004, 01:56:08 PM »

(1) If the copyright is registered, as it almost certainly is, you can be subject to criminal as well as civil penatlies (lost profits).

(2) A lawyer can certainly make the argument that posting an entire article on a website where it can be downloaded a gazillion times does deprive the copyright owner of income. It may or may not hold up in court, but it will force you to hire your own attorney...

(3) It is far from clear that the fair use exception would apply to posting entire articles to a website. I doubt it would.

-Blogs

Quote

Originally posted by g00b
Read up on "fair use" of copyrighted material. I don't like FUD being spead about. Essentially if you are not depriving the copyright owner of income, you are in the clear. They may ask you to remove it, and you should do so. But they can't sue you for damages if there are none.

g00b

http://fairuse.stanford.edu

joeblogs · « **Reply #74 on:** October 19, 2004, 02:02:09 PM »

The following can be found on the Stanford website:

Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the copyright owner. Transferring information to and from a website can be done in a few ways. A user can take information from a website by copying or downloading. Or, material can be placed (sometimes called "uploaded" or "posted") from a user's computer onto the website. Any time copyrighted information is transferred to or from a website without authorization from the owner, the owner may have a copyright infringement claim against the copier, the website or both. We'll discuss how to limit liability and what to do if confronted by an angry rights holder...

Quote

Originally posted by g00b
Read up on "fair use" of copyrighted material. I don't like FUD being spead about. Essentially if you are not depriving the copyright owner of income, you are in the clear. They may ask you to remove it, and you should do so. But they can't sue you for damages if there are none.

g00b

http://fairuse.stanford.edu