Why the Tiger?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Puck
I've burned holes through 3/8" cold rolled steel with a 30 cal, I suspect the penetration of a 50 AP would be slightly higher.

 

Hehe.

[Pongo]

The tales of killing tanks with richochets can probebly mostly be attributed to the massive over claiming of kills on tanks by the USAAF. Or the rampant miss identifiying of ground vehicles by the USAAF. IE either they didnt kill it at all..or they were not attacking a tank.
The richochet tactic was documented successfull with 57mm anti tank guns vs Panthers in the ardennes though.
But think about it. IF its true that tanks are vulnerable to 50 cal in that way..the infantry would have been the first to know. they had lots of 50s and and I have never read an account of them claiming to kill a tank in this way..

Ive shot lots of 50....
I love the 50..
But it cant kill a tiger.

[Puck]

Infantry is firing their 50s from a slightly lower altitude.  The angle of incedence is measured in single digits.  Good bounce, but there's no way to hit the bottom of a tank like that.

I have no idea if the stories are accurate; the claims of the P47 drivers interviewed survives the basic sanity test, but I have no other information to indicate any of those bounce attacks were successful.

Would be cool to know the "truth"

[john9001]

i don't think the 50 cal was a normal Infantry weapon* in WW2, gun and ammo too heavy to drag around, i think it was only mounted on vehicles. and when you refer to "tanks" remember the panzer IV med tank was not a tiger ( panzer VI) or a panther (panzer V), they are heavy tanks.

44MAG

* by Infantry weapon i mean there were no 50 cal MG squads in the Infantry, they used 30 cal MG's

[slimm50]

From EatAPuss:  sets drag...waits

Heheheheh.

[Shiva]

i don't think the 50 cal was a normal Infantry weapon* in WW2, gun and ammo too heavy to drag around, i think it was only mounted on vehicles.

Of course it was only mounted on vehicles; that's why the Army went to all the expense of having the M3 tripod and the M1 AA mount (which converted the M3 tripod into an elevated mount suitable for use against low-flying aircraft) manufactured.



Table of Organization and Equipment (BW)
US Infantry Division 1943-45

HQ Company
3 57mm ATG
3 .50-cal HMG

MP Platoon
Ordinance Light Maintenance Company

Quartermaster Company
51 2.5 ton truck

Signal Company
Medical Battalion

3 Infantry Regiments
216 Heavy Rifle RL squads
126 MMG (90 .30-cal heavy and 36 .30-cal light)
105 HMG .50-cal*
54 81mm Mortar
81 60mm Mortar
54 57mm AT Guns [division total 57]
99 2.5 ton truck
* - 35 per regiment; 9 per battalion or 54 if only battalion HMGs counted

Division Artillery
54 105mm Howitzers
12 155mm Howitzers
139 2.5 ton truck (count for TOAW = 66, one per gun)

Cav Recon Troop (Mechanized)
13 M8 Armored Cars
5 Halftracks
9 Jeep (there were more, but at least 9 were armed with MG)
3 Heavy Rifle or SMG squads [division total 246]
13 .30-cal light MG
3 .50-cal HMG
9 60mm Mortars [division total 90]

Engineer Battalion
27 Engineer Squad
18 .30-cal light MG [division total 157 MMG]
12 .50-cal HMG [division total 120]
22 2.5 ton truck [division total 238]

Self Propelled Anti-Tank Battalion
14 M10 Wolverines
30 M18 Hellcats  
Self Propelled Artillery Battalion
18 M7 HMC  
Towed Anti-Tank Battalion
9  37mm AT Guns
20 57mm AT Guns
9  90mm AT Guns  
Anti-Aircraft Battalion  
Cavalry Company (Recon)
17 M4 Shermans

Sources:
"World War II Order of Battle" by Shelby Stanton,
"Cross Channel Attack", Gordon Harrison,
"Organization of the Army Ground Forces" in the "US Army in World War II" series.

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Puck
Semi related, I was watching the History channel's Thunderbolts, and one of the pilots interviewed mentioned they'd bounce their fiftys under German tanks.  Took em out quick, since there wasn't much armor on the bottom.

Since I actually survived pouring 1000 rounds of .50 into the side of a tank at point blank range I suspect ricochets aren't modeled, which is a shame.  Be fun to take out GVs that way rather than by direct fire.

the problem with this story which has been brought up loads of times is it doesnt mention which tank or 'how' this worked. The most probable is that the panzers often leaked oil and fuel and so 1000's of incindaries etc could well have set fire to them and thus take them out.There are many studies of the damaged tanks done by the allies and it was a very low number that was taken out by air attacks.If i remember right it was an extremly low percentage.Many were simply abandoned by terrified crews rather than actually penetrated.
Seems to me as a pilot if i shot under tanks and it caught fire or the crews abandoned the tanks I would think it was a kill.This is just another pilot story and doesnt really add up when you read all about armour penetration vs the guns power to do so.

However, the later panzers were built with a lot poorer quality of steel (history channel prog) and often had very different thicknesses/strength compared to older and better quality tanks.

who knows ? maybe it did work but in AH we dont have this sort of thing modeled so its pretty irrelavent.best we can use is data on max armour penetration over velocity/armour penetating power of the guns.

If i remember correctly some guns do not have AP shells modeled in AH so to ask for this to be added based on one account by a pilot on tv seems a bit much to base a model on.All you will do it have people complain once again that the 50cal is over modeled  for penetration. Take a look at this chart for lethality on guns like the 50 cal. If 20mm's had trouble penetrating armour how does the 50 cal do so good?

[hazed-]

oops heres pic:

[john9001]

Originally posted by Puck


Funny that.  I have two GV kills this tour; one is a panzer.  He was busy shooting at one of our panzers, so I was able to sneak up on his blind side and take out his track and engine as I weant around back.  Must have damaged the turret as well.  On the next pass I got stopped about five meters from his right side, stopped my engine, and proceeded to unload all the rest of my ammo.  His hull gun couldn't move far enough to hit me.

After I ran out of bullets I restarted my engine, drove around behind him, and headed home.

Got to wonder what that sounded like on his FE, though.  About 1000 rounds of fifty cal hitting him at point blank range.  I was close enough to see the hit sprites for all four guns show up seperatley.  Wish I'd recorded that...  

talking AH here not RL but it looks like in AH the 50's will damage some parts of the PNZ IV but not all of it no matter how many rounds hit , he damaged the eng , track , and main  gun  but could not "kill" the tank. so it depends where and with what you hit it with.

44MAG

[Staga]

WWII .50 cal AP/I rounds penetration was ~20mm from 100meters.

Only way it could penetrate any part of PzIV is straight from the top or from under the tank.
I don't think U.S fighterpilots ever pushed their luck by diving straight down to 100m (about 300ft) to get their guns inside the efective range.

Well maybe they did but they sure couldn't come back to tell about it.

[Vulcan]

For the 50 cal to bounce of a road it would have to be at very low angle. IE, as Rip said a shooter on the ground could bounce a rifle round of a dirt road. But what angle does a P47 come in on? Thats the first problem. At angles over 30 degrees I'd guess the round would simply penetrate the road.

So then you have angles of less than 30 degrees. Say you came in at 20 degrees elevation. On 10mm armour that makes the effective armour thickness what ...  effectivelt 30mm (forgotten all my trig), and something like 60mm at 10 degrees of elevation (the equivlent of an aircraft firing from 3000 feet distance and 500 feet elevation).

IE, to acheive an effective firing angle against the armour thickness, you have to be at a relatively steep angle. To acheive an effective richochet you have to firing at a relatively shallow angle. The two negate each other.

Sorry but I call BS

[Puck]

Originally posted by hazed-
oops heres pic:

I'm telling Mr. Shaw you stole his table!

[Turbot]

Originally posted by Vulcan

IE, to acheive an effective firing angle against the armour thickness, you have to be at a relatively steep angle. To acheive an effective richochet you have to firing at a relatively shallow angle. The two negate each other.

Sorry but I call BS

Precisely.  This resurfaces every so often when someone is out opf original troll ideas.

[chunder']

In response to the ricochet kills of Panther tanks, I have heard of this and it has been verified true (not by 50cal or any MG though).  Here's the catch though... the earlier Panthers had what is referred to as a "shot trap" due to its curved gun mantlet.  What was happening was the Allied tank or anti-tank gun would aim for the bottom half of the Panther's gun mantlet, the shell would ricochet off the mantlet downward, then it would pierce the roof armour over the driver/radio operator.  On the later Panthers a "chin" was added to the bottom of the mantlet to prevent the likelyhood of shells bouncing down through the hull roof.

[Pongo]

Yes. but in the Ardenns the farthest advancing panthers of kamp gruppe Pieper were killed by anti tank guns aiming at the cobbles under the tanks... two panthers were killed that way at that one engagment.