Originally posted by Pongo
wulf..
that is how anti tank guns are used...Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
Nah my feelings aren't hurt at all.
A little annoyed about the total waste of my free time spent on what I thought was an attempt at a constructive discussion is all.
'That is how anti tank guns are used'?
In idea situations, maybe. I guess your idea of a battlefield situation has alot more 'ideal situations' than most others idea.
I mean, by your reasoning, the Germans were fools to bother with getting 75L48s onto the battlefield.
After all, the 50L60 could easily penetrate the flank of the T-34.
And acccording to you, this was an easy thing to accomplish.
By your reasoning, there is no cause for the 'gun vs. armor' race that took place during WW2.
Apparently MBT designers were all idiots as well. Flank shots were so easy to come by they should have never made the grave error of making flank armor weaker than frontal armor. After all, the MBT crews were powerless to stop AT crews from scoring hits on the flanks of their vehicles.
Here's a clue for you: frontal armor mattered because well trained MBT crews did a fair job (or better) of keeping that thicker armor pointed towards the most severe AP threats they were facing. Talk to anyone who is well educated on the subject and they will say the 6 Pdr. AT was insufficient in terms of penetration when dealing with the Pz VIE. The assumption was/is that your AT weapons had better be able to penetrate the best armor of the AFVs they were facing. This was the entire idea behind the constant 'gun vs. armor' race of WW2. I am in shock that this even needs explaining.
Your 'argument', an out of the blue "Yes, but the 6 Pdr. could penetrate the *flank* of the Pz VIE" is akin to my saying that the Bf 110G is superior to the Spitfire IX in air to air combat...because the firepower of the Bf 110G can destroy the Spitfire in .25 seconds and the reverse is not true.
I'd be an idiot for saying that though. I'm discounting the ability to bring firepower to bear against the opponent.
You are discounting the ability of an AFV crew to *ever* avoid exposing their flank.
Alot of German PaK were knocked out because they couldn't easily penetrate the frontal armor of the T-34 at medium ranges. I guess they were all just incompetent. After all, all an AT weapon needs to be capable of to be effective on the battlefield is the ability to penetrate the flank armor of an opposing AFV.
Gee. I guess Pz VIBs weren't all that threatening after all. By your reasoning every AT gun and MBT deployed MA in service with the Allies at the time of the Pz VIBs arrival at the front could penetrate the side hull armor of the Pz VIB ~40% of the time at ~500 meters.
Mike/wulfie
