Author Topic: .50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)  (Read 1574 times)

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2000, 09:33:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by -ammo-:
I dont know fishu at all, but I have derived from his posts--many are the number-- that he has an agenda to put forth. This agenda has nothing to with the truth (unless it is  a VERY subjective truth). He is passionate about his Luftwaffe AC and their weapons, which is fine by me.

Fishu, I am sorry but you are wrong. Whatever you like to believe about the mauser cannon is wrong. It is nowhere in comparison to the Hispano cannon. It makes no difference to me either. I have nothing to prove. The hispano live round was a much bigger cartridge  than the Mauser. the mauser fired at a low velocity in comparison to the hispano. This is not to say that the mauser was a weak weapon, it was great within its envelope, which is short range. Its trajectory would be much more arced than the hispano or the 50 cal browning machine gun.

I too reload my own mettalics and enjoy playing in ballistics. I reload more high powered small caliber rifle ammo than I do handgun ammo. Yes I have a pretty good grasp on ballistics, where you have just an unfounded opinion. You are quite entitled to that opinion, but please dont attemp to pass it off as fact without evidence.
 

Well, the main thing here what I am trying to say that the fall between mausers and hispanos is too great in lethality against tanks..
No way would I believe that Hispano kills tank with 5 hits, definetly not from the side or front, which happens fairly alot compared to that what I could believe.
(and ranges like 400 yards? no..)

Offline BigJim

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 17
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2000, 10:15:00 PM »
Hmm lets see .50 at 2800 fps fires at 70 degree angle from d2 = 2.14 sec to hit.  At that velosity not much lost on impact, not sure of the hispano's muzzel velosity?? but must be fairly close to the .50 cal???? I don't understand the crash your plane bit, at a 70 degree dive I can pull out almost always???  Pappy the top plate on the PZ IV was 12mm which is about .48 inches I think the hatches might have been thicker.

BigJim

[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 07-27-2000).]

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2000, 10:44:00 PM »
I probably have the lousiest tank record here.. and have little to add to the converstaion except one observation and two questions.  

Obs: Upped a tank in a desperation field save attempt.. vhang folded a few moments later. I ran over to the map room and parked.

Got six kills against attacking aircraft.. never hit one with a shot. (tho i did try) 4 of the planes I 'killed' dove into me ala 'banzaiiiii!' *BOOM*.

Question one.. do most tank v a/c kills result from the pilot pancaking on or near the tank??

Question 2: All things considered; did tanks routinely survive encounters with airpanes impacting the turrents?

Just thought I'd ask....  

Hang

The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2000, 01:39:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by BigJim:
Hmm lets see .50 at 2800 fps fires at 70 degree angle from d2 = 2.14 sec to hit.  At that velosity not much lost on impact, not sure of the hispano's muzzel velosity?? but must be fairly close to the .50 cal???? I don't understand the crash your plane bit, at a 70 degree dive I can pull out almost always???  Pappy the top plate on the PZ IV was 12mm which is about .48 inches I think the hatches might have been thicker.

BigJim

[This message has been edited by BigJim (edited 07-27-2000).]

In following this thread I'd like to point out the following...

While the .50 is very fast and the AP types are very capable, most, if not all of the tank kills made with them are from starting fires. As has already been pointed out the the engine sheilding is the weakest point on the Panzer IV and .50's were capable of penetration here. But, the energy required to pass through the armor would leave the round either to slow or deformed to do much damage to the block (Thats a BIG if getting through). However bullet strikes on the rear or engine sheild were known to ignite the gas vapors that accumulated within the engine compartment. (Which means fuel fire and ultimately ammuntion, a clear sign of KO)

As for both the Hispano's and .50's, remember these are pointed rounds, so the relative angle of the plane's attack greatly effects if there will be penetration.

The greater the angle, the more armor a round has to penetrate. This is the slope effect.

The effect of angles plays in even more for the Hispanos however, because if only partial or only a surface strike occurs the explosive (I wonder which type our Hispano's are) won't damage the tank,  or if AP the larger surface area of the round decelerates it quickly (well more so, as if several hundred miles per hour to 0 ain't fast enough)

As for the Hispano's penetrating any portion of the tank other then the top, and perhaps very luckily the rear, is highly unlikely.
Since most tank battles were less then a kilometer apart (or a 1,000yds, whatever your flavor) that means shells weighing several kilograms and traviling (in the Panzer IV H for example) at around 2400 fps had problems with penetration. Why a Hispano does is anyone's guess.

To answer Hang's second question, due to the shape of the turrents on most tanks (rather rounded or flat but slope is at an angle) bullet strikes didn't have much chance of damaging anything other then jamming the turrent or jamming a hatch.

The big problem I see with tanks is there is no cover for them. Even when hiding in hangers or whatnot the planes can still shoot through and kill them. Which nullifies a historic tank tactic around airplanes...hiding! It's like fighting at Kursk but without the ditchs and gullies.

- Jig
------
"I read your book! Bah ha ha I read your book dammit!" -- George S. Patton, upon engaging Rommel in North Africa. Geroge C. Scott was born for that role.

Offline bloom25

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1675
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2000, 02:45:00 AM »
Just a little question here.    Isn't it true that HS and MG151 (and 30mm) exploded on impact?  If so, they should be almost completely ineffective against armored vehicles.  (No penetration) Only the Tiffie may have carried AP Hispano shells in WWII.  As far as muzzle velocity (do not have figures in front of me, so complete memory recollection here) I think that the AP 50cal had a muzzle velocity almost twice that of the MG151 and Hispano.  (Most definately over twice that of the 30mm MG 108?   )

From what I've read it sounds like p47s used to get kills against German tanks by bouncing shells off the ground into the engine compartment from a very shallow angle.  (I.E. Low to ground.)  This leads me to believe that the 50s would not penetrate the armored sections of the tank.

I'd be curious to see Armor Penetration values for the various cannon used in the game.  I truely doubt WWII fighters would have carried AP cannon shells.  (Exception is the Typhoon.)



------------------
bloom25
THUNDERBIRDS

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2000, 09:11:00 AM »
just whine, ignore

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 08-01-2000).]

Offline Jigster

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 107
      • http://www.33rd.org
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2000, 04:37:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by bloom25:
Just a little question here.    Isn't it true that HS and MG151 (and 30mm) exploded on impact?  If so, they should be almost completely ineffective against armored vehicles.  (No penetration) Only the Tiffie may have carried AP Hispano shells in WWII.  As far as muzzle velocity (do not have figures in front of me, so complete memory recollection here) I think that the AP 50cal had a muzzle velocity almost twice that of the MG151 and Hispano.  (Most definately over twice that of the 30mm MG 108?   )

From what I've read it sounds like p47s used to get kills against German tanks by bouncing shells off the ground into the engine compartment from a very shallow angle.  (I.E. Low to ground.)  This leads me to believe that the 50s would not penetrate the armored sections of the tank.

I'd be curious to see Armor Penetration values for the various cannon used in the game.  I truely doubt WWII fighters would have carried AP cannon shells.  (Exception is the Typhoon.)


It's a very good question indeed. Even a tank's main gun has hardly any chance to knock another tank out with an HE shell. Until you get into monster guns, normally those on late-war Russian tanks, HE are useless for AT. In AH it is possible to kill a tank with a front aspect shot with HE, granted it can take a few shots but is very capable of doing so.

This might perhaps be part of the problem but I really have no grounds for saying so other then real-world use of normal HE rounds.

But yes, HE shells explode (normally) on impact and the only way it will get any penetration is by having an enormous amount of explosive within the shell. Because the charge is not shaped, there is no way directing the blast to the armor, and it will take the path of least resistence.

- Jig
-------
Burp guns are the weapons of champions.

Offline Pappy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2000, 04:45:00 PM »
I'm not as well versed as others in nazi equipment of the period but 12mm seems awfull thin for a tank, if thats true a fifty AP would dance right through it I just always thought the german tanks were built and armed for bear.

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #53 on: July 28, 2000, 07:37:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Jigster:
It's a very good question indeed. Even a tank's main gun has hardly any chance to knock another tank out with an HE shell. Until you get into monster guns, normally those on late-war Russian tanks, HE are useless for AT. In AH it is possible to kill a tank with a front aspect shot with HE, granted it can take a few shots but is very capable of doing so.

This might perhaps be part of the problem but I really have no grounds for saying so other then real-world use of normal HE rounds.

But yes, HE shells explode (normally) on impact and the only way it will get any penetration is by having an enormous amount of explosive within the shell. Because the charge is not shaped, there is no way directing the blast to the armor, and it will take the path of least resistence.

- Jig
-------
Burp guns are the weapons of champions.

In AH, its possible to have tank battle with HEs, with good success  
(talking of experience)
Only problem is HE shells trajectory that takes so long time to land on target.


Then another question, why would I take HE ammo in MG151/20 if I go for tank hunt...
Give me my AP option.

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #54 on: July 28, 2000, 07:52:00 PM »
fishu, please provide a valid reference that the 151/20mm mauser gun system used armour piercing ammunition. I am not saying this isn't true, just would like to see it.


ammo
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #55 on: July 28, 2000, 10:48:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by -ammo-:
fishu, please provide a valid reference that the 151/20mm mauser gun system used armour piercing ammunition. I am not saying this isn't true, just would like to see it.


ammo

Black market  

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #56 on: July 29, 2000, 02:34:00 AM »
wont work fishu, gotta do better than that. Actually i think badger had some very in depth info that he sent me, but that was last year during WB's days.

Until then, you should be happy with your "get in close, very effective (although nowhere the match for hispano), low velocity, high explosive ammo". It works. It will never be the 2850 FPS hispano AP ammo, (yes to whoever it was that said was just plain old lead projectiles). Hispano, like 50 cal used a fully jacketed projectile, which gave it excellent terminal ballistics properties. (  exterior ballistics is the term used to describes projectiles performance while in flight, terminal ballistics is the term used to describe the projectiles performance at the point of impact and there after). If you have a copy of shaws book, turn to the table on page 6 for verification of the muzzle velocity. also not the velocity  of M2 50 cal is 2810 fps also. Now consoder the weight difference between the 20 mm and the 50 cal projectiles and you really appreciate how devasting the hispano was. Dont have the reference in front of me, but the 151 muzzle velocity varied through the war years, but stayed around 2100 fps, if some one has a reference handy that either proves or disproves this, I would apprecaite it.

Gotta hit the road for 5 days, will be back on next friday to follow up, Have a nice day


 
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #57 on: July 29, 2000, 10:12:00 AM »
It is hard to believe that if they didn't have other than some HE ammos for MG151/20, because if it was *only* one available, they must been completely idiots, even more than I could figure.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13919
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2000, 03:30:00 PM »
Long post, sorry but it just growed!!  

Heya,

Just a few comments from a very recently retired Tanker in U.S. Army (LTC).

50 Cals DID kill tanks in WW2.

50 cals DID kill modern armor in Desert Storm. Not main battle tanks but the ammo was definitely capable of penetrating even frontal amror of APC's (armored personell carriers) as well as lighter armored or fortified structures.

50 cals WILL cause considerable damage to such heavy vehicles such as an M60 tank. Our main battle tank prior to the M1 series. A 50 cal will DESTROY the main gun on a tank if hit repeatedly. The main gun is obviously a hard steel but so is the penetrator in a 50 cal AP round.

Artillery in WW2 was a main killer of tanks and not by direct hits either. Many tanks of the time had external oil and fuel storage on the vehicle. If you penetrate them and set them afire the crew typically unasses the vehicle to avoid the fire and susequent ammo cook off.

Here is some info.
Most a/c tank kills in WW2 were not catasrophic kills but a mobility kill. One a tank is immobile it becomes a fixed object removing one of it's primary assets notably the shock and speed. A fixed emplacement can be killed MUCH easier than a mobile one hence the crews interest in getting away from a stuck tank. The tracks and wheels of armored vehicles even today are capable of being damaged / destroyed by a 50 cal.

Spatula, 50 Cals are not just lead. They are a mix of ammo. 50 cal ball is a lead core in a very thick copper jacket. AP ammo is a hardened steel core (penetrator) inside a copper jacket. The reason for the jacket is to seperate the steel from the barrel so that barrels don't wear out in a few rounds. The other types of ammo in a typical combat mix were, ball, armor piercing, incendiery, tracer, ap-incendiery. This ammo is designed with a pointed tip not just to maintain velocity but as an aid to penetration. Rounded projectiles are much more prone to ricochet than are pointed bullets. Pointed bullets dig the tip in and penetrate. That is why the main anti tank ammunition in a tank is a very sharply pointed depleted uranium non explosive solid shot penetrator. What the round doesnt destroy by direct penetration is destroys by spraying white hot molten metal in the vehicle. This molten metal was formerly the armor of the vehicle. Sometimes this material is referred to as spall.

Armor design in vehicles is predicated on the environment they are expected to face. They are also based on real world considerations. You can make armor that cannot be penetrated by weapons up to 120mm ap rounds but you will not be moving it on the battlefield. It will be so heavy it won't move period. Armor is set up to be thickest on the front slopes. A curve of the slope gives protection equivalent to much thicker armor due to the oblique angle through the armor a shot would have to take to fully penetrate. Rounded armor is typically a casting of homogeneous armor grade steel such as the M60 turret and hull. WW2 armor was usually a stack of stel plates welded, bolted or riveted together. This often had sharp angles. Welded is stronger than bolted but look at WW2 armor. There was a lot still bolted on to the base armor plate. It was an easy way to add additional armor protection to the vehicle but the weight aften slowed it down. Patton was known to critcise the placement of sand bags on Sherman tanks. He did this as it was a way to slow the tank down due to the weight. High speed was the main advantage American armor had over German armor at the time. If you slow the tank down it becomes easer to hit. There were no gyrostabilized guns with laser rangefinder at that time. The heaviest armor of the WW2 era was the German Ferdinand. It was a 72+ ton monster and could take hits from the Russian 85 mm guns on their main battle tank, at least until it became immobilized. The infantry then swarmed it firing into vision slits and using molotove coctails to fry it.

In order to make a tank move it takes power and a compromise of weight and protection.M48's and M60's got the designation as that is the approximent weight, in tons, of that class of vehicle. They were refered to as 60 class vehicles. The top and rear of a tank are it's most vulnerable spots for HULL penetration.

Armor thickmess of a M60 was only about an inch on top of the turret. This is a more modern vehicle with better steel than WW2 armor. The rear grills that the engine exhaust and heat is vented through is a grill. This is NOT a solid peice of steel but looks more like overlapping angle iron bars. They cover the engine AND fuel tanks on a 48 and 60 series tank. 50 Cals can get through this stuff if allowed a bit of time to put repeated hits on it. There are also grills, albeit smaller ones, on the top side edges of the engine compartment that allow air into the engine compartment. The engine is air cooled and requires a lot of air. These grills are very close to the fuel tanks which are also in the engine compartment. These grills are a compromise in weight, protection and design to alolow the tank to function. Yes it is a vulnerable point as ANY burning liquid going into this area will be likely to start a fire. Yes diesel burns less easily than gasoline. Diesel forms vapor at 65 degrees F and it is much hotter than that in that compartment. Where you have fuel vapors you have a potential for fire. Sparks and flamable materials like incendiery material from incediery amunition can light off the fuel in a deisel tank.

All of this stuff I am talking about is still current for today's armor vehicle. It was more of a concern in WW2 as materials and design had not matured as much as today. In short, tanks were killed in WW2 by 50's but not as easily as by 20mm's or 30mm's. If you hurt the vehicle and took it out of a battle due to damage so that the crew abandoned it, it was a "kill". It didn't have to be destroyed to be a battle loss. If you left it on the field and the enemy captured it you kinda lost it just as much as if it blew to fragments.

The fact that you can't kill a tank in AH by 50 cals is not an overmodeling of the tank as much as it is an under modeling of 50 cals. The 50 cal is a serious weapon and capable of destroying equipment much heavier than you would think.

Mav
   

------------------
No Mercy Asked, None Given, Just pass the ammo

[This message has been edited by Maverick (edited 07-30-2000).]
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
.50 cal questions.....(tank v. planes)(how to kill tanks)
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2000, 04:24:00 PM »
Good post Mav.  I will disagree with you that you can't take out a tank in AH with a .50.  It is possible, just not necessarily easy.  The funny thing is, I receive complaints from both sides on this issue.  Some say tanks can be taken out with .50s and that shouldn't happen and others say tanks can't be taken out with .50s when that should be possible.  Just goes to show that one man's feature is another man's bug and the reality of a situation usually lies between two different observations.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations