Author Topic: Serious question on tanking in AH (Read 1546 times)

Kweassa · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2003, 02:27:52 AM »

Quote

They said that in a few instances it had actually been done

Dea, the instances they are talking about are the same thing as the claimed urban legends.. The sort where pilots would gather around at the bar and talk about; "Hey you know what? I heard from Bobby Earl that his friend saw a guy bounce a .50 off the ground at get one of those Kraut tanks" etc etc.

Would a .50 penetrate bottom armour? If the P-47 was shooting at it 90 degrees, probably. Would a ricocheting bullet which just impacted the ground and striking at the bottom metal at a slanted angle do it? Impossible. Even if the bullet would strike the ground and ricochet in a really bizzare angle of 90 degrees straight up, I'd be skeptical that would penetrate.

There's a reason why nations spent money to develop tank killers.

Tumor · « **Reply #31 on:** September 30, 2003, 04:12:07 AM »

Well... apparently the argument can't be settled until we get some folks to try it out in real life.

BenDover · « **Reply #32 on:** September 30, 2003, 06:16:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blue Mako
Engage brain and read again. The argument I was commenting on was that pilots probably saw tank crews abandoning their tanks after a strafing attack, even though the tanks were undamaged, thus claiming a kill of a tank by strafing. Why would tank crews abandon an undamaged tank? Did tank crews run away from their vehicles every time an mg was fired at them? Think about it.

Engage eyes and reread MY post from the top.

Hell, I'll even repost it here

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Blue Mako
Dumb argument. If tank crews were immune to strafing aircraft then why would they abandon the tank? Would you leave the safety of tonnes of steel and expose yourself to being strafed if there was nothing to fear? No way, crews would only abandon a tank if they were in fear of their life, especially if there was enemy aircraft attacking at the time. To suggest otherwise is just silly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thought of the aircraft's next pass being that of droping bombs ever come to your mind?

MetaTron · « **Reply #33 on:** September 30, 2003, 07:32:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DrDea
I saw something on this on the Hystory channel.it was a P 47 show.They said that in a few instances it had actually been done.A .50 COULD penetrate bottom hull armor.Notoriously known for being thinner.IE Mines...attack the bottom.Sticky bombs were aimed for the bottom or treads.Cant prove any of it and its hard to say but I wouldnt disscount it right out.

The history channel? You think the history channel is a great source? The fact is that tank crews feared air attacks. Not because machine guns were scarey but because bombs could toss them around like kindling wood and rockets could set them ablaze. Fire scares everyone.

Mako I skipped a lot of steps in logic thinking there wouldnt be a problem keeping up. Guess that was my mistake.

Tumor · « **Reply #34 on:** September 30, 2003, 09:29:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MetaTron
Fire scares everyone.

ha! I'm not afraid of fire! But then > I'm Tumor.

Zanth · « **Reply #35 on:** September 30, 2003, 09:30:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ALF
Another common practice amoung america fighter pilots who lacked cannons, was to bounce the bullets off the ground, and into the soft underbelly. Worked best on hard roads of course, but was a very common tactic.

Oh god here we go again. This thread will go for a bit till finally, once again, it will be agreed that this did not happen

Glint · « **Reply #36 on:** September 30, 2003, 12:08:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zanth
Oh god here we go again. This thread will go for a bit till finally, once again, it will be agreed that this did not happen

I say we place Zanth in a tank and strafe him till we see what happens
~~Glint~~

moot · « **Reply #37 on:** September 30, 2003, 10:33:25 PM »

there was a thread a while back that went back and forth for a while until, off the top of my head, the consensus came to 50cals not being supposed to penetrate the Pz's armor, 90deg or not.
I don't know if that is correct or not, but that's what the conclusion seemed to be, what most players have said when asked since, and the fault Ouch seems to imply in the OP.

DrDea · « **Reply #38 on:** September 30, 2003, 10:44:23 PM »

Is that what you call a "Moot" point?

Blue Mako · « **Reply #39 on:** October 01, 2003, 01:51:24 AM »

BenDover, dive bombing has precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Although, as you brought it up, let's look at the logic of it, shall we? Would a real life pilot make a pass to strafe a hardened object like a tank if he is carrying bombs?

Blue Mako · « **Reply #40 on:** October 01, 2003, 02:02:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MetaTron
I suppose you could be right. When my tank is hit I just start screaming for supplies and wait for the magic crate to arrive. Why should it be any different for men with their lives at risk? What was I thinking?

Mako I skipped a lot of steps in logic thinking there wouldnt be a problem keeping up. Guess that was my mistake.

Okay, let me try to give you a clue as to what I was discussing in the first place.

Original argument by MetaTron: Pilots claimed kills after strafing tanks but they were mistaken because they just saw the tank crews running away after being strafed.

My Rebuttal: If a tank was not in anyway harmed by an aircraft strafing it, why would the crews run away, exposing themselves to strafing without any protection from their tank?

Conclusion: Original argument is flawed because the tank crews would not expose themselves to unnecessary danger, thus either no claims would have been made because a crew wouldn't run away from a perfectly good tank or the tanks were damaged by the strafing and any claims would have been genuine.

An exercise in debating really as it will never be anything but academic. Whether it actually happened or not can only be answered by people who were there, and answered most exactly by those in the tanks that were attacked. These discussions, while amusing, in absolutely no way shape or form can ever produce anything other than an opinion. It is fun though to see the armchair experts come out of the woodwork.

Furious · « **Reply #41 on:** October 01, 2003, 02:02:16 AM »

It's easy to end this conversation. Provide one documented case in which a tank was determined to have been disabled by mg fire to its underside.

BenDover · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2003, 02:09:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blue Mako
BenDover, dive bombing has precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Although, as you brought it up, let's look at the logic of it, shall we? Would a real life pilot make a pass to strafe a hardened object like a tank if he is carrying bombs?

What about if the pass was to id the tank, then when he saw it was german, he opened fire on it?

Remeber they didn't have big arse neon signs above the targets in those days, they also didn't have killshooter either, lives were at risk if they just bombed the targets willy-nilly, and you'd want those lives to be the enemies.

MetaTron · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2003, 09:05:36 AM »

Blue: I believe you are being stubborn and mule-headed on purpose. Even someone that never thinks about war can understand why a tank crew would run away when a plane starts to strafe their vehicle. Machine guns are used to range a vehicle or to mark its position for the heavy guys. Its not a question of debate. Its a question of fact and denial.

Now I can understand a crew staying in the tank if they have never been attacked, or if they dont see the planes coming. Anyone that has ever seen a Typhoon or a Thunderbolt attack a tank column, will quickly bail out and run. Unlike Aces High a one-thousand pound bomb will toss a panzer or tiger tank into the air and kill the crew on impact without even piercing the armor. The same armor that keeps them safe is unyielding to their soft fleshy bodies. Then there's rockets. Rockets pierce armor and turn fleshy humans into splattered goo. Machine guns fire armor piercing and incendiary rounds that cause fires on leaky tanks. Tank have nothing that can fight aircraft. Any pintle gun would be quickly abandoned even for the relative safety of the vehicles interior, or the vehicle abandoned.

Your idea that crewmen would merely sit inside and chuckle at the useless .50 caliber fire is ridiculous.

Panze · « **Reply #44 on:** October 01, 2003, 09:33:43 AM »

German tanks had quite good fire extinguishers. And since they were pretty fuel hungry extra fuel was often carried onboard. This fuel wasnt protected anyway and could easily be set on fire even with mg fire. So after fighter put their tank on fire, crew bailed out and run to forest and waited for fire extinguishers to stifle fire. Once this happened they came back, made repairs if necessery (and able to) and continued their way.

From fighter it seem like a kill, when tank starts burning and crew bails out...