Degas? German MBTs with no belly armor in WW2?

[wulfie]

I was curious what your sources were for this?

I've got company level combat reports from 20+ German armored units translated into english.

I just got off the phone with 2 real life German armored crewmen (1 GD, 1 5 SS) who I interviewed for SSI's 'Panzer Commander'.

No mention of 'no belly armor at all'.

There was no real 'shortage' of armor plate according to all my sources, and also the plate that a MBT would have protecting it's belly would not take away from the supplies of plate used to armor the more critical areas of a MBT (different quality standards, BHN ratings, etc.).

Anyways, that's the first time I had heard of what you talked about and I used to have researching that field as a job. Very curious to see your sources.

Whoever mentioned the 'leaky fuel system' being ignited by .50 MG rounds is way off the mark as well. This whole myth stemmed from the Pz VD, which suffered engine compartment fires at an alarming rate shortly after it's introduction into combat. The cause of the fires was never a 'leaky fuel system' - it was the Pz VD being severely overweight for it's powerplant (missing max design weight by a large ammount) which caused dangerously high engine compartment and engine temperatures.

In general, all Air Forces vastly overestimated the ability of combat aircraft to 'destroy' (as in permanently disabling while killing 1 or more crew members) MBTs in WW2. Germans, Americans, British, Russian - they all overclaimed a great deal. If someone wants the conclusive reasons, let me know.

Here's a little test - someone tell me how many German MBTs (i.e. Pz, StuG, non open topped JPz) were destroyed by air attack...

A. At the battles of the Falaise Gap in Normandy?

B. At the battle of the Bulge?

...I have the allied post campaign damage assessments, done by allied A.F. intellence teams...on the groun...sitting here on my desk. I think you guys would be shocked at the difference between *reality* and what you read in most 'historical books'.

Keep in mind please I'm not implying that these overclaims were the cause of any type of dishonesty. And it's not a lack of desire to know the truth either.

In the recent air campaign versus the Yugoslav army the U.S. overclaimed on MBTs and APCs destroyed by air attack at a ratio of nearly 10:1, and this is in the sattelite and super photorecon age.

Mike/wulfie

[MrLars]

While watching the "Thunderbolts" on the History Channel I was surprised to hear the jug pilots talking of shooting German tanks from the front or back and bouncing the bullets off the road into the under belly of the tanks <where he said there was no armor>. He did say that that was the best way to kill them with .50s. I would like to hear more about this.

------------------
Lars
***MOL***
Men Of Leisure

[brady]

 This is pure BS gents Hollywood, their is so much stuff on those history channel shows that is BS it is amusing, All the books I have read say that air attacks on tanks were not as effective as everyone was lead to believe, Tony Williams even posted in a thread in Aircraft and vehicles as to the ineffectiveness of such attacks. it's pretty simple really bullets hits ground losses a bunch O energy bullet actually manages to hit tank in the belly (instead of going god knows where) at an angle which means it will not have diddely squat of a chance of penetrating, and yes the bellies were armored, Does land mine mean anything to u all?  

From: Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WW2

p.124 Panther G armour top/bottom=40mm & 16mm @ 90degreas

even the Pzkfw I had 6mm of armor on the bottom.


------------------
 

[This message has been edited by brady (edited 05-15-2001).]

[GRUNHERZ]

Tigers had 26mm hull bottom armor plate, no ground deflected .50cal will penetrate that.

But to entertain your idea Degas, if you say they had none, what do you propose was on the hull bottom, sheetmetal, tin?

I have extensive references on Tigers and Panthers and not one of them mentions changing hull bottom armor during 1945. These references go into so much detail that they give the facory reference numers of pretty much every new/added/changed component or feature in and between Ausfurungs and the time they were implemented at the facory or in the field. Again there is no mention whatsover of removing underside armor, NONE.

[This message has been edited by GRUNHERZ (edited 05-15-2001).]

[wulfie]

DAMNIT STOP IT NOW!

I have NO DOUBT that Degas has NO 'anti German armor' hidden DAMN AGENDA.

He was just repeating something he had heard.

All I want to know is where he heard it.

Stop killing the diddlying messenger. Stop turning a simple request for a source into a diddlying argument. Jeez.

Mike (wulfie)

p.s. Gruenherz NOWHERE did Degas state no belly armor was 'his idea'. NOWHERE. He stated he heard it. Big difference between 'hearing something' and it being 'your idea', unless we are talking about Al Gore and the internet? 8)

[This message has been edited by wulfie (edited 05-15-2001).]

[Staga]

Just wondering why waste 10kg of  trinitrotoluene per/mine if there wasn't any armor in bottom? In that case I would use only couple kilos of TNT surrounded with fragment steel. Who cares about tracks when you can made whole MBT's bottom look like a strainer  

Anyway I hated those mines and 20kg destruction-charge made bigger BOOOM  

[GRUNHERZ]

I honestly didnt mean to be a personal attack on Degas. As for the word "idea" I simply ment as information or basically what he proposed in the original message.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

[Pongo]

If you dont want people to discuss the issue wolfie, use email. Your the only one losing his bird here.
I asked for references for this thismorning. you started a new thread to do the same thing for some reason.

[Seeker]

Lars,

Earl's mentioned doing this several times "over there..."

Ask him. He'd be the one to know  

[wulfie]

Pongo,

Not losing my bird.

Didn't catch your thread. Otherwise probably would have asked there.

Just don't want this thread turning into an argument.

(salute)

Mike (wulfie)

[Degas]

Ouch  

My source for the arguments within the hierarchy of the Nazi party and the OKW is not something I can positively confirm.  I've tried, but not too hard.

I admit to using the History Channel as my source for my statement on belly armor late in the war.  Generally, it was one of the "Military Blunders" segments (sorry, can't remember which one).  I do remember that the segment stated that there was a shortage of armor plate in Germany from the beginning of 1945 up until VE day, due to precision daylight bombing campaigns against mills and manufactories in the Ruhr Valley (by the 8th Air Force).  Speer was specifically cited as the moving force behind allocation of the limited supplies of armor plate then available to both the Wermacht and the Kriegsmarine.

It is certainly possible that these historical "facts" are revisionist, or simply mistaken.  I'll take the word of those who have the time to do more thorough research.

I find it hard to believe, however, that the pilots of the 362nd FG would be that far off in their target damage assessments.  That, together with the "Blunders" segment, is the basis of my post.

[Pongo]

Good reply. Speers book should have some reference to the steel shortage and its effect on panzer manufacturing. I will look.

Assessing attacks from the air, under fire was extremely prone to missunderstanding. The speed that let them stay alive did not bode well for recording what was happening. If a tiger or panther or any tank was killed by straffing by a p47 I have to think the gun camera film would be in the archives or in that film itself.
I never saw the film but from what I under stand they guy never claimed to have done it himself.

[Bodhi]

Wolfie and whomever else really cares.  The statement that there is no armor on the bottom of the tanks comes form the casting and assembly process followed to complete the hull.  Standard procedure was to make a frame, cast or roll sheet steel (multiple different metals used) and attach the sheet or casts in layers to allow for better protection from an impacting round.  Well, the bottoms, are not done in this manner.  Generally, that (metal) was a part of the original framework, and hence did not have the bolts and/or other attachments showing, and were simply misunderstood as being unarmored, when in fact, that was far from the truth.  As Wolfie and another listed, the bottom hull thickness was 26mm in some cases, and less.  But, it is not "armor plate" it is the structure, that is needed to hold the works together.  It also doubles as armor, which is vital to its battlefield survivability, but is not the armor plate we are used to associating with.

[This message has been edited by Bodhi (edited 05-16-2001).]

[Staga]

I was having a good chance to look T-55's belly while it drove over our company in Finnish Army.
Only thing I was worried was if there were any loose straps on my backpack.... There sure were enough bolts sticking out from tank's belly. I hugged ground without hesitation in that excercise  

[Tilt]

 

Originally posted by wulfie:
DAMNIT STOP IT NOW!

All I want to know is where he heard it.

 (edited 05-15-2001).]

There was an extend posting from the Totavia news group where a P51 pilot posted his diaries.

He too mentioned straffing attacks on armoured ground vehicles which entailed raising dirt with the bullet stream along the road behind the vehicle in the hope of  damaging a softer under belly.

He was questioned on this issue and confirmed it was fairly common practice.

I must admit that even after this "first hand account" I remain dubiuos as to its effectiveness on an armoured vehicle with even a few millimetres of plate on its belly.

Given the munitions available to the P51 (in his case) I was doubly dubious. (How does an armour piercing round bounce?)

I imagine it would be more effective against catapillar tracks (and some transmission systems)which would be less guarded in the lower quarters.

I do not doubt that the practice was carried out by Allied aircraft.(it was the anti troop and anti light vehicle attack strategm) I have never heard an account of its success against armoured vehicles. Its effectiveness could have been a Myth of its time........

Certainly the Jugs and Typhoons etc in the battle of the bulge did not rely on it to supress German armoured vehicles.......

Tilt