Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Seeker on March 24, 2002, 08:21:53 AM
-
I thought these excerpts from a pilot's log book would be of interest to the strat weenies, and hopefully cause a torrent of irritating "we need this in AH!" whines....:)
***************************************************
March 24
1943:
I flew two flights on this day. One was a convoy patrol
mission in a P-39L for 1:30 hours and the other was a
local flight in a P-400 for 1:50 hours.
1944:
I flew two P-39N skip-bomb missions in support of OPERATION
STRANGLE. We departed Alghero, Sardinia to skip-bomb rail
lines at Grosetto, Italy; returned to Ghisonaccia, Corsica
to refuel and rearm; then to skip-bomb rail lines at Cecina,
Italy. We had to land at Ghisonaccia for refueling before
returning to Alghero. Total flight time was 4:10 hours.
Our attacks were against the railroad itself - to damage
the tracks, either on land or where crossing bridges. We
were always figuring ways to cause the most damage - that
which would required the longest time for the enemy to
repair. One successful innovation was the welding of
spikes to the noses of delayed-fused bombs. This way, when
flying along the tracks, the bomb would likely stick into a
cross-tie rather than bouncing off. The fuse delay was
necessary because we were at low altitude and flying in
trail (an incentive to close up to the plane ahead,
especially if you were tail-end Charlie). We hoped this
kind of attack would spread the rails so that they would
have to be replaced rather than simply repaired.
By the way - this is one of those P-47 pilots who was instructed to fire at the road surface in front of armour. And who earned a Silver Star doing it.
Let the whining begin! :)
-
theres no whining to be had..........
bouncing 50 cals off dirt roads to kill pnzrs which had armor underneath didnt happen.........ever.....
Now the pnzr crews may have bailed out of the tnk for better cvr but I am pretty certain 50 cals bouncing off coble stone, concrete , asphalt or dirt aint gonna be able to penetrate armor. Even if that were possible getting an accurrate angle in it self would be near impossible....
But if it lets ya sleep at night go with it :)
Now Rudel will show ya how to kill armor :)
-
bouncing 50 cals off dirt roads to kill pnzrs which had armor underneath didnt happen.........ever.....
Well its one tactic I've heard again and again from vets interveiwed on the History Channel as well as accounts of tanks being overturned by close hits from a 500lb bomb, a squad mate of mine drop 2x 500lb and 6 rockets all around an Ostwind a few nights ago and no damage was done. I'm sure the crew would not have been in much of a fit state to fire straight after all that ord so close.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
By the way - this is one of those P-47 pilots who was instructed to fire at the road surface in front of armour. And who earned a Silver Star doing it.
...While in Germany, you actually had to shoot down planes or blow stuff up to get medals.
I would very much like to see the SS quotation for that one btw...
"For conspicuous gallantry in the line of duty, 1st Lt Pete Thomas, serving as a P-47 pilot in the Carentan area in France, June 10th 1944. While on a patrol over enemy territory, Lt Thomas spotted several German tanks advancing along a road. With complete disregard for his own safety, and under heavy fire from enemy AAA, Lt Thomas dove in and shot up a piece of French road in front of the German tanks with his .50 cal MGs, causing several German tankers to drive off the road and crash into trees from laughing. His superb airmanship, his outstanding skill and personal valor reflect great credit upon Lt Thomas' gallant fighting spirit and upon the U.S. Air Force.
-
I just love all these armchair generals who never saw combat stating they are the definitive expert on what did or did not happen before they were born. Of course they are SO much better prepared to tell the world what went on instead of those vets who actually did fight in that conflict. :rolleyes:
-
So I suppose I'm more of a racecar expert than Mario Andretti is because I have more career wins in GPL than he does in the real deal?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I just love all these armchair generals who never saw combat stating they are the definitive expert on what did or did not happen before they were born. Of course they are SO much better prepared to tell the world what went on instead of those vets who actually did fight in that conflict. :rolleyes:
Since I somehow got the feeling this was aimed at me...
Well, last time I checked, not even wwii vets were able to defy the laws of physics...how do you explain that?
Please go ahead and describe they physics behind a .50 cal bullet fired from an aircraft into a paved road. Proceed to explain if, how, and why that bullet richochets from the pavement, go on with describing it's energy state after that richochet, as well as the state of the bullet itself (deformed, tumbling etc). THEN explain how a bullet with this energy state can penetrate the bottom armor of a "typical" German tank. Or if you will, any specific German tank. And while you do this, please remember that most German tanks had about the same thickness on the roof as on the bottom. Explain why that .50 cal bullet fired infront of the tank has any better chance penetrating the bottom armor than the top armor?
The entire idea is pure nonsense. Perhaps fit for an episode of Hogans heroes or something like that, but thats about it.
-
Wotan you are incorrect.
bouncing 50 cals off dirt roads to kill pnzrs which had armor underneath didnt happen.........ever.....
I saw an interview with a P47 pilot who made the statement that it was standard practice to fire at the road (if it was hard) so the rounds would ricochet under the panzer and destroy the engine. I think he said it was done from the rear of the tank though not the front.
While I am definitely not a tank expert any armor would have been minimal on the bottom of the tank, if there was any at all. Armor on the belly of a tank would most likely be viewed as a waste of weight by designers.
Drifter
-
While I dont know anything about killin armor with 50's I did while on active duty see a training film made by the Houston Police Department called "Bullet Bounce". Apparently, bullets when fired at a hard surface or water will not ricochet at the reciprocal angle prior to impact but will follow the plane of the surface they struck. So if you fire a bullet at a road surface rather than bouncing back up the bullet will run along the top of the road until its energy is expended or until it hits something else. I've personally witnessed this phenomena while on machine gun ranges, when the tracers hit the 50 gal drums or other hard object that they didnt penetrate they would come off, very often straight up, along the plane of the drum surface rather than bounce back toward the direction of fire. Because of the surface tension of water you should never fire at a body of water because the bullet wont penetrate the surface but run along the top. This I've never tested but have been instructed as such by various firearms instructors.
One thing you guys should understand is that very often senior pilots during wwii were very young and inexperienced in warfare and were prone to making bad decisions and perpetuating myths about what they thought would work. So basically you could end up with a 24 year old captain who's never fired a shot in anger before come into a theatre and tell his guys, who are just as green as he is or more, " look if you fire at the road you'll kill the tank", the rest of his troops, most younger and more inexperienced than him will say "yeah, sure, that sounds like it'll work" and 40 years later they will still be repeating the same thing because they haven't flown combat since wwii and no one's ever taught them differently. Could the bullets running along the road chew up the treads some? Sure. Is it gonna make alot of sparks and look like it's causing all kinds of damage? Yup. Are the slugs actually penetrating the hull from underneath? I doubt it.
-
Ugh....
The ugly burden of the truth. IMO if you say it then prove it!
-
I dont care what you saw or read.
Thst bs we all know it but again if it gets you throught the night go ahead and believe.
Just do this 1 thing though out all the destroyed tanks in ww2. Find 1 that can be proven to have been killed by a bouncing 50 cal.
german pnzrs had armor underneath them to protect them from anti tank mines.
This has been covered on this board and every other one I read. !st the angle to get the correct bounce is impossible second the road surface needs be dense enough and third the bullet would loose too much energy to penetrate the armor.
Search this for the exact details that prove beyond any resonable doudt that it happened.
drftr there have been numerous post about armor thickness for the underside of pnzrs I dont recall the number but it was more then minimal.....
Lastly how would a jug pilot flying above 300 know he disabled atank from underneath? Did the tnk explode ? catch fire? smoke?
He may have seen the crew bail and head for cover simply to get back in the tank after he left.
But bouncing bullets BULLSH**
and I am not wrong :)
-
Note, Seeker did not say what the Jug pilot was firing, but somehow I doubt even a 5.5" rocket would do much when fired into the ground in front of a tank.
Now, firing downhill (as anyone that has actually done it can tell you) causes the bullet trajectory to be above the aimpoint. *Aiming* at the road in front of the tank would make a little more sense, particularly if that tank was mobile.
-
Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
I'll point out the salient stuff just incase there's any non-native English speakers that have reading comprehension problems:
By the way - this is one of those P-47 pilots who was instructed to fire at the road surface in front of armour. And who earned a Silver Star doing it.
Firing at the road *was* an establised practise - a standard order - a matter of historical record. *However*; just because it was done, says nothing about if it *actualy worked or not*. As other recent posts have shown, even rockets didn't do much actual damage, but no-one's stating that anti-armour jabo was a complete and utter waste of time I hope? After all, judging by the amount of abandoned armour, the pilots weren't the only ones who were sure it was working....
And Wotan wrote:
Lastly how would a jug pilot flying above 300 know he disabled atank from underneath? Did the tnk explode ? catch fire? smoke?
And that's the key. Many tanks, whilst in formation on a road convoy, carried stores and equipment externaly. Fuel, ammo, soldiers hitching a ride, you name it. We've all seen the war footage of how Tanks are used as "infantry school busses". It's extremely likely that it's those stores cooking off that caused both the abandonments and the claims of destruction from 18 - 30 year old pilots screaming along at 100 Ft at 350 MPH.
Now, we've a gameplay versus accuracy conumdrum to address here:
Historicaly, Anti-armour jabo-ing was extremly effective, in as much as it halted armour colums. And the game is supposed to mirror history and historical tactics.
But technicaly, Jabo didn't do the damage planners thought. Jabo-in the main- scared tankers into submission, they bailed!
So how should the game mechanics work?
Should a tank colum fear a flight of Tiffs or not?
So far, we've been having a lot of discussion on Allied anti-armour experence. Let's hear some Eastern front stuff for balance.
I'd post it, but I'm so obviously Allied biased that no one would trust a word I say, right, Horten?
-
they didnt leave good operable tanks behind they left the tnk the air attack stopped they got back in.
I imagined they feared explosive ord more then 50 cals..
There is a good write up in Hazed's post about 50 cal vrs armor. Fact is german left tnks more because they had no gas they anything.
Dropping bombs on tanks in rl aint that ez not all tnks were lined up in column center of the road.
Rudel killed more tnks from the air yhen anyone he did in ju88g with the 37mm.
They didnt give up their tanks cause p47s shot the road up and 50 cals bouncing off the road didnt disable the tnks. Rockets and bombs is what destroyed tnks even then it wasn't at the rate claimed by the pilots.
Besides the real tanking was going on in the east
Seelow Heights (http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent?file=PRseelow)
Anyway
Heres a link and read the whole deal.(its long) Alot of claims are made but in reality it just weren't that way..
June 6 1944 (http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/intro.htm)
-
Now we have some evidence of the 50" antitank power. If these pilots were instructed to fire at the road trying to put some bullets into the panzer engine from below it was only because they CAN'T harm the panzers hitting them even in the upper rear zone (over the engine).
P47 boys will need to wait till AH modeles roads to really kill panzers with their 50".
-
I paste steves reply from hazed's post
originally posted by Steve74
Being a ground pounder who kinda drifted into this flight sim, I know alot more about tanks and armor than about aircraft. Someone wanted historical data, so this is what I can offer.
Armor penetration is dependent on a thousand variables, just about everything from the air temperature to the carbon percentage of the iron ore when the steel was made. It is not realistic to have a 100%, or even an 80% accurate damage model for armor penetration in a simulation like this, because soon you would reach impossible calculations. Just to determine if a projectile should richochet or not would take a very impressive formula indeed, and in the end you would realize that a simple random number would have given a just as accurate result.
Someone asked how effective airpower is/was against tanks. Many use the battles in Normandy as examples of how devastating airpower is against ground units. In fact, most Whermacht-wieners (LW whiner sounds wrong when talking about ground units, but you find these guys everywhere there is a discussion about wwii) will claim that the only reason the allies won in Normandy was because of their airpower. While this may be true or not, airpower had an almost neglectable effect on combat damage in Normandy. Let me give an example:
Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons. That is 9 out of 178 tanks actually used in the area. It is also interesting to see the claims. British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged, the real number was 9...
It seems that very few German tank were lost due to hits from weapons carried by aircraft. Probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. Rather it seems that air attacks on tank formation protected by AA units were more dangerous to the aircraft than to the tanks. Allied losses of aircraft were considerable, the 2nd TAF (including elements of Air Defence of Britain that took part in the Normandy campaign) lost 829 aircraft, while US 9th Air Force lost 897
The main reason for the poor results of air attack on tanks was lack of suitable armament. Machine guns and cannons had sufficient accuracy, but lacked the power necessary to produce more than superficial damage. Heavy bombs could destroy a tank, but it took a direct hit, which was very difficult to achieve. The vaunted rockets had sufficient penetration capabilities. Trials against captured German Panther tanks showed that the rockets could penetrate the armour except on the front of the tank. The accuracy of the rockets was however alarmingly low, even when fired in salvos of eight. At trials on training ground in England the probability of achieving a hit on a tank was at most 4 %. On operations, when the aircraft was subjected to AA fire and the targets not stationary on an open field, hit rates must have been even lower.
Mortain is not an example of unusually low efficiency for the allied air forces either. It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results:
6 June - 7 August 1944
AP shot: 36
Hollow charge projectile: 7
HE shell: 7
Aircraft rockets: 7
Aircraft cannon: 2
Destroyed by crew: 6
Abandoned: 3
Unknown: 13
8 Aug - 31 Aug 1944
AP Shot: 11
Hollow charge projectile: 1
HE Shell: 1
Aircraft rocket: 2
Aircraft cannon: 1
Destroyed by crew: 44
Abandoned: 30
Unknown: 6
17 Dec - 16 Jan 1945
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5
Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz IV's (yup..our panzers) nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks.
Hm..drifted off the subject a bit perhaps, but I hope you found it interesting.
Oh..and the number of German tanks knocked out by MG:s or .50 cals is 0.
Source: I. Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers Versus German Armour in North&endash;West Europe 1944&1945: Myths and Realities (Journal of Strategic Studies, vol 14, No 2 June 1991) p. 221. The basic sources for the data on destruction of German tanks and other equipment used by Gooderson are the reports of the operations research teams that investigated the battlefields after the end of the battles and examined the wrecks found. These are probably the most reliable sources for such information avialable today.
[/b]
Read the link I provided and temper that with what steve wrote here.........
-
Mandoble,
technicaly you're right, but you're missing the point.
The game is supposed to mirror WWI machinery, *and* WWII tactics.
It's an historical fact that air anti-armour interdiction worked. It worked at Kursk. It worked In Normany. It worked in the Po valley. It's been confirmed by the pilots (both operations and after operations reconnosance), it's been confirmed by the supported ground commanders, it's been confirmed by the targeted ground commanders. The whole 0.50 cal controversy obscures the fact that tactical interdiction was probably one of the most effective uses of air power in the whole war.
Now, I'd agree with you 100% when you say that post operations analysis shows that 0.5 cal weapons did not, in them selves, do much physical damage.
However, within the confines of the game mechanics, how do you propose to recreate the paralysing effect that tactical interdiction had upon armour movement?
*That's* the point - recreating the atmosphere, tactics and "feel" of WWII - That's where the 'Dar whines come from, the buff tuff whines come from, the "B.S. D900 ping" whines from.
You're one of those that loves to count angels on the head of a pin - try and be creative.
As an engineer, with the relevant data to hand, how, in your view, could AH mirror the tanker's terror of an air assault? The proven *effectiveness* of an air assault?
Because for every fact you post proving that (for instance) a P47 can't hurt a tank (and tecnicaly, you may be right), I can post an historical fact proving how armour was removed from the theatre of battle by P47's.
There's a very interesting riddle here. It's going to get more interesting if and when more armour is introduced.
Because then the likes of you and Horten will post whines saying how tough T-34's are to kill, and backing it up with historical evidence of how effective the 190 was in the ground suppression role.
And Baroda will posting analysis of how little damage the T-34's actualy suffered.
And you're both be right!
As I said, there's play balance here too.
-
tanks have no cover in ah.. you can see their black dot from 15k.
You see there icons at 3 k.
They are killed to easily by planes, far more easily then in rl.
You can make the claim that 50 cals blowing up tnks is meant as a game play concession or to compensate for the limited dm but at the same time gvs in ah are at a far greater disadvantage then they were in rl.
Gvs also benefit from the lack of terrain cvr. They kill at greater ranges then were possible (especially in the west). The mgs on them are beefed up a bit but can be avoided. Also we can resupply/repair gvs (which is good fer gameplay)
The number 1 frustrating thing about tanking in ah is the long drive times then to be sent to the twer by a zeke guns. I dont want closer spawn points. I just dont want a hard wind to kill me...
whether its "real or not" I would hope anything 20mm or under would not kill tnks because I feel we would get better gameplay that way. I do think that any open gv should be killable with the smallest round.
But I wont ever believe bullets bounce off the road and killed pnzrs.........just didnt happen
-
It's not very hard to calculate how much armor a bounced 50 cal would penetrate.
I won't do any calculations here but...
A 50 cal, fired in 2500 feet per second (+/- some) that hits the road will #1: Be De/re formed. Its jacket wil get flat or atlest more flat then before. #2 in the de/re forming process the kinetic energy is transformed to make this reforming happen.
So all in all the speed with which the bullet hits the armor is down well bellow 2000 feet per second, and the bullet does no longer have a sharp head.
The armor, specially German 1944 armor had pretty heavy armor everywhere, Shermans even had trouble killing tigers from the rear when they were bellow 200 meters.
SO I don't quite see how a deformed 50 cal round striking in a, let's say 40 dgeree angle could possibly penetrate a few centimeters of strenghtened armor...
-
Seeker, air interdition may be very effective, for this purpose we have bombs and rockets. In AH you can pick up a P47 with 2000 lb of bombs and a bunch of rockets and, if well used, come back to the base with 3 panzers destroyed without needing to straffe em with the 50".
With the current P47 loadout, a SINGLE P47 attacking an armoured assault can kill 3 - 4 panzers with bombs and rockets and several M3s with the 50". How many real pilots were able to do that in RL in a single sortie?
About our gameplay, add a more than evident dissadvantage to the GVs drivers. They can be spotted from long distance with no place to hide they tanks. And a spotted tank is a dead tank.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Because then the likes of you and Horten will post whines saying how tough T-34's are to kill, and backing it up with historical evidence of how effective the 190 was in the ground suppression role.
Now where the &%¤ did that come from? I find this extremely rude. Either adress me directly, or leave me out of the discussion thankyouverymuch.
And who's whining? Has it gone so far now, that anyone trying to show that USAF aircraft were not able to defy the laws of physics is a whiner? If I say that it is theoretically impossible for a .50 cal bullet to penetrate teh average PzIV bottom. Does that make me a whiner? Why? Because I bother you with pesky details as "the truth"?
As I said in the post Wotan quoted, I am a ground pounder more than a flight simmer, and I know alot more about ground combat than I do about aircombat. If the T-34 is included in the game I sure as *%#@ wont be posting some silly cheese about how Fw190s should be able to take them out with 20 or 30mm guns. Nor will I post dumbprettythang theorys on how to disable T-34s by shooting at the pavement infront of them.
-
"I find this extremely rude"
" would very much like to see the SS quotation for that one btw...
"For conspicuous gallantry in the line of duty, 1st Lt Pete Thomas, serving as a P-47 pilot in the Carentan area in France, June 10th 1944. While on a patrol over enemy territory, Lt Thomas spotted several German tanks advancing along a road. With complete disregard for his own safety, and under heavy fire from enemy AAA, Lt Thomas dove in and shot up a piece of French road in front of the German tanks with his .50 cal MGs, causing several German tankers to drive off the road and crash into trees from laughing. His superb airmanship, his outstanding skill and personal valor reflect great credit upon Lt Thomas' gallant fighting spirit and upon the U.S. Air Force."
"The entire idea is pure nonsense. Perhaps fit for an episode of Hogans heroes or something like that, but thats about it."
So who's the liar? Me, or a decorated war veteran?
"Either adress me directly"
Ok.
Amateur. Revisionist. Whiner.
Happy now?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
So who's the liar? Me, or a decorated war veteran?
[/b]
You, him, both or neither. Take your pick, I dont give a cheese.
I do know however that no P-47 pilot ever took out a German tank by shooting .50 cals on the road infront of the tank. Why does this bother you so much? Why does it seem so hard for you to understand that simple physics makes that impossible? Just acknowledge it and move on for crying out loud. But nooo Instead you have to sit here and rave on like a baboon on a bad acid trip.
I said that I would like to see the SS citation you mentioned, because I strongly suspect that he did not get a SS for shooting at a road. this is one of those P-47 pilots who was instructed to fire at the road surface in front of armour. And who earned a Silver Star doing it.
Your own words. Do you have any idea exactly how stupid that quote looks? From what you wrote, apparently he earned his Silver Star "shooting at the road surface infront of armor". Yeah...well if that doesnt earn him a Silver Star..then what would.
Ok.
Amateur. Revisionist. Whiner.
Happy now?
Well, who can argue with that stunning display of pure eloquence? It is rather apparent that you my friend have run out of arguments. Whats next? Some lame remark about my wife?
-
I'm sure that there must be a case where a German tank has been knocked out by a machine gun bullet- Oh wait, there is. Ever hear of an anti-tank rifle? Germans and Russians had them. Fired a 7.62mm armor piercing round. Was used early in the war.
The armor on the bottom of tanks is very thin. U.S. light tanks barely had any armor on the bottom. I'm sure if P47s strafed a road infront of German light tanks it would have a good chance of penetrating the bottom armor.
Also, what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming? This could allow bullets to enter into the crew compartment of the tank.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
I'm sure that there must be a case where a German tank has been knocked out by a machine gun bullet- Oh wait, there is. Ever hear of an anti-tank rifle? Germans and Russians had them. Fired a 7.62mm armor piercing round. Was used early in the war.
The armor on the bottom of tanks is very thin. U.S. light tanks barely had any armor on the bottom. I'm sure if P47s strafed a road infront of German light tanks it would have a good chance of penetrating the bottom armor.
Also, what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming? This could allow bullets to enter into the crew compartment of the tank.
*sigh* Its spreading...
1) On German tanks being knocked out by Machine Gun bullets
What kind of German tanks would that be? A standard machine gun bullet has a penetration of approx 5-7mm armor. Check that against the armor stats of the German tanks.
2) On Anti-Tank rifles
Sure, both Germans and Soviets had them. They did not fire a 7.62 armor piercing round however? Why? Because they didnt have ATR's in that caliber. Germany used 7.92mm (a whopping 25mm penetration at 100m, The soviets used 14.5mm (they too could penetrate 25mm..but they reached out to a sizzling 150m with this awesome penetration). And they were used throughout the war..the Soviet ATR's that is, the Germans switched to panzerfausts starting in 43.
3) The armor in the bottom of tanks are thinner than the armor on the sides.
As I wrote earlier, on German tanks, the bottom armor (on average) was about as thick as the roof armor. If you have much less armor than that, the tank becomes vunerable to anti personnell mines, and no one really wants that.
Lets take the PzIVH as an example. (thickness and angle)
Hull bottom armor: 10mm at 0.
Hull top armor: 10-12 mm at 0-5.
Turret top armor: 15mm at 0-7.
Do you agree if I say that it would be easier to penetrate the hull top armor than the hull bottom armor (after bouncing shots of the pavement)?
4) "what if the Germans had opened the bottom escape hatch on the tanks when they saw Allied planes comming"
Yeah..what if indeed.
5) Light tanks
Sure, if you want to leave the realm of "normal" tanks we can do that. Problem is that if you want to start comparing penetration and armor numbers for the lighter tanks, or apc's, or armored cars, you will end up with the same conclusion in every case: Some of them can be killed by .50cals. But shooting at the road infront of those vehicles only makes it harder to penetrate, and if you can penetrate the bottom armor, you can penetrate the top armor too, so why go for the bottom shot?
-
Hmm,
Does this mean that my favorite scene from "Saving Private Ryan" isn't true? When those P-51s pop the German tanks, I practically jumped out of my chair in delight. You guys can say what you like, I'm gonna go watch the film the again :)
Badboy
-
Hmm, I forgot about SPR...
You're right! The P-51's must have bounced their .50 cal shots from the bridge and hit the bottom of the Tiger. That explains the massive explosion.
-
And of course everyone knows Tiger tanks were made out of tin foil and SPR is based on the real life of this so called Pvt of course.
-
I am no expert here, but it seems to me that if the angle of incedence is such that a bullet can't penetrate the surface of the road, its not going to penetrate the armour either.
F.
-
Can the UAAF bullet bouncing guys bring some actual numbers to this agrument? Or are you going to stick to anectdotal evidence? As far as I'm concerned, actual laws of physics have a bit of an edge over, "Some guys said.". Even if that some guy is a vet.
-
I don't care about bullets. Should THIS tank be dead or not? (have been 500lbs bombs)
tank in crater of 500lbs bomb (http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~y0005347/ahss4.jpg)
-
So essentially some people think the following.
The interview I saw was on on discovery wings channel. They interviewed a number of WWII pilots. One of the P47 WWII veteran pilots told two stories.
1. He and I squadron mate were strafing a train. He was lined up on a box car about to start firing his guns. The sides on the box car went down and he was looking at 2 flack guns. He fired a burst disabling one flack gun he said he just was lucky to be lined up on it. His engine began making some very bad noises. He RTB'd to find that a shell had gone through the cowl and struck the engine. It removed a cylinder and he was still able to fly home and land.
2. If we saw german tanks on a hard road we would come in from behind and strafe the roadway just behind the tank. The rounds would ricochet and disable the tank by apparently damaging the engine. He never said what type of tanks they were.
So now some of you obviously do not believe this without someone doing the equations and proving to you that this can happen.
Why though would a decorated WWII veteran lie about something like this?
Drifter
-
No one is saying he is lying. At worse they are saying he was mistaken in what he thought he saw.
But it is good to hear that decorated WW2 vets are incapable of lying. Do they have some sort of chip in their heads?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
But it is good to hear that decorated WW2 vets are incapable of lying. Do they have some sort of chip in their heads?
Yes, and this is why kill claims are so accurate! :eek:
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Rudel killed more tnks from the air yhen anyone he did in ju88g with the 37mm.
No doubt a typo, but for future generations of Rudel worshippers out there it should be pointed out that it was an 87G.
regards,
Salem
-
If you go and check the rear armor and rear hull armor on german light tanks you will find armor anywhere from 2mm to 10mm.
Anyone think a 50 cal round can penetrate that?
If you look at medium or heavy armor then it is doubtful they were taking tanks out with this tactic.
An excellent german armor website is available at
http://www.achtungpanzer.com
Drifter
-
>If you look at medium or heavy armor then it is doubtful they
>were taking tanks out with this tactic.
Would the Pzr we have in AH be considered light or med or heavy?
Wab
-
This may be the spec's for the AH panzer. In appearance and armament it matches up. The armor is listed in mm/angle, this is from the achtungpanzer website. It doesnt really cut and paste well as it is in a table form on the website this link might get you there.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4
Panzerkampfwagen IV
Specifications
Model: Ausf D
(up-armored) Ausf G
Weight: 20000kg 23500kg
Crew: 5 men 5 men
Engine: Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 300hp Maybach HL 120 TRM / 12-cylinder / 300hp
Speed: Road: 40km/h / Cross-Country: 20km/h Road: 40km/h / Cross-Country: 20km/h
Range: Road: 200km / Cross-Country: 130km Road: 210km / Cross-Country: 130km
Fuel Capacity: 470 litres 470 litres
Lenght: 5.92m (w/o the gun)
5.92m (with the gun) 6.63m (with the gun)
Width: 2.84m 2.88m w/o Schurzen
3.33m with Schurzen
Height: 2.68m 2.68m
Armament: 75mm KwK 37 L/24
2 x 7.92mm MG34
(1 x MG - hull)
(1 x MG - coax) 75mm KwK 40 L/43
2 x 7.92mm MG34
(1 x MG - hull)
(1 x MG - coax)
Ammo: 75mm - 80 rounds
7.92mm - 2700 rounds 75mm - 87 rounds
7.92mm - 2250 rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Front Turret: 30/10
Front Upper Hull: 30/7
Front Lower Hull: 30/12
Side Turret: 20/25
Side Upper Hull: 20/0
Side Lower Hull: 20/0
Rear Turret: 20/0
Rear Upper Hull: 20/9
Rear Lower Hull: 20/10
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/84
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 35/0 Front Turret: 50/11
Front Upper Hull: 50 or 50+30/10
Front Lower Hull: 50 or 50+30/12
Side Turret: 30/26
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/10
Rear Upper Hull: 20/12
Rear Lower Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/85
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 50/0