p-47's kill Tigers

[bongaroo]

wrong way already posted pics of a tiger being flipped by bombs  .. flipping a tank with bombs has already been shown

You don't give up, do you?

Your pictures ealier showed tanks flipped with dozens of large bombs in a carpet bombing attack by heavy bombers.  Show us the 500 lb bomb from an IL2 that flipped a Tiger II.

I've been googling like mad to no avail so I think your full of BS, if you'll pardon my french.

[hlbly]

Doubtful.

Googling "bomb flips tank" the first credible response is referring to an atomic blast flipping a tank.

Many of the other intial posts are people correcting others that "no, thats an apc, not a tank.  that bomb would not flip a tank" and things of that nature.

Also, we've already told you that your abrams video isn't applicable to this discussion.  It is a video of a very large blast from underneath the tank.  Earlier you were trying to convince us that a blast from a 500 lb bomb at ground level on the side would flip the tank.

I doubt you ever read anything about IL2 pilots aiming to near miss tanks to try and flip them.  With the amount of history nuts on this board, someone else would surely have read it as well if it were true.

I saw no reference to ground level . I read more than one statement that said "no 500 pounder could flip a tank" . I disagree with that statement . The blast from the IED is no where near the = of a 500 pounder . I am working on a way to prove that too . As for the 100's of bombs flipping the tanks , how close together do you think those bombs landed ?

[SkyRock]

if two 500lbrs were used, and the first raised the tank slightly so the second blast could get underneath and flip it, might work.....dont know that though.

[bongaroo]

However close these may be when they hit the ground:



I'm not going to argue that a tank could not be flipped by an explosive.  I am calling out TheZohan for trying to convince us that 1 500lb bomb would flip tanks so consistantly that IL2 pilots would be talking about it as a tactic.

Extensive internet searching seems to agree with me.  Aerial bombing didn't flip many MBTs.

[TheZohan]

soon as i can find the place where i read it i will post it.

[hlbly]

Bongaroo I am not trying to be offensive . I really would like to know how close together the bombs would land . I try not to make statements I can't back up with a source or having the personal experience . I can tell you this though , the IED in the video that bounced the M-1 was not the equivilant of a 500 pounder . I have an old buddy at Ft. Knox trying to locate the specific AAR on that incident . It is kind of hard with so little information . He thinks he can ge it done because IED hits that bounce an abrams are fairly rare we both figure . He is winding up 30 days leave so I will post as soon as I can . BTW he helped me to estimate the size , my estimations are way high to CMA in case someone takes the bet .

[bongaroo]

Give me the weight of an abrams and we could use simple physics to determine the amount of force required to lift the tank x amount for x amount of airtime.  Take the force needed and see how much explosives is needed to generate it.

Not that hard to do.

Besides which, I and others have already argued that a bomb going off completely under something is going to have a much easier time lifting or flipping a heavy object than the same force applied to the side.

[hlbly]

I wouldn't argue with you on that . The explosive would have to be below ground level . I think we may need a few more variables considered to decide if a 500 pounder could have flipped one of those tanks . Not the least of which is soil and bedrock conditions of the place it happens . I got started on this thread by statements that a 500 pounder could not flip a tank because 500 lbs would not penetrate far enough . I know from several years personal experience , that how far things penetrate is very dependant on those 2 factors . 81 mm he round delay fuzed is .5 seconds delay . book says it will pentrate 6 feet . I have personally seen it not get 1/3 of that depth and exceed it by a factor of 2 . M1a1 weighs 67.6 tons M1a2 is 68.7 tons . Just read in another forum a daisy chain of 5 to 10 arty rounds flipped a M1 and blew the turret clean off , just some more info to add to the discussion .

[frank3]

I wouldn't argue with you on that . The explosive would have to be below ground level.

Does it really? A bomb going off at or above ground level still delivers an amount of energy to the side of the tank. If this force is strong enough, I can't tell.
Exploding below ground level just requires less energy to flip the tank I think.

[bongaroo]

Does it really? A bomb going off at or above ground level still delivers an amount of energy to the side of the tank. If this force is strong enough, I can't tell.
Exploding below ground level just requires less energy to flip the tank I think.

Yes the explosive force would be the same.  The problem lies in the fact that the forces would be applied to the tank in a completely different vector.  Instead of up like an explosion from below it would push along the horizontal.  Now your dealing with a whole new set of variables along with the fact that the force isn't pushing from the bottom of the tank, which is what you need to get the upward movement.

Perhaps some force vector diagrams would help you see it better.

[Stoney]

I did do some research on the B-17 missions that supported the COBRA breakout.  From the 398th Bomb Group website, the mission listings show they carried 100lb frag bombs for those missions.  Unfortunately, they didn't fly the GOODWOOD missions.  Perhaps someone has some unit histories of the RAF units that supported those missions and can find what they carried?

Another note, does anyone know exactly how much explosive was in a 500 lb frag bomb?  For example, what percentage of the bombs mass is explosive versus the case?

[Lusche]

Another note, does anyone know exactly how much explosive was in a 500 lb frag bomb?  For example, what percentage of the bombs mass is explosive versus the case?

The German standard bombs were the multi-purpose SC series. They all had about 50% of their mass being explosives.
So a SC-250 had ~250lbs explosive filling. The pure frag version of that bomb, the SD-250 still had ~160lbs explosive.

British General Purpose (GP) bombs had 30-35% explosive mass, a British 500lbs GP bomb thus would end up with 150-175lbs explosive.

For comparison: The standard German divisional artillery piece, the 10.5cm (4.1") howitzer, had an explosive filling of ~3lbs




That's a lot of boom and the reason why I'm very reluctant to claim a 500lbs bomb would be able to overturn a 56t Tiger but not a 70t King Tiger...

[TheZohan]

well theres already proof about bombs flipping over a tiger.. i dont think that should be a issue. trying to find where they said it flipped over the king tiger.. the pic with eisenhower in it is a king tiger from what the thread said that the pic was taken from. how it was flipped is under consideration.  some said it was a bomb some say it may have been bulldozed .

[Masherbrum]

Does it really? A bomb going off at or above ground level still delivers an amount of energy to the side of the tank. If this force is strong enough, I can't tell.
Exploding below ground level just requires less energy to flip the tank I think.

True, but let's look at the "supposed Tiger II (that really isn't a Tiger II) that Zohan posted.    Notice the "torn steel" on the bottom.   A bomb blast "on the side of the tank" will not do that.    That was caused by a shaped charge (anti-tank mine or two or more) and even more probable, the mine caused a shell to explode through the bottom of the hull.  The reason I say two, is that it was not uncommon in Kursk for the Russians to place mines less than 30cm apart.   Which is insane when put into perspective.  

Not to mention, the tank "Tiger II, that isn't", could've been scuttled as well, then BULLDOZED.   

But he has once again failed to provide ANY source of his "claims."  

[Masherbrum]

I did do some research on the B-17 missions that supported the COBRA breakout.  From the 398th Bomb Group website, the mission listings show they carried 100lb frag bombs for those missions.  Unfortunately, they didn't fly the GOODWOOD missions.  Perhaps someone has some unit histories of the RAF units that supported those missions and can find what they carried?

Another note, does anyone know exactly how much explosive was in a 500 lb frag bomb?  For example, what percentage of the bombs mass is explosive versus the case?

http://www.303rdbg.com/bombs2.jpg