Since when does a 20mm kill a wirb?

[TwinBoom]

OMFG   WOW   since when does Gonzos 20mm  kill wirbs?   mine and anothers in a pass or 2   for both...

P-47`s regularly strafed tigers on roads killing them with only 50cals the 50cal shells ricochet`ed of the road to the underside belly of the tigers

Improve your aim in whirble and plane will stand a slimmer chance of killing you

but it is possible

Could you imagine the cries if you could kill tigers like they did in real life lmao

[Ack-Ack]

<backpedaling>

Don't fall on your arse trying to backpedal.

A .50 caliber round will not penetrate the deck armor of a Japanese battleship of the time.  The most one could hope for is to kill exposed crewmen or maybe start a deck fire on some exposed material. 

People don't realize or can't understand the fact that the armor decks on battleships were much more thicker than that on any main battle tank. If a .50 caliber round wouldn't harm a Tiger, what makes you think it's going to be anymore effective against armor plating thicker than a tank?

ack-ack

[4Prop]

P-47`s regularly strafed tigers on roads killing them with only 50cals the 50cal shells ricochet`ed of the road to the underside belly of the tigers


but it is possible

Could you imagine the cries if you could kill tigers like they did in real life lmao

i posted about the ability on wishlist and that fact was dismissed

[TwinBoom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj3Usgfhdls

[Lusche]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj3Usgfhdls

Does he really say "They weren't armored on the underside"? Well, the Tiger has 20-26mm at the bottom, that's as much as the M4 has on top! How do you penetrate that with a ricochet (=deformation and loss of energy) at an extremely flat angle?

Allied fighter pilots did claim a lot of tank kills by rockets in France too. British command investigations found out that they were vastly exaggerated, with actually very few tanks really being killed by rockets. Just as an example how pilot claims and reality can differ ( I'll try to dig it up again.)

[Karnak]

I accually heard that a nightfighter F6F ( i think it was) sunk a small battleship by shooting at a place on the ship witch caused a large explosion and sunk it

Nope. Try again, or perhaps look up what a battleship is.

Sure you do. I forgot you were there.


Allied Strafing in World War 2: A Cockpit view of air to ground battle   -William B. Colgan

There are these things called "books."  You should look into that and read a bit.  Also, you might want to look into what a battleship is as well.

i posted about the ability on wishlist and that fact was dismissed

That's because it isn't a fact.

[lunatic1]

were you the Bish player named "lunatic" that was in the wirb on the beach at A70 yesterday? If so, DAAAYYYUM sir, I thought you were Vasily Zaitsev in that thing! Sniping me dead cold almost immediate 1-shot ping killed from over 1K out.

 

If ever it was worth losing a Tiger I to an incoming horde, it was worth it to roll it out to kill you and 9 of your friends before those Lancs showed up! LOL

actually that was probably lunatac--he is bish--i was lunatic1 with the 173rd guardian angels--they folded so i went to l.t.a.r.--i'm ltarlun now, and we fly knight's till november then tour then vote who to run with for a year.sometimes all it takes is one bullit.i use lunatic1 for bbs

[muzik]

Don't fall on your arse trying to backpedal.

A .50 caliber round will not penetrate the deck armor of a Japanese battleship of the time.  The most one could hope for is to kill exposed crewmen or maybe start a deck fire on some exposed material. 

People don't realize or can't understand the fact that the armor decks on battleships were much more thicker than that on any main battle tank. If a .50 caliber round wouldn't harm a Tiger, what makes you think it's going to be anymore effective against armor plating thicker than a tank?

ack-ack

The deck armor of Jap battleships doesn't hold a candle to the thickness of your head.

Nope. Try again, or perhaps look up what a battleship is.
There are these things called "books."  You should look into that and read a bit.  Also, you might want to look into what a battleship is as well.
That's because it isn't a fact.

Really? you mean like the book in that post you just quoted?

[Oddball-CAF]

First off, I didnt say alone did I?

I'm with Ack-Ack. You can play semantics all you want, but
the bottom line is that your statement that "50 cals sank
battleships" is ridiculous.

[Karnak]

Really? you mean like the book in that post you just quoted?

Go ahead and quote the section of your book where it states that a Japanese battleship was sunk by 50 cals.

I await your response with bated breath.  Will you evade again, or answer directly?

[Ack-Ack]

The deck armor of Jap battleships doesn't hold a candle to the thickness of your head.

Don't be upset just because you're wrong.  I would have thought it was something you'd be used to by now.

ack-ack

[Guppy35]

Does he really say "They weren't armored on the underside"? Well, the Tiger has 20-26mm at the bottom, that's as much as the M4 has on top! How do you penetrate that with a ricochet (=deformation and loss of energy) at an extremely flat angle?

Allied fighter pilots did claim a lot of tank kills by rockets in France too. British command investigations found out that they were vastly exaggerated, with actually very few tanks really being killed by rockets. Just as an example how pilot claims and reality can differ ( I'll try to dig it up again.)

I know that the fighter drivers did try and 'bounce' the 50s underneath tanks having heard that from a Jug fighter bomber driver directly.  Someone clearly planted the seed that it might work.  Whether they did or not will always be in dispute   In terms of the rocket Tiffies.  Clearly the message was sent, whether it was effective or not that the fighter bombers were doing the job.  I think the other thing folks assume is that all the Tiffies were carrying rockets, when that was not the case.  RCAF Tiffies in Normandy were only loaded out with bombs and they played a big part in Falaise.  I would suspect that a 500 or 1000 pounder going off near a tank was much more effective then a rocket.

Ironically, at least to me, is that the folks who don't want to believe Michael Wittmann's Tiger was killed by Firefly, claim it was done in by a rocket Tiffie that day, although there were none over that battlefield.  I guess it all depends on what message you want to send

[Guppy35]

The deck armor of Jap battleships doesn't hold a candle to the thickness of your head.





Really? you mean like the book in that post you just quoted?

Which battleship was it that was sunk by 50s?

I re-read "Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" not too long ago, and the Destroyer guys with their 5 inchers spent their time trying to hit the upper works on the BBs they came across as they knew that they couldn't do much more then try and irritate them.

The Wildcat and Avenger pilots did the same with their 50s hoping to keep the heads down of the gunners and maybe break a bit of glass.  They never mentioned that they had the power to sink a battleship with a 50 cal.  I don't recall ever coming across mention of such an event in all the years I've been studying WW2 history.

[Tank-Ace]

Its a Golly-geen battleship dude. Some had over a 35,000 ton displacement, 14" armor belts at the waterline, armored decks, and shells stored in magazines deep within the ship.

But you think that .50 caliber rounds, which would be physicly incapable of penetrating the hull anywhere below the waterline, couldn't have gotten through the armor on the gun turrets or sponsons, and likely wouldn't even have penetrated the deck armor, had ANYTHING to do with one of them sinking  ?

[4Prop]

Nope. Try again, or perhaps look up what a battleship is.
There are these things called "books."  You should look into that and read a bit.  Also, you might want to look into what a battleship is as well.
That's because it isn't a fact.

it is definantly a fact. did you not see TB's post?. allow me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj3Usgfhdls

now, say that again?