PDA

View Full Version : P-47 guns vs the Tiger Tank etc...



Pages : [1] 2 3

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:16 AM
i have been vindicated. as i said before a few weeks ago. also in olegs ready room... JUGS CAN SHOOT INTO TIGER TANKS...... "On the way back from raids, pilots shot up targets of opportunity, which led to the realization that the P-47 made an excellent fighter-bomber. Even with its complicated turbosupercharger system, it could absorb a lot of damage, and its eight machine guns meant it could cause a lot of damage as well. Armor-piercing rounds could even chew up a German Tiger tank, smashing into the relatively thin top armor on top and bouncing off the road to penetrate the belly" ......... http://www.vectorsite.net/avp47.html#m6.......and to quote tagert from olegs ready room as he sums it up accurately.... and i quote...."Paragraph two, where it notes that 50 cals were found to go threw tops and bottoms of TIGER tanks.. Granted, one would think that most of the enery would be absorbed in the inital gnd strike, to where it couldnt make it threw the bottom of the tank.. But WAR is a funny place, and funny things happen. With out too much effort I can imagine a TIGER tank cresting a small hill, and a P47 comming at it head on low and fast, the bullets wouldnt strike the gnd as much as deflect off of it and into the belly of the tank. Im sure if that happend it was not the norm.. but it is one example, Im sure there are more.

So, now, you have to ask yourself.. do I belive a bunch of calculator jockies talking about it in a forum 60 years ago, or personal accounts of the guys who were actully there and wrote about it... Personally, I dont put too much weight on the forum guys! " well said tagert...thanks for the link and to all those geniuses that said i was wrong about jugs against tigers.....YOU are Wrong! ....have a nice day.






Message Edited on 06/28/0312:17AM by RedDeth

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:16 AM
i have been vindicated. as i said before a few weeks ago. also in olegs ready room... JUGS CAN SHOOT INTO TIGER TANKS...... "On the way back from raids, pilots shot up targets of opportunity, which led to the realization that the P-47 made an excellent fighter-bomber. Even with its complicated turbosupercharger system, it could absorb a lot of damage, and its eight machine guns meant it could cause a lot of damage as well. Armor-piercing rounds could even chew up a German Tiger tank, smashing into the relatively thin top armor on top and bouncing off the road to penetrate the belly" ......... http://www.vectorsite.net/avp47.html#m6.......and to quote tagert from olegs ready room as he sums it up accurately.... and i quote...."Paragraph two, where it notes that 50 cals were found to go threw tops and bottoms of TIGER tanks.. Granted, one would think that most of the enery would be absorbed in the inital gnd strike, to where it couldnt make it threw the bottom of the tank.. But WAR is a funny place, and funny things happen. With out too much effort I can imagine a TIGER tank cresting a small hill, and a P47 comming at it head on low and fast, the bullets wouldnt strike the gnd as much as deflect off of it and into the belly of the tank. Im sure if that happend it was not the norm.. but it is one example, Im sure there are more.

So, now, you have to ask yourself.. do I belive a bunch of calculator jockies talking about it in a forum 60 years ago, or personal accounts of the guys who were actully there and wrote about it... Personally, I dont put too much weight on the forum guys! " well said tagert...thanks for the link and to all those geniuses that said i was wrong about jugs against tigers.....YOU are Wrong! ....have a nice day.






Message Edited on 06/28/0312:17AM by RedDeth

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:25 AM
Well i don't know what your trying to get at but even with machine guns i can destroy a tiger tank in FB.
Just tell your flight to attack tanks and keep attacking from upper rear quarter.
After 3 or 4 pass's the Tigers blow up.

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 01:44 AM
Amen..Lets not forget also that Oleg himself said that the P-47 is not a fighter. In the manual itself that the .50 cals are ineffective against armour. Makes you wonder huh...

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:49 AM
What was the penetration depth of the a/c .5" in armour steel, RedDeth?

Every German tank was a Tiger to the GIs.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for you linked site, I would not put muck stock into what it says for they do not know what a moonshine jug looks like, nor a 1940s milk jug.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg



Message Edited on 06/27/0308:55PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:54 AM
A Tiger? As in Panzerkampfwagen IV? .50 cals blowing it up?
Never happen. Not once. Prove it.
S!



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:56 AM
Make that "Panzerkampfwagen VI", not IV
("dyslexics of the world, untie!"
S!



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:02 AM
Hmm, I can't speak for what a .50 will do, but I can tell you that a .223 FMJ will penetrate 11 3\4" of pine 2x4s. And a .308 FMJ will do 11 1\2". I got bored one afternoon and decided to find out.

Now if can find a p-47 and a Tiger... I'll let you know.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:05 AM
Do a search on this urban myth on these forums.

However i did read an account how one NZ piloted mk IX spitfire destroyed 2! tigers on one pass!

(i probably should mention the refueling truck... nah /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )

<bgColor="green">

<center>http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/images/small/john001.jpg</p>


I complained that my radar hums so the mechanics taught it words.
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:14 AM
no way not possible! only way allies managed to blow tigers up was with massive air strikes or when they were disabled on roads and typhoons or tempest hit them with rockets.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:15 AM
We've had this discussion a bunch of times.


I don't think many people buy that the M2 could penetrate the armor of any tank. However, that really isn't how it would cause damage. A few seconds of fire on a tank with 8 .50s would pound it with so much lead that any one of a number of bad things would happen.

I think it is entirely possible for a P-47 to knock out a tank with its guns...they don't need to penentrate the armor.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:19 AM
Who to believe, pilots accounts from fifty years ago, or physics? Hmmm, well Force still equals Mass times Velocity no matter if you are at war or not. Our Shermans had a lot of trouble punching through a Tigers armor, I hardly think .50cals could do it, especially after losing tons of velocity deflecting off the ground. How do you confirm a tank kill with the kind of dust 8 M2s kicks up anyways? They didnt have a little indicator that said "enemy tank destroyed". Funny things happen in war, but physics ALWAYS applys. And about the whole deflecting thing, if they are at a shallow enough angle to deflect off the relively soft pavement, they will deflect up the same angle, which will be shallow enough to deflect off hard armor/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif There should be a sticky post putting these claims to rest because they sure come up a lot.

--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 02:22 AM
chris455 wrote:
- A Tiger? As in Panzerkampfwagen IV? .50 cals blowing
- it up?
- Never happen. Not once. Prove it.
- S!
-
-
Pilots killed tigers all the time..It's not armoured underneath..all ya gotta do is aim for the dirt and bounce em into the tanks cockpit. If it has an external fuel cart or a fuel tank on the back of it (the Weakest point!!) KABOOM.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:39 AM
They wouldve been armored on the bottom to prevent against mines. Not quite as thick, but still it wouldnt penetrate.

--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:42 AM
I wanna see a photo of a Tiger tank AFTER a strafing run from a P-47.

Gib

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:45 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- They wouldve been armored on the bottom to prevent
- against mines. Not quite as thick, but still it
- wouldnt penetrate.
-
---NJG26_Killa--

You obviously missed the Color of War special on the P-47. It had color guncamera footage showing "several" German tanks being taken out by P-47's with ground bounced bullets to the belly of the tanks(BOOM). It happened and that's the fact. I'm sure they will re-run the program for ya. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig.bmp

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/27/0306:45PM by UCLANUPE

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 02:47 AM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- Who to believe, pilots accounts from fifty years
- ago, or physics? Hmmm, well Force still equals Mass
- times Velocity no matter if you are at war or not.
- Our Shermans had a lot of trouble punching through a
- Tigers armor, I hardly think .50cals could do it,
- especially after losing tons of velocity deflecting
- off the ground. How do you confirm a tank kill with
- the kind of dust 8 M2s kicks up anyways? They didnt
- have a little indicator that said "enemy tank
- destroyed". Funny things happen in war, but physics
- ALWAYS applys. And about the whole deflecting
- thing, if they are at a shallow enough angle to
- deflect off the relively soft pavement, they will
- deflect up the same angle, which will be shallow
- enough to deflect off hard armor/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif There should be a sticky post
- putting these claims to rest because they sure come
- up a lot.
-

Sigh..Shermans hit the rear of a Tiger it is the weakest point besides beneath it. Jugs never attacked a Tiger on the Sides or in Front..Nothing did. They went for the Belly or the Back of the beast. BTW you pretty much know a target is dead when it stops moving and doesn't start again..or the crew runs out either on fire from the fuel tank on the back exploding. Bullet direction is not constant. Bullets don't go straight they travel down as they move forward..so they would not all go in the same direction. More of your beloved Physics. Guncam footage is available of the Jug doing this very manuever. Before you post an uneducated opinion LEARN HISTORY.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0301:49AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:04 AM
Watching "The Color Of War" you will see EVERY straifing run against a Tiger was done by the side. I saw about 10 reels of P-47's attacking tigers on the road. Every single one was the side. Also, a few of the tigers towed large fuel tanks in a 3rd wheel config. They went after those first. Nice explostion, plus it spilt burning fuel all over the tank. Heat + Smoke = dead tank crew. But when the P-47 hit the tanks, you can SEE it was effecting the tank. I just dont know how much. I REALLY want to see photo's of a tank after one of these runs.

As for deflecting the bullete from the ground. Recently I saw footage from Iraq of a .50 cal mounted on a humvee. The rounds would bounce off of SAND with a shalow deflection. Like skilling stones. In that way, it looses little velocity.

Gib

The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
- Sigh..Shermans hit the rear of a Tiger it is the
- weakest point besides beneath it. Jugs never
- attacked a Tiger on the Sides or in Front..Nothing
- did. They went for the Belly or the Back of the
- beast. BTW you pretty much know a target is dead
- when it stops moving and doesn't start again..or the
- crew runs out either on fire from the fuel tank on
- the back exploding. Bullet direction is not
- constant. Bullets don't go straight they travel down
- as they move forward..so they would not all go in
- the same direction. More of your beloved Physics.
- Guncam footage is available of the Jug doing this
- very manuever. Before you post an uneducated
- opinion LEARN HISTORY.
-


"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 03:10 AM
- As for deflecting the bullete from the ground.
- Recently I saw footage from Iraq of a .50 cal
- mounted on a humvee. The rounds would bounce off of
- SAND with a shalow deflection. Like skilling
- stones. In that way, it looses little velocity.
-
- Gib
Now that was ground level deflection..Imagine that angle multiplied by coming in from altitude. It only takes one .50cal bullet to get into that armoured cockpit, ricochet and kill every one inside.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:15 AM
First - IIRC the .50 cal AP rounds would penetrate 24mm RHA armor at 90 degrees from 200 meters. So yes it is _possible_ to penetrate the top armor (25mm) of a tiger at < 100m with the .50 cal from a perfect 90 degree dive. Show me a P-47 that could pull up from that.... Hull bottom is impossible as it's more than 25mm thick and how do you achieve 90 degrees unless the tank is upside down?

Secondly you have to understand how solid AP rounds of any caliber knocked out a tank; While penetrating the round will heat the metal around the penetration point and break out pieces, the pieces of hot metal would be shot into the tank and bounce around killing/injuring the crew. Also spalling and concussion would wound/chock the crew and put the tank out of action. A small rounds like the .50 cal that can barely penetrate the armor under perfect conditions, would it have enough energy/mass to create enough shrapnel inside the tank to kill the crew or ignite the ammo inside the tank? I've seen a Sherman with bullet holes from an MG42 in the side armor, did it knock out the tank? No way!

Besides, if you're in a P-47 why don't you just drop a bomb on the tank?

EDIT: lol! skipping bullets at bottom armor (25mm)??? You guys are insane! Killing a tank was probably a very relative thing, who knows how much *plink plonk* the crew could withstand before they panicked and abandoned the tank - doesn't mean you actually did any damage to the tank. War is scary stuff, imagine sitting in a tincan yourself with stuff shooting at you without seeing it.

Message Edited on 06/28/0302:22AM by Matz0r

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 03:20 AM
Matz0r wrote:
- First - IIRC the .50 cal AP rounds would penetrate
- 24mm RHA armor at 90 degrees from 200 meters. So yes
- it is _possible_ to penetrate the top armor (25mm)
- of a tiger at < 100m with the .50 cal from a perfect
- 90 degree dive. Show me a P-47 that could pull up
- from that.... Hull bottom is impossible as it's more
- than 80mm thick.
-
- Secondly you have to understand how solid AP rounds
- of any caliber knocked out a tank; While penetrating
- the round will heat the metal around the penetration
- point and break out pieces, the pieces of hot metal
- would be shot into the tank and bounce around
- killing/injuring the crew. Also spalling and
- concussion would wound/chock the crew and put the
- tank out of action. A small rounds like the .50 cal
- that can barely penetrate the armor under perfect
- conditions, would it have enough energy/mass to
- create enough shrapnel inside the tank to kill the
- crew or ignite the ammo inside the tank? I've seen a
- Sherman with bullet holes from an MG42 in the side
- armor, did it knock out the tank? No way!
-
- Besides, if you're in a P-47 why don't you just drop
- a bomb on the tank?
-
Sigh...Paging SkyChimp Paging SkyChimp..




<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:21 AM
Hmm, so are we to disbelieve what our eyes saw(Tanks being disabled or destroyed by P-47's) and believe you instead? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html



Message Edited on 06/27/0307:24PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:28 AM
I have seen the videos of aircraft killing tanks with guns.However I would like to know what made it go BOOM could it be the hatch cover was open? I know most tank commanders liked to fight with it open.The other thing was I saw many just limp on with lots of smoke maybe most of the "kills" were just engine damage.

I also have a nice picture of a german tank gun that was holed from left to right by the hurrie with the 40mm anti tank guns now there is a gun that would scare the hell outa any tank crew

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:29 AM
Of course....you know that famous groucho Marx line....."Who are you going to believe....me or your lieing eyes!!!!???"

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:32 AM
You could never skip a round off the ground or road and be able to penetrate the belly armor (yes it was armored to protect against mines and small arms explosives (aka grenades)) of a Panzerkampfwagen VI.

First off for a round to deflect of a surface rather than penetrate the resistance or cost in energy to defeat inertia and change the motion of the round must be LESS than the resistance of density and molecular bonds for non loose pack.

So you manage to deflect a round off the ground, now the mangled bullet is traveling at reduced inertial energy and strikes the plate. Again the same thing happens for the round to enter A MUCH denser and harder material before you even think of penetrating it must have enough inertia energy to defeat the armor' density and molecular properties which it would no longer have or it would have penetrated the ground in the first place thus it would deflect of the armor and back to the ground. Y

You'd probably get a nice ping pong effect until it buried itself in the dirt or pavement. Physics are physics and for a round to deflect and hit the armor at an angle it could theoretically penetrate the armor it would have penetrated the ground in the first place.

What happened was the rounds hit external fuel tanks, entered the engine grill and wreacked havock on the engine, knocked links out of the tread belts, and really done a dousy to the crew from the sound and force.

Sure the tank will stop from this, its disabled. And sure the crew ran like hell, would you sit in a disabled tank waiting for that rocket or bomb totting buddy of that P-47? Or wait for the fuel fire to burn you alive?

Bouncing rounds and then penetrating armor is myth pure and simple. The phyiscs of it don't work out.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

Message Edited on 06/27/03 09:33PM by Cragger

Message Edited on 06/27/03 09:34PM by Cragger

Message Edited on 06/27/0309:36PM by Cragger

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:33 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- Now that was ground level deflection..Imagine that
- angle multiplied by coming in from altitude. It
- only takes one .50cal bullet to get into that
- armoured cockpit, ricochet and kill every one
- inside.

Yeah, right. What the hell is laying on the ground that's hard enough to deflect a .50 round...that will then retain enough energy to penetrate an inch of armor grade steel plate at an angle of AT LEAST 45 degrees from vertical...and then retain enough energy to bounce around the fighting compartment and kill all the crew?

Use your head for something other than a hat rack, people. "Magic .50 BMG" was not in the USAAF's inventory.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:35 AM
<img src=http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Typhoon_Target.jpg>

Name of pic- Typhoon Target

===============================
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.-Abraham Lincoln

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.- Robert E. Lee

Scotland Rules!!!
<img src=http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/projects/globalclassroom/courses/classes/3843f01/group2/Images/ww2_usrecruit2.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:35 AM
- Sigh...Paging SkyChimp Paging SkyChimp..

- Now that was ground level deflection..Imagine that angle multiplied by
- coming in from altitude.


- Pilots killed tigers all the time..It's not armoured underneath..
- all ya gotta do is aim for the dirt and bounce em into the tanks cockpit.
- If it has an external fuel cart or a fuel tank on the back of it
- (the Weakest point!!) KABOOM.

Sigh? Your point is? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? You really think a bullet will go faster from gravity or from the speed of an airplane for that matter....sigh. So you bounce a bullet into the bottom armor of a tank and penetrate it - if the bullet is that good at penetrating why does it just not penetrate the ground.... sigh

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:42 AM
This gets my vote for the Dumbest Thread Ever.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:45 AM
Why on earth is everyone stuck on this "bullets deflecting from underneath" crap?


If a P-47 got a good burst on ANY tank, it would be more or less knocked out. ANYTHING on the outside of that tank that isn't armored is going to be as good as gone. With that much lead hitting it, one or more of the following is bound to happen:

- track knocked offf
- round into exhaust/engine compartment
- optics damaged
- gun barrel damaged


Couple that with the fact that the crew is going to be totally incapacitated by such an attack and I think it is a pretty safe bet to assume that any tank that took a good burst from a P-47 was not going to be doing any fighting in the near future.





---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 03:53 AM
Sigh? Your point is? Do you have any idea what
- you're talking about? You really think a bullet will
- go faster from gravity or from the speed of an
- airplane for that matter....sigh. So you bounce a
- bullet into the bottom armor of a tank and penetrate
- it - if the bullet is that good at penetrating why
- does it just not penetrate the ground.... sigh
-
Angle of Deflection varies by angle of the plane when fired. A bullet may not travel faster due to the planes speed but it will have an altered angle of deflection. Ever see a tracer round bounce as it hits the cement? The bounce height and angle is relative to the angle at which it strikes the gound. You guys go ahead and believe each other..I'll believe Actual Real Life Guncam Footage and the men who made it, not People who dismiss the idea because they passed high school physics.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0303:04AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:03 AM
Yes, disregard highschool level physics and belive a blurry gun cam film.

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 04:07 AM
Backfire_22 wrote:
- Yes, disregard highschool level physics and belive a
- blurry gun cam film.
-
How witty. BTW the footage is in color and not very bluirry at all

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:09 AM
Here is the tank killed by a hurrie using the 40mm Vikers S Cannon

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/Scan10001.JPG


No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:10 AM
My pic get's the vote for being the most colorful

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

===============================
'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.-Abraham Lincoln

It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.- Robert E. Lee

Scotland Rules!!!
<img src=http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/projects/globalclassroom/courses/classes/3843f01/group2/Images/ww2_usrecruit2.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:10 AM
When I was in the Marines I single-handedly prevented the communists from taking over Europe and Africa. Now who are you going to believe, me or some candy-*** civilian who went to college and wrote a booK??? I WAS THERE. AND I HAVE THE PICTURES TO PROVE IT! (but no web page yet)





----------------------------------------
<font size="+1">

S!</p>
How do I want my eggs?? Scrambled!</font>

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/rafaq_zveno2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:16 AM
EmpireRuler13 wrote:
- My pic get's the vote for being the most colorful

Ok it"s pretty but look at the barrel on my pic I think mine has more shock value /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:17 AM
Of course, there is also the story of Afghans taking out Russian APCs by firing into the wheel wells. The steel was thin in there and a lucky bullet would tear through and bounce around inside.

Just a modern analogy.

Also, would a hail of .50s damage the tracks or their equipment on a Tiger? No tracks equals a dead tank.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:18 AM
Beirut wrote:
- Of course, there is also the story of Afghans taking
- out Russian APCs by firing into the wheel wells. The
- steel was thin in there and a lucky bullet would
- tear through and bounce around inside.

True but Most APC's are just alluminum(sp?)

No1RAAF_Pourshot

XO No1RAAF

http://www.froggy.com.au/edinkulelija/no1raaf/image/crest.gif


some are the hunters the rest are the hunted

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:22 AM
Hmmm. Good point. But I think the BTRs and BMPs are-were steel. If for no other reason than cost.

My Janes books are at home so I'll check it out tomorrow and let you know if they were aluminum.

Interesting.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:29 AM
I bet some of you could be sold a fridge if you lived at the South Pole./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Specs on the Tiger:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/ftiger1.htm


Cowace, have you seen the track of a Tiger? Any GI with a ma duece should have been able to disable any Tiger by shootong at its tracks from what you say.

---

SkyChimp is moving so he won't be around for awhile.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:37 AM
lol lol lol
So you want to say that the guns in a JUG are better than the big one in a SHERMAN? lolololololol

C'mon a usual american tank was NOT able to destroy a Tiger with one hit so DON'T tell anyone a 50cal can.

Wittmann for example destroyed 25 british tanks alone in one Tiger. The Jug is nice for ground attacks, with bombs and rockets but a 50 can NEVER destroy ANY tank operating at that time and surely not a Tiger. That is more than unrealistic not even with a lucky shot you could do that.



http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:39 AM
Ok I'll just post Tiger 1 and 2 spec links for you to draw your own conclusions.

My comment is why could a .50 API round after bouncing off the ground penetrate the same thickness armor on the bottom as top and not just have penetrated the top in the first place.

What is happening is the dozens of other rounds you don't see are hitting vitals and possibly penetrating the top but the tracers that are skipping on the ground are "stealing the show in your mind". Pilots probably experienced the same effect in their memories where the knockout of a tank and the image of those rounds that skipped where linked together.

Tiger 1 25mm top and bottom
Tiger 2 40mm top and bottom

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

M2 API round penetration at 90 degree impact angle at 200m is .9 inch against face hardened steel. 1 inch equals 25mm, so its feasible that some rounds penetrated the top armor of tiger 1s NOT 2s and at least caused internal sprawl if the round didn't make it wall the way thru.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

Message Edited on 06/27/0310:49PM by Cragger

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 04:44 AM
Gershy wrote:
- lol lol lol
- So you want to say that the guns in a JUG are better
- than the big one in a SHERMAN? lolololololol
- C'mon a usual american tank was NOT able to destroy
- a Tiger with one hit so DON'T tell anyone a 50cal
- can.

Shermans could kill a tiger if the hit the rear of it were the armour was weakest.

-
- Wittmann for example destroyed 25 british tanks
- alone in one Tiger.

The Tiger fired a Huge shell it could kill most tanks in one or two shots this is true.

-The Jug is nice for ground attacks, with bombs and rockets
-but a 50 can NEVER destroy ANY tank operating at that time
-and surely not a Tiger. That is more than unrealistic not
-even with a lucky shot you could do that.

Inccorect by virtue of historical footage and claims on both sides for loses.


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:49 AM
Before you make that final payment on that fridge Blue Devil, you had better read this thread:

http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?s=8deaa1fc1ff7f43a2fa0c7dc80485be1&threadid=24358



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:51 AM
cowace2 wrote:
- Why on earth is everyone stuck on this "bullets
- deflecting from underneath" crap?
-
-
- If a P-47 got a good burst on ANY tank, it would be
- more or less knocked out. ANYTHING on the outside
- of that tank that isn't armored is going to be as
- good as gone. With that much lead hitting it, one
- or more of the following is bound to happen:
-
-- track knocked offf
-- round into exhaust/engine compartment
-- optics damaged
-- gun barrel damaged
-
-
- Couple that with the fact that the crew is going to
- be totally incapacitated by such an attack and I
- think it is a pretty safe bet to assume that any
- tank that took a good burst from a P-47 was not
- going to be doing any fighting in the near future.



EXACTLY! This is how the A-10 manages to knock so many tanks. The rounds don't have to penetrate the tank.

Another argument that I think is BS is the one when guys say that if the Sherman's gun can't do it, then how can a .50cal? Well, a couple of 37mm rounds from an Il-2 seems to work just fine...

If I remember right, the Sherman had a 75mm gun. 75mm is ALOT bigger than 37mm. Go figure...

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 04:56 AM
That forum actually has more proof for the arguement..and some against it. It can be debated either way. I like the one guys post about an entire panzer division being wiped out though.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:57 AM
All this armor thickness stuff and angle stuff is just that stuff....... the bottom line wheter some of you want to believe it or not Jugs took out Tigers with .50 cals......hey P-51s sunk a destroyer with .50 cals...you can talk all that other stuff till the cows come home... If the boat doesnt float, if the tank doesnt go, if the crew is all dead or shot up pretty bad, or running for their lives....or the lifeboats are coming out..the tank is tunk, the boat is sunk and the Jug pilot is flyin home to have a beer and a stogie and share the stories.... I will believe the exploits of the men who flew the planes or the men who flew against them or ran like h@ll from their straffing runs any day before I would put too much stock in what some sim jockey says...... no offense....... I'm just sayin..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:58 AM
Dylan_D,

maybe you should look at the specs for the .5:, 37mm and 76mm.

You want to compare the damage from a heavy 30mm round from an A-10 to the damage from a puny .50" round./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 05:00 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-- You want to compare the damage from a heavy 30mm
- round from an A-10 to the damage from a puny .50"
- round.
You just proved that you've never seen what a .50cal can do to light armour/people/equipment from 1000m. Puny I think Not.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:01 AM
RedSpar sent me this quote about this very issue from elsewhere I think its pretty explainatory for any possible "bounced" kills.

Quote:

Here is a quote about this "I think that the answer may be that these stories ARE TRUE-- but not due to the penetration of the belly of the tanks, but due to strikes against the "drain plugs" and access plates (or places where they should have been installed) beneath the tanks. All tanks have to have these (to let spilled oil, fuel, oily engine "slobber", and of course, rainwater and melted snow drain away, or to gain access to the underside of the powerplant and other machinery inside the tank. Tanks of all types are notorious for having lots of oily, fuel-soaked, greasy gunk all over the bottom of the engine compartment, and they're also widely known for having "missing" drain plugs and access plates-- at any given moment, a surprising percentage of the world's armored vehicles are driving around with one, several or many of their drain plugs and access plates missing, even today. In combat, with hasty, midnight servicing and repairs always being made, often in deplorable muddy, slushy ground, or in the churned up grass and turf of hasty assembly areasa, it's only natural that small drain plugs, and access plates (typically 1.5" to 4" in diameter) are lost, or come loose, or are purposely "lost" or left "open" by the crew. I think that the basis for these type reports may be just that-- the P-47 pilots were bouncing rounds right into these areas of the tank, and vs. the Germans' gasoline-fueled vehicles, a single burning tracer or burning fragments from an API strike would easily ignite the spilled or dripped grease, fuel, oil, dried fragments of vegetation, greasy residue, and all the other gunk that coats the bottom of the engine compartments of tanks in combat.



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:02 AM
What if more than one bullet hit the same exact place? Maybe there would be a bullet hole and another bullet would go in and finish the hole. Sounds pretty improbable, but with 8 .50 cals, who knows?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:03 AM
Look guys you can talk all of the paper facts and figures that you want, "none" of that matters when you actually "see" it happening in the historical footage.

Hey, I have one suggestion for all of those that do not believe the wartime footage showing P-47's disabling and destroying German tanks, you need to get some glasses fast.

How many of you non-believers actually saw the show Color of War that featured the P-47 attacking German tanks? Of those that actually "watched" the P-47's strafing the German tanks, please explain why those tanks were blowing up and being disabled? Were those fake tanks or was the footage faked?

Next you'll tell me that the Holocaust never occurred. You guys really need to stop smelling your socks, cause the aroma is getting you high. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig.bmp

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/27/0309:04PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:04 AM
As already said, the Color of War episode on the P-47 clearly shows German tanks being killed by 50 cal strikes. Kills are shown due to the flaming of towed fuel trailers as well as rounds bounced into the belly.

FYI, you don't have to penetrate the armor of a tank in order to kill it. If you strike the exterior of armor hard enough, the shock wave will travel through the armor and cause the interior surface to flake off (spall) and go flying off. A lot of nasty flying fragements from spall are more than enough to make a nasty mess of the crew.

If you ever watch the special on NORAD and Cheynne Mountain, you will see that they stress the measures taken to prevent the interior of the man made caves from spalling off from a near miss by a nuke.

Regards,

Adler52

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 05:04 AM
Swish..two points

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:06 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Dylan_D,
-
-
- maybe you should look at the specs for the .5:, 37mm
- and 76mm.
-
- You want to compare the damage from a heavy 30mm
- round from an A-10 to the damage from a puny .50"
- round.

If you know the specs, post 'em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


An M2 can shoot through a manhole cover. If your gonna sit here and tell me that a .50cal can't knock off a link from a track, put a hole in a gun barrel, or ruin an engine, then you're crazy my friend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:08 AM
that other thread states all the same things as here. and includes references to color movies of p47s bouncing bullets off the roads into the tanks. THATS RIGHT COLOR MOVIES OF IT HAPPENING IN REAL LIFE. although the purpose of this thread wasnt to say hey they could bounce bullets..it was in reference to previous threads saying jugs in real life werent that powerful where i would always say jugs can take out tanks so they can take out planes easy and are undermodelled in game. and others told me jugs cant take out tigers no way. WELL they can. they can penetrate the top armor....and dont say shermans cant take out tigers etc. shermans werent AIRBORNE shooting down on the top armor. and also most of you armchair experts that post here are saying A 50 CAL AP ROUND cant do such and such....well imagine 750 to 1000 rounds of 50 CAL all hitting the same section on the top of a tiger...hmm how much shrapnel....how much penetration do the first few hundred rounds do? hmm then what about the next 700 rounds do? in other words would you rather get shot by one 30.06 round or 1000 22 bullets ? ill take the 30.06 cuz i might just survive. id be swiss cheese with 1000 22s . guys use common sense. they have footage there ARE grates over the engines visible from above....the jug carried thousands of rounds of ammo...WAKE UP !...p.s. the jug could take out tigers by pilot accounts and by actual footage end of story



Message Edited on 06/28/0304:14AM by RedDeth

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:10 AM
The_Blue_Devil, you just showed your ignorance./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Compared to that 30mm, the .5" IS puny.

The bullet from the .5" weighs 50g.(0.10614 lb)



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 05:13 AM
My point wasn't to compare the 50cal to the 30mil. It was to check you on calling the MaDuce Puny. Like I said you obviously have never seen what one can do in real life to objects/armour. Otherwise you would not have made that statement calling it Puny. Laugh that off. Milo

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:27 AM
I don't think any German tanks were ever taken out by anything, the crew just got bored of destroying things and just left them in park. A similar thing happened with all Luftwaffe planes built post 1943. They were not actually shot down, but becuase they had no fuel they were in park. If either the German tanks or planes had been used, its obvious, even to a misinformed American colleague, that they would have won the war.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:29 AM
LOL, I laugh at you Blue Devil for being so gullable, as well as something else.

Your point was not Dylan_D's point which was 30mm and .5" damage. Physically, the .5" IS PUNY compared to the 30mm.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:32 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- The_Blue_Devil, you just showed your ignorance
- Compared to that 30mm, the .5"
- IS puny.
-
- The bullet from the .5" weighs 50g.(0.10614 lb)



Ok so a .30mm is about 3 times the size of a .50 cal right...(consider the .45-9mm comparison) So what... that is irrelevent....... with enough force behind it a bb can do some damage.... The 8 50s on a jug have been known to cut trucks in half.....that is the same reason the Hurricaines weaponry was so effective if it hit...the bullets were small...but there were a lot of them. Cragger wrote:
RedSpar sent me this quote about this very issue from elsewhere I think its pretty explainatory for any possible "bounced" kills.

Quote:

Here is a quote about this "I think that the answer may be that these stories ARE TRUE-- but not due to the penetration of the belly of the tanks, but due to strikes against the "drain plugs" and access plates (or places where they should have been installed) beneath the tanks. All tanks have to have these (to let spilled oil, fuel, oily engine "slobber", and of course, rainwater and melted snow drain away, or to gain access to the underside of the powerplant and other machinery inside the tank. Tanks of all types are notorious for having lots of oily, fuel-soaked, greasy gunk all over the bottom of the engine compartment, and they're also widely known for having "missing" drain plugs and access plates-- at any given moment, a surprising percentage of the world's armored vehicles are driving around with one, several or many of their drain plugs and access plates missing, even today. In combat, with hasty, midnight servicing and repairs always being made, often in deplorable muddy, slushy ground, or in the churned up grass and turf of hasty assembly areasa, it's only natural that small drain plugs, and access plates (typically 1.5" to 4" in diameter) are lost, or come loose, or are purposely "lost" or left "open" by the crew. I think that the basis for these type reports may be just that-- the P-47 pilots were bouncing rounds right into these areas of the tank, and vs. the Germans' gasoline-fueled vehicles, a single burning tracer or burning fragments from an API strike would easily ignite the spilled or dripped grease, fuel, oil, dried fragments of vegetation, greasy residue, and all the other gunk that coats the bottom of the engine compartments of tanks in combat.
Whatever....... a burning tank is a burning tank.....Dead is dead...... it was that way then and it is that way today..... That Tuskegee pilot who took out the destroyer with his P-51s 50s probably got a lucky shot....so what dead is dead....... the Jugs took out more than one Tiger though.....lots more.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Luck...I dont think so. Some of you are looking at cold facts on paper....war isnt like that.... it is fluid and like in the world of Forrest Gump....$#it happens.....I know some of you think the Tiger was invincible..and it was a very formidable weapon, but it was not impervious to attack and 8 X 50 cals.....thats not a small slap..... I dont know what the rof was but you figure just from the sound of the guns alone.....thats a lot of lead....moving fast...hitting hard...doing damage...

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:34 AM
Non-believers sound like the guy who said: :Ah, I love the smell of my gym socks after a hard workout. Em, smells like highly concentrated Delta-9 THC. Stop smelling those socks guys

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig.bmp

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/27/0309:35PM by UCLANUPE

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 05:38 AM
FYI a Jug puts out 13LBs. of hot lead Per Second.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0304:38AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:42 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- FYI a Jug puts out 13LBs. of hot lead Per Second.


*drools*

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:57 AM
You should have seen what would have been the successor to the P-47 if those darn jets hadn't come around. Only 2 where built.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p72.htm

The Republic XP-72

490mph at 25,000 ft on a 3,500 hp supercharged radial

Production version was suppose to have FOUR! 37mm cannons fitted most likely in the wing roots.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:16 AM
Well #1, the 37MM for the US sucked *** against tanks. VERY low velocity. It sucked against aircraft! It was made as a long range stand off bomber killer. It failed. There were MANY designes with the 37MM in it, but because it was made as a bomber killer. Not a tank killer. Even a few P-38's were built with the 37MM. 1 twin engine aircraft (The bat thing) was designed to carry 6!!! But nothing sent against us ever required it.

Gib

Cragger wrote:
- You should have seen what would have been the
- successor to the P-47 if those darn jets hadn't come
- around. Only 2 where built.
-
-
- The Republic XP-72
-
- 490mph at 25,000 ft on a 3,500 hp supercharged
- radial
-
- Production version was suppose to have FOUR! 37mm
- cannons fitted most likely in the wing roots.
-

"You dont win a war by dieing for your country. You win a war by making the other fool die for his country."

<center>
http://gibbageart.havagame.com/images/sig01.jpg (http://gibbageart.havagame.com)
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:19 AM
- Ok so a .30mm is about 3 times the size of a .50 cal
- right...(consider the .45-9mm comparison) So what...
- that is irrelevent....... with enough force behind
- it a bb can do some damage.... The 8 50s on a jug
- have been known to cut trucks in half.....that is
- the same reason the Hurricaines weaponry was so
- effective if it hit...the bullets were small...but
- there were a lot of them.

Actually, a 30mm round is only roughly 2.5 times the diameter as a .50 cal. But that 250% increase in calibre turns into a 3000% increase in mass. A 30mm bullet for the GAU-8 weighs about three pounds, and it's made out of a pyrokenetic alloy of Depleted Uranium and Titanium. The 30mm DU round is a completely different species of weapon than the .50 cal. It is specifically designed to penetrate tank armor. Just because the 30mm is up to the job doesn't mean a bunch of .50 cal rounds will be.

Someone pointed out that 8 .50 cal MG's put out 13 lbs of lead every second. One GAU-8 puts out 195 lbs/sec. They're really not comparable.

But, that aside, I'm still astounded by the stupidity displayed here. You people are watching guncam footage and claiming that you can see rounds ricochet off the ground a penetrate the belly of a tank? You're seeing the tank die, yes, but you're drawing all the wrong conclusions.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:43 AM
I'm a big P-47 fan, but no Tiger or Panther was ever shot out of action by the .50 caliber M2. Work with me on this, people.

The idea that it could is a mixture of nationalism, urban legend, and History Channel hype
.
General Eisenhower was very disappointed after the engagement at Puffendorf when he observed the the new 76.2mm tank guns on the M4 Sherman had "scuffed" (his term) rather than penetrated the armor of German Tiger and Panther tanks.

Too bad he hadn't a couple of rampaging jugs with their DU firing .50s, eh?
(laughs out loud)

Can we go back to arguing about the Fw's forward view now?
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:04 AM
chris455 wrote:
- I'm a big P-47 fan, but no Tiger or Panther was ever
- shot out of action by the .50 caliber M2. Work with
- me on this, people.


Ever? I'm sure at least ONE was.

Let me say what I said earlier again:

An M2 can shoot through a manhole cover. If your gonna sit here and tell me that a .50cal can't knock off a link from a track, put a hole in a gun barrel, or ruin an engine, then you're crazy my friend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(if any of those things happen to a tank, it IS OUT of action)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:05 AM
The answer to this is to make it possible for tank crews to bail out. That way, everyone's happier.

<img src=http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-6/219643/GCS0705copy.JPG>

<center><table style="filter:glow[color=black,strength=3)"> Warning: My intense sense of humor may tug at the stick crammed in your shaded spot. If you treasure your lack of humor please refrain from reading my posts as they may cause laughter.</table style></center>



<Center> In case you need it spelled out, I am still a Blitzpig. That's B-L-I-T-Z-P-I-G</Center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:15 AM
i believe it , of course.
just to remember the movie "saving privat ryan"

they killed a tiger with socks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
nothing is impossible /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 07:21 AM
Actually they killed it with "Sticky Bombs" which Were found very effective at destroying tank Treds.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:08 AM
Ian Goodersons works "Airpower" based upon SHEF team examinations of Abanadoned/destroyed Panzers proves pretty conclusivly that WWII airpower is a joke at destroying tanks

http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/hobbies/rocket.txt

Or read his book.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:19 AM
Perhaps... even though I don't personally feel the 37mm was as bad as you percieve. But one also has to look at it this way... if it was designed to hold 4 37mm surely it could hold 4 20mm or 4 23mm... And with alittle shoehorning I'm sure there would have been the space for 6 20mm cannons.

Plus you cannot tell me the .50 API is a better tank killer than the US 37mm no matter how bad its velocity.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:25 AM
So, we have a theory which states a .50 cal ricocheting off the grund would penetrate an armored bottom plate of a Tiger. The bottom plates were armored, to protect the crew from landmines and small explosive charges delivered by infantry.

Let's think about it for a moment. If you would like your round to ricochet off the ground, you'd probably like it to hit the ground at a very shallow angle. Otherwise it would bury itself to the ground.
Anyone tried firing into the ground with his rifle ? I did, and never did anything bounce off, maybe because I usually fired at 45-90 degrees angle. It was 7.62x39 type of cartridge.

Now that you've done the correct impact angle, let's say 15 degrees, the round ricochets at 15 degrees up. You could say it happened because of the round not hitting with its point, but rather with its body and thus it doesn't penetrate but goes up (at 15 degrees, of course). The round has lost some of its energy, as well as its ideal shape, but let's neglect that for now.

The next thing the round has to hit is the armor plate. Let's say 25mm of steel. It hits it at 15 degrees angle.

Now, my question is. Why would the round ricochet off the road (presumably not even asphalt or concrete) but penetrate the steel ?
This suggests that steel is softer than ground, while we know that it is harder than both asphalt and concrete, and even stone, for that matter.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 09:05 AM
Hristos wrote:

- Anyone tried firing into the ground with his rifle ?
- I did, and never did anything bounce off, maybe
- because I usually fired at 45-90 degrees angle. It
- was 7.62x39 type of cartridge.

A hunting caliber rifle and a .50caliber Aircraft Heavy Machine gun are two different things m8. Your rifle comes no where near the velocity produced by a heavy machine gun.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:18 AM
Hmm, it appears the "none" of the a$$hat non-believers has any credible explanation for the historical footage that documents the P-47 attacks on German tanks. Of course this is no surprise, because a$$hats usually don't respond to visual facts. Instead most of these a$$hats take another good whiff of those Delta-9 THC socks and come on here to vent their drivel.

Take another whiff of those socks a$$hats, what's next?


http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0301:43AM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:26 AM
I think both sides are being too absolute here...

It's like saying the Titanic can never sink or foam from the shuttle tank can't rip off thermal tiles. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I watched the Color of War episode about P-47s on the History Channel and the pilot was basically saying "We normally were very successful in getting German tanks with Napalm, if we were lucky and came in at the right angle we could occasionally get a tank by bouncing the .50s from underneath,"

Can 8 .50's from a P-47 stop a Tiger? In some rare instances, yes..

Are .50's good against armor or the preferred weapon against armor? No....

Bullets can do funny things and armor is not 100% uniform around a tank,

One time rabbit hunting in my teens, I took a shot at a rabbit that popped out between some rocks. I missed and my rifle bullet hit the rock and bounced 180 degrees right back at me and hit me square in the chest with enough force to leave a nice bruise mark. Bullets ricochet much more than you generally think, you just don't see it unless you're firing tracers.

I do believe P-47 pilot accounts on gun attacks on tanks....It was just one of those rare fluke things that occasionally happen in war and go on to make a great story for a bunch of PC desktop wannabee talking heads 60 yrs later. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<div align="center">
&lt;object classid="clsidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="252" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
&lt;embed src="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf" quality="best" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="252" height="100"></embed></object>
</div>

Message Edited on 06/28/0308:30AM by RedSpar

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:26 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-

- A hunting caliber rifle and a .50caliber Aircraft
- Heavy Machine gun are two different things m8. Your
- rifle comes no where near the velocity produced by a
- heavy machine gun.
-
-

My rifle has velocity of v0=730 m/s . That is, at the barrell. Since I fired into the ground from about 1 meter distance, I don't believe it lost anything from that number.

An M2 .50 has muzzle velocity of v0=3050 f/sec, which is about 930 m/s. Now, if you add aircraft speed to it, let's say 300 mph, we get another 135 m/s. Now we have 1065m/s, at the barrell. If you knock off some of the speed since aircraft probably fired at 100-300 range, let's say we have a round travelling into the ground at 1000m/s before tha impact.


Roughly 30% difference in velocity and far greater difference in energy (due to round weight). And again we have the same problem. If the ground didn't stop a low energy round (7.62x39), why would it stop (and ricochet) a higher energy round (.50 cal fired from a plane).

The problem boils to this again:

If you think that .50 cals bounced off the ground and penetrated ther tank, you are basically saying that tanks were softer than the ground.

Ask yourself this. What is harder ? Ground or steel ?

If a round ricochets of the ground, why wouldn't the same round ricochet of a steel plate ?




<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

Message Edited on 06/28/0309:30AM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:40 AM
Hmm,someone who actually saw the program speaks in a rational and concise manner. I'm glad that you addressed the "facts" vs more sock drivel. So, you were witness to the footage that shows the P-47 v German tank attacks and the destruction thereof,

It is really interesting how the a$$hats say oh no it "never" happened despite the historical footage documenting the attacks. Kind of reminds me of that other a$$hat who "tried" to dispute the "fact" that a P-47 flown by a member of the Tuskegee Airmen sunk an enemy destroyer with .50 cals

Clean socks guys, clean socks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html



Message Edited on 06/28/0312:35PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:41 AM
UCLANUPE wrote:
- Hmm, it appears the "none" of the a$$hat
- non-believers has any credible explanation for the
- historical footage that documents the P-47 attacks
- on German tanks. Of course this is no surprise,
- because a$$hats usually don't respond to visual
- facts. Instead most of these a$$hats take another
- good whiff of those Delta-9 THC socks and come on
- here to vent their drivel.
-
- Take another whiff of those socks a$$hats, what's
- next?
-

OK, so I feel you call some of us a$$hats. Now, regardless of what it really means, can you at least present us some proof ? Like screenshots, footage etc. ? Photos of a Tiger knocked by .50 cals ?

"...I've watched it on History channel..." doesn't cut it, sorry.

So far I've tried physics and common sense, you limited yourself to here-say and insults. I'd rather take physics over insults and common sense over here-say.

Can you do better ?

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:01 AM
Countries needed heroic stories to keep troop morale up. The US needed them, the UK needed them and the Third Reich needed them too.

Untill I see a pic of a confirmed P-47 tank kill, in which you can clearly see it has been knocked out by .50's, I won't believe any of it.

<center>
---------------------------------------
"Atleast I'll go down in style!"
http://www.elleemmeshop.com/model1/aero/re4341.jpg
</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:02 AM
Hristos-

Ease up champ. I take it that "you" consider yourself as part of the a$$hat crowd because you act as if the posts made by me were directed towards you, they were not.

What has been stated in my post from the beginning of this thread has been the "visual historical record" of these facts. I asked any disbelievers regarding this issue, Did you or did you not "see" the show where the historical documentation of these facts was shown?

Of the folks that actually "saw" the Color of War, there is zero question about what the "historical record" showed regarding P-47 attacks v German tanks. I have no idea if the tanks blowing up and being disabled were Tiger, Panther, Lion or whatever, that's not the point. Tanks "were" destroyed/disabled by the .50 cal guns of WWII P-47's period.

So far all I have tried to do is to get "anyone" who does not believe the people that "saw" the show to watch it. Then come on back here with a more intelligent response than "I don't believe what you just witnessed in the historical visual record" concerning this issue.

If you want proof, get out of that sock cloud that you appear to be in, turn on the TV, "WATCH THE SHOW AND SEE IT FOR YOURSELF". Unitl then, you will continue to be uniformed and ignorant of the facts. L'ignoranza ¨ bliss. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

<a href="http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html" target=_blank>http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/

Message Edited on 06/28/0302:13AM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:16 AM
I've seen TV shows where 109s were being called 190s, where Hartmann was credited with his 352 victories but unfortunately died in the war (?!), where Fieseler Storch was considered one of best combat planes....you get the picture. Even a show where they portrayed a Hurricane I as one of the best planes of WW2 (with cool stories how 109E was outclassed by it and such).

Footage especially are prone to mixups and missidentifications. What was called a Normandy aerial attack footage could verly likely be some Typhoons strafe runs near Berlin or whatever. Not to mention those "Tigers" could have been fuel trucks or such. Nothing is sacred to those editors, you could sometimes see the same footage being used as LW camera, only to stand for RAF camera 5 minutes later.

Here we talk Tigers and P47s. History channel will never go as deep as top analyze these details, I hope you agree. They look for big picture, insert appropriate footage to raise viewers ratings, make cool stories and that's it.

I didn't watch the show. But I took many physics classes, read a number of books and have seen way too many crappy TV shows /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:24 AM
Hristos-

Ah, thank you so much for your honest repsonse concerning the "fact" that you "did not see" the show of which we speak. Whew, for a second there I thought you were going to lie. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Now that we have cleared the cloud, I invite you to view the show and give us your personal thoughts of what you "see". If you feel something was staged/faked that you "see" on the show, say so here in the public forum.

Until that time, I'll just cut you some slack as you appear to be a stand up guy. Watch the show Hristos, you can then present an "intelligent and informed" opinion of what "you" witnessed. S!


http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0302:24AM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:25 AM
Did somebody realized the pilots said they destroyed the tanks by shooting at the fuel thingie they were carrying/tracting?

ie: can a P47 detroy a tank.? Yes. A Tiger? Yes

Because of bullets penetrating the armor? Doubtful. May it happen? Sure. Is it the norm? No

<Center>



http://www.wingman-fr.net/fzg/forum/images/smiles/sm167.gif

1.5/10 Troll Rating from USAFHelos
(but working on it /i/smilies/16x16_robot-tongue.gif - Woot! 7.25 points awarded make 8.75/10)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:31 AM
Beirut wrote:
- Hmm, I can't speak for what a .50 will do, but I can
- tell you that a .223 FMJ will penetrate 11 3\4" of
- pine 2x4s.

AFAIK the Germans had phased out their wooden
tanks before the USA entered the war :-)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:34 AM
NN_Veverka wrote:
- Did somebody realized the pilots said they destroyed
- the tanks by shooting at the fuel thingie they were
- carrying/tracting?
-
- ie: can a P47 detroy a tank.? Yes. A Tiger? Yes
-
- Because of bullets penetrating the armor? Doubtful.
- May it happen? Sure. Is it the norm? No
-

I'm ok with that. What I am not ok with is some a$$hats(no one in particular unless you feel it applies, LOL) who did not see the show with all of the paper theories vs the "historical visual record". I'm not dogmatic enough to argue armour piercing vs just plain blown up by any means necessary. IMHO what I "saw" was tanks being blown up/disabled after P-47 .50 cal strafing runs.

I'm pretty sure the GI's on the ground could care less if the bleeping armour was pierced only that the tank was disabled/out of action. S!


http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0302:36AM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:38 AM
This is a question for anyone that has seen the show: have you positively IDed the tank as being a Tiger? Or was it "a tank"?

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:54 AM
Bearcat99 wrote:
- Ok so a .30mm is about 3 times the size of a .50 cal
- right...(consider the .45-9mm comparison) So what...
- that is irrelevent....... with enough force behind
- it a bb can do some damage.... The 8 50s on a jug
- have been known to cut trucks in half.....that is
- the same reason the Hurricaines weaponry was so
- effective if it hit...

Er.. actually the weaponry of the Hurricane was
considered insufficiently effective. Even before
WW2 the specification for a fighter with a 50%
increase in firepower over the 8 gun Hurricane
was issued (This because the Tornado, Typhoon,
and ultimately the Tempest). This was issued
as the Hurricane I entered service trials in
1937. Also trials were conducted prior to WW2
with a 4 cannon Hurricane, and of course this
later became the standard weaponry of the Hurricane
IIC and many other British fighters. Combat reports
from the Battle of Britain were not encouraging
about the effectiveness of rifle calibre guns.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:00 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
- FYI a Jug puts out 13LBs. of hot lead Per Second.

Actually it puts out 4.85 kg, or 10.7lbs.

The Tempest V puts out 14.3 lb/second.

Tully__
06-28-2003, 11:00 AM
Armour and other specs for the Tiger I : http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/specifications.html

There are a number of ways to disable a tank:

- Break a track
- Break enough road wheels
- Kill the crew with impact shock (ie: shake them to death, admittedly not very likely with .50 cal).
- Detonate external supplies (fuel trailer, ordnance, etc)

While a single .50 round wont go through the 25mm top or bottom armour except at point blank range and 90degrees, 8 guns firing at several hundred rpm may (I guess) if the pilot is good enough to get a sustained burst in one spot. It will certainly upset the crew /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

Rockets or bombs were a much surer method. At the same site, some damaged and/or abandoned Tigers.

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>


Salut
Tully

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:11 AM
UCLANUPE wrote:
- documenting the attacks. Kind of reminds me of that
- other a$$hat who "tried" to dispute the "fact" that
- a P-47 flown by a member of the Tuskegee Airmen sunk
- an enemy destroyer with .50 cals

Sinking a destroyer is believable. The superstructures
contain large portions that are unarmoured, and there
are all sorts of explosive things (like the AAA shells
they are firing back!) that can explode. I've seen
footage of ships being strafed and being blown up, and
I would imagine that doing so with guns represents hitting
something explosive or flammable. It's a little like
the exocet attack on HMS Sheffield in 1982 - the ship
sank, despite the fact that the missile didn't detonate -
it just caused a fire which led to the ship sinking (with
tragic loss of life).

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 11:45 AM
Hristos wrote:
-
- UCLANUPE wrote:
-- Hmm, it appears the "none" of the a$$hat
-- non-believers has any credible explanation for the
-- historical footage that documents the P-47 attacks
-- on German tanks. Of course this is no surprise,
-- because a$$hats usually don't respond to visual
-- facts. Instead most of these a$$hats take another
-- good whiff of those Delta-9 THC socks and come on
-- here to vent their drivel.
--
-- Take another whiff of those socks a$$hats, what's
-- next?
--
-
- OK, so I feel you call some of us a$$hats. Now,
- regardless of what it really means, can you at least
- present us some proof ? Like screenshots, footage
- etc. ? Photos of a Tiger knocked by .50 cals ?
-
- "...I've watched it on History channel..." doesn't
- cut it, sorry.
-
- So far I've tried physics and common sense, you
- limited yourself to here-say and insults. I'd rather
- take physics over insults and common sense over
- here-say.
-
- Can you do better ?
-
LOL you called yourself an A$$Hat...and btw the Guncam footage in the tape are source enough. And FYI Bullets tend to bounce when they hit a solid substance such as rock,pavement,human bone, etc. Ever seen what a bullet will do to a human body if it hits the rib cage or other bones like it? I have in addition to breaking the rib/bone it hits it bounces aroundd ur body until the energy bleeds off and or it gets lodged in something fleshy enough to hold it. If it doesn't bounce around after hitting the bone it will shatter and you'll end up with bullet fragments.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0310:50AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:51 AM
as all I know the .50 can shot through my head and then.....

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/smartchart.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:03 PM
Kind of reminds me of that
- other a$$hat who "tried" to dispute the "fact" that
- a P-47 flown by a member of the Tuskegee Airmen sunk
- an enemy destroyer with .50 cals
-

That "a$$hat" was me, incidentally, and I stick to my claim.
In contrary to you, I do not mindlessly repeat propaganda, but research things and found out the vessel they attacked that day made it back to port, but was so heavily damaged it never sailed again. And it wasnt a destroyer, but a WW1 era torpedo boat captured from the Italians.
I can give you name, name of CO and other details if you like, but since I am an "a$$hat" you are maybe not interested. The simple fact is, if there was no Kriegsmarine destroyer in the whole sea the incident occured, we simply cannot assume one was there. And taking out that ship with guns only is a great feat, even if it WASNT a destroyer and it didnt blow up instantly, it was effectively taken out. I never disputed that.
Researching war actions is like investigating a crime or a traffic accident. You need witnesses and if you have only one, incidentally the one who comitted this, your theory is based on thin ground.
Regarding the tiger tanks, if I see a report of a Tiger crewman about Tanks being taken out by bullets only, I will believe it, not any second earlier.

I just like some people coming here, insulting people who know a little more about the subject than they do and who do a little more for FB/Il2 than just whining...

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:11 PM
I Doubt that they ever killed tigers with 50cal.. they may have managed to do panic the tank crews causing them to abandon the tank, or killing optic/tracks disabling it..

And besides Tigers were fairly rare, that Allied crew men often thought that every german vehicle that they met was a Tiger.. Also known as Tiger Phobia /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez2.jpg </center>

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 12:12 PM
The Quest continues. I haven't found the footage yet of that destroyer being sunk..but it did actually blow up in one of the straffing runs. Its Black and White but it is indeed on the film. Problem is that most of the Tuskegee Airman footage and files were burned. I'm actually going to pay a call to HBO films and the Tuskegee Airmen Society first thing monday morning to find out where they got the footage of the ship sinking from because a snippet of that film is in the movie "The Tuskegee Airmen." I still have never heard anything about that ship making it back to port. In fact you are the only person I have ever heard say that it wasn't sunk. I am not saying that I do not believe you I am just saying that you say there was no explosion..the guncam footage clearly shows that their was one...if you are wrong about the explosion might you also be wrong about it sinking? just a question m8. You understand that 60yrs of History disagrees with what you posted about that ship not being a destroyer and not being sunk. You looked up the German info..did you also write to or call the Tuskegee Airmen Society and get their end of the encounter?

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0311:27AM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:27 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- I can give you name, name of CO and other details if
- you like, but since I am an "a$$hat" you are maybe
- not interested.

Well, I for one would be. I was once in a discussion with Ken Stallings across at Netwings on whether it was possible to sink warships of DD size with 0.5" fire, and he quoted this example.

I had tracked the ship down in Conway's All the World's Warships volume (as you mention, it was an ex-Italian vessel about the size of an American Destroyer Escort) but never took it further.

My thought has always been that if you wanted to find such an example you should look to the Pacific, where the majority of Allied planes carried 0.5" guns and fought against a navy notorious for its poor damage control, yet I don't know of a single example of a Japanese destroyed being sunk by MG fire alone.

-------------------------------------

"It should always be remembered.that air power was only an auxiliary on the eastern front. The air war moved forward and backward with the front. It was the Red Army, drawing on air power for artillery cover of greater accuracy and decisiveness than was possible from the ground, that drove the German armies across Central Europe".

Professor Richard Overy, The Air War 1939-1945

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:37 PM
10th post in this thread:

cowace2 wrote:
"I don't think many people buy that the M2 could penetrate the armor of any tank. However, that really isn't how it would cause damage. A few seconds of fire on a tank with 8 .50s would pound it with so much lead that any one of a number of bad things would happen."

And all was said.

Or, in my words: It was impossible to penetrate the Tigers Armor with the 0.50's of a P-47. But no need to do this in order to knock it out.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:39 PM
EmpireRuler13 wrote:
- <img
- src=http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Typhoon_Target.j
- pg> -


- Name of pic

Tree 1 - Typhoon 0

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:39 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:

- Regarding the tiger tanks, if I see a report of a
- Tiger crewman about Tanks being taken out by bullets
- only, I will believe it, not any second earlier.

shame on you ,anteater.
we talk not just about bullets, we talk about bullets "Made in the USA ". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 12:56 PM
I do not believe you I
- am just saying that you say there was no
- explosion..the guncam footage clearly shows that
- their was one...if you are wrong about the explosion
- might you also be wrong about it sinking? just a
- question m8. You understand that 60yrs of History
- disagrees with what you posted about that ship not
- being a destroyer and not being sunk. You looked up
- the German info..did you also write to or call the
- Tuskegee Airmen Society and get their end of the
- encounter?


It isnt a matter of revisionism.
60 years of history of the 332nd may disagree,
60 years of naval history agree
It is just a problem that nobody seems to have cared
Naval history has researched the operations and fates of german ships in the adriatic very well. Not only german sources, but also english authors have covered the subject. I managed to track down the vessel first by a book of a british author. I am not really a historian, only an interested individual, but it was possible to ID the ship by simply comparing the dates. TA 22 was put out of action (crippled beyond repair) on the very same day, in the same area where the 332nd reported its sinking. And since the TA boats (captured italian torpedo boats) were the largest vessels available to the Kriegsmarine in the Adriatic, the only other alternative is that the 332nd blew up a much smaller vessel which did sink instantly. But TA 22 is the only vessel of that size that fits the circumstances.
Problem seems to be that naval historians and air war historians do not talk to each other. The Kriegsmarine Ops in the Adriatic are a fascinating subject since it involved a lot of use of captured ships and improvisation, so it has been researched thoroughly (for some reason historians feel more attracted to the small, obscure things than to the large and heroic). For a naval historian, a single fighter bomber attack isnt really worth mentioning, even if it caused the operational Loss of a TA boat. Antony Tully (a researcher into the IJN operations) once put it: "historians still have a problem with air and submarine attacks, since they often occur without any larger operational consequence, just like a random event". It was simply one of many attacks of that kind, not really an interesting event. So the problem seems to have been that no US air historian ever bothered with checking that claim, and no naval historian ever realized why or how this single air attack was out of the ordinary (because it was with guns only and because it was the squadron who carried it out).
Just a communication problem. If somebody is really interested in researching this more thoroughly I'd recommend mailing Dr. Rohwer of the german military historical institute, Germany's leading naval historian.
All I did was match the loss dates and locations of the ships available to the Kriegsmarine in the Adriatic with the date and location of the Tuskagee Airmen's attack, using commonly available literature.

And actually it wouldnt suprise me if the Tuskagee airmen society knew about this. I mean it doesnt really conflict what they reported. There was an explosion, only the ship remained afloat (the pilots couldnt stay to observe long enough, I suppose), was towed to Trieste and declared unreparable. Two months later it was officially decomissioned, and blown up to block the harbor at the end of the war. 1948 the italians removed the wreck and scrapped it. So they did take it out, after all...

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg


Message Edited on 06/28/03 12:00PM by theRealAntEater

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:06PM by theRealAntEater

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:02 PM
Boandlgramer wrote:
-
- theRealAntEater wrote:
-
-- Regarding the tiger tanks, if I see a report of a
-- Tiger crewman about Tanks being taken out by bullets
-- only, I will believe it, not any second earlier.
-
- shame on you ,anteater.
- we talk not just about bullets, we talk about
- bullets "Made in the USA ".

An attempt at USA bashing possibly holds some truth.
AMERICAN .50 cal ammo was available with tungsten core
AP spitzer boat tail design at 750 grains in weight.

I do not believe German's could afford to waste that
much Tungsten/wolfram.

I have personally seen that AP stuff pist through two
inches of ASA 4130 plate. Perhaps it's not the same
quality of German 4130 but I suspect Tully is correct,
multiple hits on the same area could chew through any WWII
tank, even a tiger.

I also saw the Discover Channel program in which several
American pilots told the same story. I have heard the same
tale many times from Vets.

Perhaps there is some truth to it?

Maybe I can offer an answer... the bullets and ammunition
designers were German and so were blessed by the Tutonic Knights
and therefore blessed with Uber powers!

The P-51 designers were German. It seems the Tutonic knights
are traitors for the blessed the American designed weapons
with the same uber powers as the sacred German weapons.

Mr.

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 01:19 PM
- And actually it wouldnt suprise me if the Tuskagee
- airmen society knew about this. I mean it doesnt
- really conflict what they reported. There was an
- explosion, only the ship remained afloat (the pilots
- couldnt stay to observe long enough, I suppose), was
- towed to Trieste and declared unreparable. Two
- months later it was officially decomissioned, and
- blown up to block the harbor at the end of the war.
- 1948 the italians removed the wreck and scrapped it.
- So they did take it out, after all...

The Mission report of 25th June 1944 stated that the enemy ship was attacked and destroyed in the Harbor of Trieste...not that it was attacked out at sea and then towed back to Trieste. The ship was sank there.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:39 PM
During the battles of the Falaise gap and the Bulge in 1944. Allied fighter-bombers claimed large numbers of German tanks and armoured vehicles destroyed. Afterwards allied investigation teams examined the wrecked tanks and armoured vehicles in these areas, to see how many had in fact been destroyed by air attack. The detailed reports on the two actions point to a high degree of over claiming by pilots, with tank kills exaggerated by more than ten to one.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:41 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:

- An attempt at USA bashing possibly holds some
- truth.

is this USA bashing ?

"bullets , made in the USA " ?




http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:47 PM
btw. Mister " awesome".
show me, where i have said anything about the "superiority of german weapons".

good luck /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:49 PM
Few facts about armor:

- gasoline burning on top of a tank doesn't disable it.
- broken track doesn't disable a tank
- filling external gasoline tanks with holes or blowing them up doesn't disable a tank
- hitting barrel with .50 doesn't disable a tank (Admitted that I've seen a pick of a damaged T-62 barrel penetrated by a 105mm high velocity round)
- .50 requires a VERY lucky hit to disable a track (this tactic was used by 37mm AT and tank gunners against T-34, and required a very good hit)
- non penetrating hit does very little damage to armor, it doesn't penetrate but disintegrates on top of the amor or ricochets.
- hitting exhaust of a tank may disable it, but the target size is less than 50% of the size of your keyboard
- engine covers are armoured
- radiator covers are armoured
- penetration power of .50 is puny (in relation)


Maybe .50's took out few Tigers or then not, but regurarly destroying them is a huge exaggaration.

Disclaimer:
1. Yes, I've fired few 12.7 x 108 rounds and seen what they can do. Even fired some bigger things.
2. Yes, I've seen a tank.
3. Yes, I do watch history channel sometimes.
4. No, I didn't see the program in question.
5. Yes, very often TV commentators don't know what they are talking about
6. Claim is not a kill. Especially in air to ground operations. (as proved by the history)


-jippo




Message Edited on 06/28/0312:51PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:15 PM
why the germans did use 37mm cannons with wolfram ammo in Stakas to take out enemy tanks?? why didnt they just use MG151 (15mm) with ap ammo to handle the job? could carry more ammo, better ROF, lighter weapon etc.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:17 PM
All I see here is a lot of people doing a lot of speculating that know absolutely nothing about tanks..

Why don't some of you head on over to www.steelbeasts.com (http://www.steelbeasts.com) and ask them what their opinion is on the forum.. I'm sure some of them can help http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Œ¥ ¥² ¯ ¥*¥¨é http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:22 PM
http://63.99.108.76/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&BypassCookie=true or try that one, Tank net, tankers from every country.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:41 PM
what a dumb post

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:44 PM
OK, I have changed my mind, but only for one reason >> It must be true that a .5" can knock out a Tiger, since Issy has not shown up to defend the 'uber' Tiger from the assault of the 'inferior' American 0.5" weapon./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 02:46 PM
Sadly I haven't seen the video on TV cause we don't have this channel. It would have been nice to identify the tank. maybe it was a PanzerIII or IV or a Panzerspaehwagen. would be more likely. Anyway I'm still of the opinion that it is a lucky hit to destroy a tank with a .50. otherwise there would have been no need to use big cannons on tanks right?

http://www.just-pooh.com/images/eten.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:08 PM
I´ve read about that 0.5" vs. Tiger a little bit.
The most interesting I got, was a report from a Tiger Commander.
HptFw Peter Lustig mentioned the danger of the P-47 0.5"s in a report about a lost Tiger.
Too bad, that I can´t remember the book or site, where I read about this.
It could have been a comic too. Not sure yet.



<HTML>
<Body bgcolor="red">
<Center>
<Font Size=+3>
<Font Color="#FFFFFF"><Font Face="Monotype Corsiva">Anonym</Font>
</Font></Font>
http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif (http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de)
</Center></Body></HTML>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:14 PM
achso Anonym , Peter Lustig ?
ist das Selbiger vom Kinderfernsehen ?

http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 03:21 PM
Klar, irgendwovon mußte der gute Mensch ja nach dem Kriech leben.
Und nachdem sein Vorschlag einer Milit¤rtechniksendung vom Programmchef leicht abge¤ndert worden ist, "tigerte" er mit leichter Alkoholfahne durchs Kinderprogramm /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<HTML>
<Body bgcolor="red">
<Center>
<Font Size=+3>
<Font Color="#FFFFFF"><Font Face="Monotype Corsiva">Anonym</Font>
</Font></Font>
http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif (http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de)
</Center></Body></HTML>



Message Edited on 06/28/0304:26PM by EJGr.Ost_Anonym

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:20 PM
Ich wußts ja schon immer, der "Tigerenten-Club" ist in Wirklichkeit militaristische Vorbildung für kleine Kindersoldaten! Sehr subtil /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Hauptfeldwebel gabs aber damals noch nicht, glaube ich...

http://people.freenet.de/JCRitter/1sigklein.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:49 PM
Tom Hanks knocked out a tiger with a Colt 1911, I saw it myself /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

----------------------------------
=38=Backfire
Starshii Leytenant - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:53 PM
wow its 4 pages now lol. To me i saw the history channel special and the only way the destroyed a tiger tank was by hitting its reserve fuel tank. If P-47 could destroy Tiger tanks with .50 cals alone why not just send them out tank hunting with guns alone? it just too common sense that there no possible way to kill a Tiger tank with .50 cal. Heck why not use a quad 50. cal AA halftrack and have it pound the hell outta the tiger somewhat the same just 4 less guns and give it some high ground and range. Best it can do is damage something in the engine bay which mortar round could usually do. No way pilots may say they done it but not alot proof and if they did propaganda woulda made a movie about the uber .50 cal.Only real tank busters in the war to me was the IL-2 and Stuka. They used cannon rounds that can easily penetrate rear on top armor but never side, thats what makes it some obvious to me. If your gonna attack a tank hit it rear or top thats were the armor is vunerable from air not the side.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:26 PM
no way,not possible,srry.bounce off the ground,your joking?
haaaaaaa

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:32 PM
Pourshot,

Checked out my Janes reference books and the Russian BMPs and BTR (APCs) were steel hulled, though there was some add-on aluminum armour and the engine covering was an aluminum shield.

And as the story goes, the Afghans used to hit them with Lee-Enfield rounds in the wheel wells and scored kills once in a lucky while.

Maybe a P-47 showering a Tiger with hundreds of rounds slipped a lucky one in once in a while too.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:57 PM
But then, BMP and BTR are very light vehicles. They are even able to swim while Tiger can only dive. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo



Message Edited on 06/28/0305:00PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:01 PM
Very true. Was more of an analogy than a true comparision.

Mind you, the BTRs and BMPs run 12 to 14 tons I think. What did a Tiger tank weigh? About 20 maybe?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:13 PM
57 tons. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:29 PM
as i righly remember, bmp weights 19 tons approx. and can withstand 155mm artillery fire, not direct hit or really near hits.

here´s a link to russian test with Tiger II tank at Kubinka.
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html

Notice that it could penetrate front and rear wall of turret with its own cannon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thats power id say when comparing to russian cannon effects on it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

thougt it seems that the steel on that tank does not represend the beast quality what germans had. some metals missing when making it, so its more fractal than the best germans had.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:05 PM
chris455 wrote:
- "dyslexics of the world, untie!"
- S!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nic

http://nicolas10.freeservers.com/images/et.jpg


OK I -->[]

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:35 PM
Lets face facts here people. Our "puny" American .50 cals were still far superior to anything else the Europeans could muster during the end of WWII taking out the heaviest of German tanks. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:38 PM
Wow ...what a thread

A few casual observations and a few comments

Imobilized IS knocked out... a raging crippled bull elephant can be put down with a 22

Back then, burning fuel on the tank COULD temporarily imobilize it, possibly roasting the crew, or even suffocate them ... certainly condidtions that would cauuse them to flee the tank........

A fifty caliber round can/will/has caused destruction of track linkage......(50 cal is the weapon of choice for SO & Marine ground forces in an anti light armor role, although today's projectiles are sabot type amunition, AND CAN AND WILL DESTROY GUNBARRELLS)

The whole grazing-fire killing a tank is malarchy ...bullet through inspection plate / *** hanging through escape hatch hogwash! What was the topic of this again ??

Oh yes... I am sure the P47 knocked out Tigers ..And I saw the mentioned ad nauseum footage ... It is totally inconclusive IMHO ... secondary explosions are apparent for sure, but no visual evidence of the ricochet biskit theory whatsoever...

cc






Message Edited on 06/28/0306:58PM by Coon-Chow

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:47 PM
Hmm, very interesting. Many of the non-believers still show tremendous ignorance by not having actually "seen" the subject matter, yet still deny what was "seen" by others here?

At this point I have one response for the a$$hats that argue about this and did not see the show "Blah Blah Blah Blah", unitl you "see" it you will remain uninformed and ignorant of the facts. I'll just cut you some slack until they repeat the show. Then you can come back here and have and intelligent "informed" discussion.

Just so everyone understands "my" position on this issue I will repeat it. JUGS did destory/disable tanks during WWII with .50 guns. I am not dogmatic enough to argue that it was by piercing through the armour, but it does not matter how it was done, it matters that it "was" done. Rare or not rare, Tigers, Panthers, Ubers I have no idea what kind of tanks were being destroyed/disabled in full color.

Was the P-47 a tankbuster, of course not, who every said it was? But then to say it "never" happened is just plain and simple stupid and smacks of a sock/testosterone induced high.

Just so everyone also understands, I'm not a revisonist like others that I will address in a separate post, I just call it the way I "see it". BTW, the show is called The Color of War and the episode was focused solely on the P-47. Cheers and S! to all.

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig.bmp

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 07:54 PM
"The only thing I fear while in my Tiger is.........the .50 caliber."
- Michael Wittman

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/Wittman.jpg


"Hans! Otto! Wouldn't you guys like to ride in the tank?"
"No, Werner. You'll get your bottom shot out for sure by a P-47. We'll take our chances in the sled!"

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/tigerhorsie.jpg


Just in case there are any doubters still out there, definitive proof, once and for all.................

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/comicstrip.jpg


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S!
Chris





http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:05 PM
BTW, UCLANUPE, your histrionics and name-calling don't exactly further your opinion- just my two.
-a proud (and unconvinced)"A$$hat"
S!
Chris




http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:07 PM
chris455 wrote:
- "The only thing I fear while in my Tiger
- is.........the .50 caliber."
- - Michael Wittman
-
-
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/Wittman.jpg
-
-
- "Hans! Otto! Wouldn't you guys like to ride in the
- tank?"
- "No, Werner. You'll get your bottom shot out for
- sure by a P-47. We'll take our chances in the sled!"
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/miataman1/tigerhorsie.
- jpg">
-
-
- Just in case there are any doubters still out there,
- definitive proof, once and for all.................
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/miataman1/comicstrip.j
- pg">
-
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- S!
- Chris
-
-
-
-
-
-
http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg
-
-
-

LOL LOL LOL too funny man! oh man woooo! Ithink Wittmans death was more a cause of not a 17 pounder or typhoons rockets but a hail of .50 cal bullets from all the Fireflys firin at him.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:08 PM
theRealAntEater wrote:
- That "a$$hat" was me.

At least we argee on this point.

BTW, you are "fully aware" of the full record on this incident as it was posted the last time you "tried" to dishonor the name of the 332nd Fighter Group, The Honorable Tuskegee Airmen. You are "fully" aware of The Mission report of 25th June 1944 as Bearcat posted for you to "see" the last time to tried to re-write history concerning this issue.

I think you need to leave this subject alone. I am going to make one last attempt to help you regarding the true combat record (in its entirety) of the 332nd FG, The honorable Tuskegee Airmen.

The combat record of the Tuskegee Airmen

. Over 15,000 combat sorties (Including 6000+
for the 99th prior to July '44)
. 111 German airplanes destroyed in the air
. 150 German aircraft destroyed on the ground
. 950 railcars, trucks, and other motor vehicles destroyed
. 1 destroyer sunk by P-47 machine gun fire
. Sixty-six pilots killed in action or accidents
. Thirty-two pilots downed and captured, POWs
. NO Bombers were ever lost to Enemy Aircraft while being escorted
. 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses earned
. 744 Air Medals
. 8 Purple Hearts
. 14 Bronze Stars

...We of the 464th and 465th Bomb Groups...
As well as all of the other Groups in the 15th AF
"SALUTE YOU!"

Here is the link to the 464th and 465th Bomber Groups website.

http://www.frankambrose.com/pages/tusk.html

You see the guys understood the "true" history and excellence of The Honorable Tuskegee Airmen. Why? Because they were there and they flew with/were protected by these Honorable Men. Ease up champ, you are stepping into unknown territory here. Slow down take a deep breath and dive into the "true" history of these men. Maybe after realizing that the Racist society that we had in America in June of 1944, did "not" give confirmation to "anything" these men did without proof that it really happened as claimed, you'll have a more informed opinion, maybe not? Cheers.



http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1asig.bmp

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html


Message Edited on 06/28/03 12:22PM by UCLANUPE

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:42PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:11 PM
chris455 wrote:
- BTW, UCLANUPE, your histrionics and name-calling
- don't exactly further your opinion- just my two.
- -a proud (and
- unconvinced)"A$$hat"
-
- S!
- Chris

Call it what you want, if you come on a public forum spouting off about something that you have not seen, well you know, that is just not very intelligent. S! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:12PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:13 PM
LOL Chris

I'm in doubt Wittman did any statement about the 0.5"./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif My Grandad himself was Tiger Commander in the West and he never mentioned any similar about the 0.5". He told about Rockets attacks they feared (HVAR) but surely no 0.5". The 0.5" calibre HASN'T the penetration power to crack the armor thickness of German heavy tanks - on any side of the tank. Sorry to take away you daydreams and illutions./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:16 PM
My Dear Friend Kimura,
Did you think I was serious?
S!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:21 PM
I was not sure Chris - sorry/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:22 PM
"Call it what you want, if you come on a public forum
- spouting off about something that you have not seen,
- well you know, that is just not very intelligent. S! "

How many Tiger tanks have you SEEN being destroyed by .50 caliber machine guns, my friend? Other than on "TV"?
Do you believe EVERYTHING you see on History Channel?
And does it give you the right to insult those who disagree with you?

Go talk to your friend Bearcat. He can teach you some manners, and how not to be so gullible.

S! back atcha.
Chris





http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:23 PM
The previous post was intended for UCLANUPE, not you, Kimura
S!
Chris



http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:24 PM
chris455 wrote:
- "Call it what you want, if you come on a public
- forum
-- spouting off about something that you have not seen,
-- well you know, that is just not very intelligent. S! "
-
- How many Tiger tanks have you SEEN being destroyed
- by .50 caliber machine guns, my friend? Other than
- on "TV"?
- Do you believe EVERYTHING you see on History
- Channel?
- And does it give you the right to insult those who
- disagree with you?
-
- Go talk to your friend Bearcat. He can teach you
- some manners, and how not to be so gullible.
-
- S! back atcha.
- Chris


One queston for you sir that can be answered by saying yes or no. Did "you" see the show regarding the subject manner in which we speak?

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:25PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:27 PM
Read on gentlemen .. you'll love the end

http://www.geocities.com/the11thada/history/a_toast_to_those_who.html

A couple of sounds are unmistakable ... and cannot be dupicated on TV

BAR
MA2
GAU/8A


TC

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:29 PM
Coon-Chow wrote:
-
- Read on gentlemen .. you'll love the end

S!

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:29PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:35 PM
You guys dismiss physics, but physics says you cant penetrate that bottom armor with deflected .50s. You may be able to take out the tank by damageing crap on the outside, or the hatch being open, but those boucing rounds have lost so much energy they wont penetrate. at 90 degrees they will penetrate 24mm at 200m. These are no where near 90 shots. You guys keep talking about how these 60 year old pilot claims are like gold, while hundreds of years of scientific fact are a bunch of crap. Yes tanks could be disabled by shooting crap off the outside, but no the armor did not get penetrated from the top, much less from deflecting off the bottom.

--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:35 PM
UCLANUPE wrote:
- Hmm, very interesting. Many of the non-believers
- still show tremendous ignorance by not having
- actually "seen" the subject matter, yet still deny
- what was "seen" by others here?

I've seen tanks, .50 cals, cannons... Even sat in a few and fired off few shots. Have you? As far as I understand you've seen a TV-program, am I correct?

- At this point I have one response for the a$$hats
- that argue about this and did not see the show "Blah
- Blah Blah Blah", unitl you "see" it you will remain
- uninformed and ignorant of the facts. I'll just cut
- you some slack until they repeat the show. Then you
- can come back here and have and intelligent
- "informed" discussion.

Which part of your discussion is informed?

- Just so everyone understands "my" position on this
- issue I will repeat it. JUGS did destory/disable
- tanks during WWII with .50 guns. I am not dogmatic
- enough to argue that it was by piercing through the
- armour, but it does not matter how it was done, it
- matters that it "was" done. Rare or not rare,
- Tigers, Panthers, Ubers I have no idea what kind of
- tanks were being destroyed/disabled in full color.

How can you tell they were destroeyd from a short gun cam video? what happened to them? If you can't even identify the vehicle in question how can you say it was destroyed tank?



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:39 PM
To that what Jippo said and add to.

To these believers, what was the max penetretion thickness of 0.5" fired from 400yards distance ?? (perfect 90? needed)

from 100yards fired, the 0.5" could penetrated in best, 20mm of steel.

and how thick were the armors of heavy tanks?

The Kingtiger for example had the weakest spot of 40mm.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif strongest 185mm.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura



Message Edited on 06/28/03 08:42PM by KIMURA

Message Edited on 06/28/0308:43PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:46 PM
Coon-Chow wrote:

- Imobilized IS knocked out... a raging crippled bull
- elephant can be put down with a 22

I was taught in the army that enemy tank is knocked out when it is either burning or splattered around the field in very large pieces.

In addition would you aproach a Tiger tank that has a track shot off walking with a rifle in your hands?


- Back then, burning fuel on the tank COULD
- temporarily imobilize it, possibly roasting the
- crew, or even suffocate them ... certainly
- condidtions that would cauuse them to flee the
- tank........

How? Why?

Just drive out of the burning area & your safe. There is nothing vulnerable outside the tank and the fire cannot harm you in a minute or few that it takes to get out of the area driving.

Molotov Cocktails were used to take out tanks in the Finnish Winter War and early in the Continuation War. Then they were effective only if they were thrown on the radiator grill. Later in the war tanks were developed to be immune to such primitive attack.


- A fifty caliber round can/will/has caused
- destruction of track linkage......(50 cal is the
- weapon of choice for SO & Marine ground forces in an
- anti light armor role, although today's projectiles
- are sabot type amunition, AND CAN AND WILL DESTROY
- GUNBARRELLS)

Have you seen this happening? And more importantly, do you think slap rounds were available back at the '40's?.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:50 PM
theres ample evidence jugs can take out tigers with concentrated withering fire from 50s. most are under the ASSumption that the 50 is a light machine gun or a heavier version. wrong . this gun was not meant to be used against people. its WAY too large. it was meant to be used against armor. these rounds blasted down on the ROOFS of tanks in groups of hundreds and hundreds into engine areas tank hatch areas etc. are all these areas strong enough to withstand this? when a 50 can shoot through a manhole cover and also through engine blocks i believe that the 50 can penetrate roof hatches of tanks. EASILY..no one said the main armor of a tiger is weak. just the engine areas roofs hatches and undercarriage . also tracks. fire a thousand rounds of 50 at a tiger track and itll take out the tracks and all the wheels. i loved the tiger tank . i know a tiger can take out 20 shermans....but its that 21st sherman that will kill it...why? because the tiger IS NOT INVULNERABLE. i know i wouldnt want to be sitting in a tiger with 4 P-47s shooting about 8,000 to 10,000 rounds of fifty at it FROM ABOVE. i guarantee those tiger boys will end up dead with that much firepower raining down on their heads. and the moderator here agrees.



Message Edited on 06/28/0307:54PM by RedDeth

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:58 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- I was taught in the army that enemy tank is knocked
- out when it is either burning or splattered around
- the field in very large pieces.


The US Army considers an immobilized tank to be knocked out. A crew will almost always bail from an immobilized tank.





---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 08:59 PM
Never saw an idiotic thread like this one.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


"I`ve seen on TV...!" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


"Even the Moderator agrees" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Hey Tully, are you the new tank-specialist here? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh man! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



Kids shouldn`t be left alone on a PC...!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Why not stop arguing?

Let those kids believe what they "saw" on TV, if it fits their childish over-patriotical little world.

Ridiculous. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:00 PM
Ok, ok, ok, I'll try one more time to bring this back to something everyone can understand. There are people posting here about a program that they never viewed for themselves. I still invite you to do so "prior" to attacking the voracity of the people that actually "viewed" the program.

RBJ DON"T TAKE THIS PERSONALLY

Everyone knows RBJ right. Ok. Everyone knows how RBJ attacks the usefulness of the product Track IR right? Does RBJ "have" Track IR? How many people who actually "have" Track IR tell RBJ he's a little loopy for downing something he never actually tried? That's my point, view the program "then" cast whetever doubts remain. Truthfully "I" didn't believe it until I "saw" it. However, I certainly wouldn't come into a public forum spouting about Track IR, Movies that I have not seen for myself etc.. without and informed opinion on the "specific" subject matter being discussed.

The guys on this board that know me personally, know that I was just kidding (Estoy embromando!) about the a$$hat thing. Really it was just to see who would step up to the plate and proclaim "themselves" a$$hats. So take it for what it is worth, a joke that some fell for as Blue Devil stated earlier. S!.


BTW, hope to see you guys in HL so we can duke it out in the virtual skies. Cheers.

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html



Message Edited on 06/28/0301:09PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:00 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- I was taught in the army that enemy tank is knocked
-- out when it is either burning or splattered around
-- the field in very large pieces.
-
-
- The US Army considers an immobilized tank to be
- knocked out. A crew will almost always bail from an
- immobilized tank.
-
-

Finnish army considers immobile tank operational and crew stays in and fights unless there is a reason to quickly get out(like a fire in the engine compartment). Crews are ordered to stay in.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:01 PM
It cracks me up that everyone is focusing on the "I saw it on TV" argument while ignoring the most intelligent posts made on the subject.

Lowest hanging apple, I suppose?




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:02 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Finnish army considers immobile tank operational and
- crew stays in and fights unless there is a reason to
- quickly get out(like a fire in the engine
- compartment). Crews are ordered to stay in.



An immobilized tank is probably the single most vulnerable thing on a battlefield. That doctrine might be good for training, but in actual combat, if there was a threat present to an immobilized tank, I guarantee you that crew would be out of there.




---------------------------------

From a big bird in the sky,
All will jump and some will die.
Off to battle we will go,
To live or die, hell, I don't know.
Hail oh hail oh INFANTRY!
Queen of Battle, follow me!
An Airborne Ranger's life for me,
Oh, nothing in this world is free.

Cowace2
Commanding Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:05 PM
cowace2 wrote:
- It cracks me up that everyone is focusing on the "I
- saw it on TV" argument while ignoring the most
- intelligent posts made on the subject.
-
- Lowest hanging apple, I suppose?
-
http://www.geocities.com/the11thada/history/a_toast_to_those_who.html

This appears to be a personal account posted earlier.



http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0301:05PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:08 PM
cowace2 wrote:
-
- An immobilized tank is probably the single most
- vulnerable thing on a battlefield. That doctrine
- might be good for training, but in actual combat, if
- there was a threat present to an immobilized tank, I
- guarantee you that crew would be out of there.
-

Depends a lot on the situation, doesn't it?

Attacking infantry 500m away when mine cuts the track and loads of light arms fire is coming your way. Floor hatch is stuck from the blast. Would you stick out your *** and climb out 2.5 metres from the ground? I know I wouldn't. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I was trained as a TC, and IF I was in my senses after being immoblised it would be more probable that I'd take my chances inside. There are always other tanks and infantry to cover your *** and trying to haul you off the field.


-jippo



Message Edited on 06/28/0308:09PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:10 PM
Man hole covers?
Engine blocks?
You are comparing mild steel and even IRON to RHA?
You're kidding us, right?
Please tell me you're kidding.
No on second thought, I don't think you are. I'm outta here.
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S!

Chris



RedDeth wrote:
- theres ample evidence jugs can take out tigers with
- concentrated withering fire from 50s. most are under
- the ASSumption that the 50 is a light machine gun or
- a heavier version. wrong . this gun was not meant to
- be used against people. its WAY too large. it was
- meant to be used against armor. these rounds blasted
- down on the ROOFS of tanks in groups of hundreds and
- hundreds into engine areas tank hatch areas etc. are
- all these areas strong enough to withstand this?
- when a 50 can shoot through a manhole cover and also
- through engine blocks i believe that the 50 can
- penetrate roof hatches of tanks. EASILY..no one said
- the main armor of a tiger is weak. just the engine
- areas roofs hatches and undercarriage . also tracks.
- fire a thousand rounds of 50 at a tiger track and
- itll take out the tracks and all the wheels. i loved
- the tiger tank . i know a tiger can take out 20
- shermans....but its that 21st sherman that will kill
- it...why? because the tiger IS NOT INVULNERABLE. i
- know i wouldnt want to be sitting in a tiger with 4
- P-47s shooting about 8,000 to 10,000 rounds of fifty
- at it FROM ABOVE. i guarantee those tiger boys will
- end up dead with that much firepower raining down on
- their heads. and the moderator here agrees.
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 06/28/03 07:54PM by RedDeth





http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:11 PM
I quit keeping up with this thread after about page 3. But, if we're still arguing whether or not a p-47 can knock out a tank then...

Let me say what I said earlier again:

An M2 can shoot through a manhole cover. If your gonna sit here and tell me that a .50cal can't knock off a link from a track, put a hole in a gun barrel, or ruin an engine, then you're crazy my friend http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(if any of those things happen to a tank, it IS OUT of action)

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:19 PM
Jippo ..

Crippled was knocked out ... Infantry could later KILL the tank at their discretion

The analogy was close though ... I wouldnt walk up to it with a rifle ..no ..

I would simply wait till nightfall and send snuffy with WP to earn himself a Silver Star

As far as the burning takn scenario...

I did say COULD...not WOULD

If the burning fuel was ON the tank, it could not simply drive from the fire...the fire could if intense enough roast the crew ... also fire has a nastry habit of sucking up all available O2 in surrounding area..including inside tank...remember... COULD

I have never seen a track knocked inoperable by a fifty calibre bullet ..no...BUT I HAVE seen them knocked loose by rocks and logs ... much less nasty than a .50

Realize new age shells were not present in the 40's, but the .50 was the soldiers best friend againt light armor..was only trying to make a point that the .50 has its place in an Anti Armor role

CC

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:19 PM
Dylan_D wrote:

- An M2 can shoot through a manhole cover. If your
- gonna sit here and tell me that a .50cal can't knock
- off a link from a track, put a hole in a gun barrel,
- or ruin an engine, then you're crazy my friend /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


I have but them tracks on few times, and know how they are made. .50 can probably cut a track by hitting the trackbinding rods squarely in the head and eventually cause it to break kilometre or so later. Everything is possible, but what is a realistic chance?

About the barrel. It is the best quality of steel in the whole god damn tank along with the breech block, and it is also round. Usually it is also facing your general direction. What are your chances that you get 60 degree or over impact angle on it and at least have a CHANCE to penetrate it and no ricochet?

Engine is INSIDE the armor. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:21 PM
-nt

Message Edited on 06/28/0308:23PM by Dylan_D

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:34 PM
Coon-Chow wrote:
- Jippo ..
-
- Crippled was knocked out ... Infantry could later
- KILL the tank at their discretion

Tanks do and didn't not cruise alone, there is own infantry next to the tank defending it. And as long as the crew stays in the infantry has heavily armed pillbox to support them.


- I would simply wait till nightfall and send snuffy
- with WP to earn himself a Silver Star

In the dusk another tank drives next to it and attaches towing cables. Tank is towed away and the track fixed in a safe position in 30 minutes. Tanks comes back fully operational by the night to wait for you.


- If the burning fuel was ON the tank, it could not
- simply drive from the fire...the fire could if
- intense enough roast the crew ... also fire has a
- nastry habit of sucking up all available O2 in
- surrounding area..including inside
- tank...remember... COULD

Did you know that if you get stuck in a elevator you have enough oxygen for several hours even if the lift is absolutely airtight. Fire outside doesn't create a vacuum inside.
One has plenty of time.

- I have never seen a track knocked inoperable by a
- fifty calibre bullet ..no...BUT I HAVE seen them
- knocked loose by rocks and logs ... much less nasty
- than a .50

The idea of a log or rock untracking a vehicle is by it stucking between the track and wheel and thus maybe twisting the track of it's place. If the tank has another set of smaller wheels keeping the track tight even this doesn't really happen. I've seen rocks sized half of humans head reduced to sand in between the track and rear wheel of a such tank. .50 has to physically damage and break the track. Think about the environment the tracks are normally operating: 28 tons of stell on top of them, grinding and shearing against rocks concrete - everything. Believe me they are heavy duty! IIRC a single T-72 track weighs 3 tons.


- Realize new age shells were not present in the 40's,
- but the .50 was the soldiers best friend againt
- light armor..was only trying to make a point that
- the .50 has its place in an Anti Armor role

Sure! Lightly armored vehicles are in deep trouble when .50's start coming their way! But Tiger is not very light anymore....


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:39 PM
i like physics, funny how some fail to embrace it.

--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:41 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
-
- Did you know that if you get stuck in a elevator you
- have enough oxygen for several hours even if the
- lift is absolutely airtight. Fire outside doesn't
- create a vacuum inside.
- One has plenty of time.
-
-

Fire DOES, however, create smoke. The smoke will kill you beofre the heat does. Plenty of time my ***.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:45 PM
This a$$hat lives in Europe and cannot watch the mentioned TV channel, thus I must resort to logic, sorry.

Case 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Projectile hits object A, bounces off it and penetrates object B.

Conclusion: object B is softer than object A.



Case 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
.50 cal hits ground, bounces off it and penetrates the Tiger.

Conclusion: Tiger armor is softer than ground.



Now, ask yourself this. You can penetrate the ground with your umbrella tip, right ? Can you penetrate a tank with your umbrella tip ?



Message Edited on 06/28/0309:46PM by Hristos

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:45 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
-
- Fire DOES, however, create smoke. The smoke will
- kill you beofre the heat does. Plenty of time my
- ***.


Monoxide kills you, not the smoke. Question is: how does the monoxide enter the tank in few minutes it takes to get out of the danger zone?

On a side note, tank crew may carry gas masks with them. (I know that our crew did) What about it then?

Plenty of time.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:45 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- Engine is INSIDE the armor.

There are areas at the rear of a tank, exhaust vents I believe, that are open and vunerable to MG fire.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:48 PM
Found in British testing

A Tiger tank's track link weighed 59 lb, the pin 7.375 lb.

Weight of one foot of track >> 155 lb.

Total weight of the track >> 5,450 lb.

driver's front plate > Brinell hardness > 286
upper nose plate > Brinell hardness > 293
lower nose plate > Brinell hardness > 302
upper side plate > Brinell hardness > 320
lower side plate > Brinell hardness > 320
turret > Brinell hardness > 340


http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg


Message Edited on 06/28/0304:53PM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:49 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Dylan_D wrote:
--
-- Fire DOES, however, create smoke. The smoke will
-- kill you beofre the heat does. Plenty of time my
-- ***.
-
-
- Monoxide kills you, not the smoke. Question is: how
- does the monoxide enter the tank in few minutes it
- takes to get out of the danger zone?
-
- On a side note, tank crew may carry gas masks with
- them. (I know that our crew did) What about it then?
-
- Plenty of time.
-
-
--jippo
-
-

The smoke will enter the same way the oxygen does. Okay, you have gasmasks on, BUT the tank is on fire. It's gonna get warm. Sure you can exit, but you may be set on fire. And then your outside of the tank, I'd like to see your flesh stop .50 cal rounds, or any other rounds for that matter.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:50 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
-- Engine is INSIDE the armor.
-
- There are areas at the rear of a tank, exhaust vents
- I believe, that are open and vunerable to MG fire.


T-34 exhausts are about 10cm (4in) in diameter and there are two of them in the rear. Your chances of hitting them is half of the chance of hitting squarely in the barrel of the gun. I'd try to hit the barrel instead, at least it will probably destroy the tank with a single hit (not always though), unlike the hit in the exhaust.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:51 PM
WOW, seems as though alot of people of here have their head stuck in the mud. What a shame, because that was a really good show about the P-47. I never liked American aeroplanes much, but after watching the gun camera footage, I was like WOW, it blew up a tank! I was really surprised to see that! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



Message Edited on 06/28/0308:52PM by Hauptman99

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:52 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
-
- The smoke will enter the same way the oxygen does.
- Okay, you have gasmasks on, BUT the tank is on fire.
- It's gonna get warm. Sure you can exit, but you
- may be set on fire. And then your outside of the
- tank, I'd like to see your flesh stop .50 cal
- rounds, or any other rounds for that matter.
-

That is why the crew stays in and drives clear of the burning area. They know they are not in danger yet.



-jippo


ps. thanks Milo, interesting fact. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:54 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-

- That is why the crew stays in and drives clear of
- the burning area. They know they are not in danger
- yet.
-


The burning area IS the tank. THE TANK is on fire.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:56 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
- The burning area IS the tank. THE TANK is on fire.
-
Whoa crispy critters!
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:57 PM
OK, those of you who can watch the show and have a TV card or something similar handy - can you please record the mentioned footage ? I'm sure a nuber of people here would like to see it.

<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:58 PM
The Tiger was equiped with a fire extinguisher in the engine compartment.



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:00 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
-
- Jippo01 wrote:
--
-
-- That is why the crew stays in and drives clear of
-- the burning area. They know they are not in danger
-- yet.
--
-
-
- The burning area IS the tank. THE TANK is on fire.


What is burning on top of the tank? Gasoline?

Thats easy as most of it will flow of the armor anyway and the rest of it burns very quickly. If you don't believe me, pour some gasoline on top of sheet metal and see how long it burns. Gaso will end up on the ground and burn there.

Incendiary materials like Napalm or Phosphor are worse cause they tend to stick on the surface they burning on but I believe we are talking about .50's and the phospour in the tracer isn't quite enough I believe.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:01 PM
People are starting to mix up modern tanks with WWII era tanks here.

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:03 PM
Hristos wrote:
- OK, those of you who can watch the show and have a
- TV card or something similar handy - can you please
- record the mentioned footage ? I'm sure a nuber of
- people here would like to see it.

Hi, I'm a new guy here so I'm not in the fight here. I saw it and almost recorded it, but I couldn't find a blank cassette, darn. I'm pretty sure it will come on again soon and I'll record it for anyone that wants to see it. Maybe that UCLANUPE guy could host it at his movie site? Ok, I have to go walk my dog bye.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:07 PM
The tigers often towed fuel wagons behind them. The p-47 would shoot these. The tigers also carried fuel on the outside of the tanks as well. Anyways it's kind of hard to move with a disabled track.

And another thing, I've seen several auto racing incidents involving fire. The fuel does not burn up very quickly.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:17 PM
Jippo01 wrote:

- Tanks do and didn't not cruise alone, there is own
- infantry next to the tank defending it. And as long
- as the crew stays in the infantry has heavily armed
- pillbox to support them.

- In the dusk another tank drives next to it and
- attaches towing cables. Tank is towed away and the
- track fixed in a safe position in 30 minutes. Tanks
- comes back fully operational by the night to wait
- for you.

Tactical Mission accomplished ....now you have disabled tank, + infantry to secure area, plus rescue tank, none of which are on the advance....kind of like, dont kill the guy, wounded soldiers create much more length in the logistics tail. Knocked out = disabled

- Did you know that if you get stuck in a elevator you
- have enough oxygen for several hours even if the
- lift is absolutely airtight. Fire outside doesn't
- create a vacuum inside.
- One has plenty of time.


Interesting ....ask residents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hamburg ...alll they had to do was stay indoors ??

The tanks were not airtight .. sit under a table, and light your house on fire ...you will run out of air to breathe

A gas mask will not save your *** in a fire, nor will it produce oxegyn in an environment void of it.


- The idea of a log or rock untracking a vehicle is by
- it stucking between the track and wheel and thus
- maybe twisting the track of it's place. If the tank
- has another set of smaller wheels keeping the track
- tight even this doesn't really happen. I've seen
- rocks sized half of humans head reduced to sand in
- between the track and rear wheel of a such tank. .50
- has to physically damage and break the track. BLAH,BLAH,BLAH

Simple fact ...ask a tanker what has caused him and his guys to throw a track on REFORGER or someother armor picnic ...


CAN YOU SAY FULDA GAP ???


cc





Message Edited on 06/28/0309:22PM by Coon-Chow

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:18 PM
Hristos wrote:
- This a$$hat lives in Europe and cannot watch the
- mentioned TV channel, thus I must resort to logic,
- sorry.
-
- Case 1
------------------------------------------------------------
- Projectile hits object A, bounces off it and
- penetrates object B.
-
- Conclusion: object B is softer than object A.
-
-
-
- Case 2
------------------------------------------------------------
- .50 cal hits ground, bounces off it and penetrates
- the Tiger.
-
- Conclusion: Tiger armor is softer than ground.
-
-
- Now, ask yourself this. You can penetrate the ground
- with your umbrella tip, right ? Can you penetrate a
- tank with your umbrella tip ?

Not saying I belive a .50 could penetrate a tigers belly, but your CASE 1 and CASE 2 are in error. In that your assuming the .50 hits the gnd at such an angle 90 to 45 that it dug in.

Now CASE 3

A tiger tank cresting a hill top or plato with the front part of the belly exposed. Low flying P47 out looking for a good time, like we have seen so many WWII footages of, you know the ones where the P47 is so low that it is kicking up dust... Well while looking for a good time it spots that tiger and associate inftry and support comming over the crest of that hill i mentioned, NOW the .50 does not dig in at a 90 to 45 degree angle to the gnd, but 44 to 5 ish... Which would result in a glancing blow where most of the energy is conserved.... and contines on to the BELLY O D TIGER... That is just one senario I can come up with in under a min... If you need more, let me know! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Oh, and before you point out the odds of it happening, note, I never said it was the norm!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:20 PM
Dylan_D wrote:
- The tigers often towed fuel wagons behind them.

How often?


- The p-47 would shoot these. The tigers also carried
- fuel
- on the outside of the tanks as well.

Oh really?! How much of the 540l total?


- Anyways it's
- kind of hard to move with a disabled track.

What disabled the track?


- And another thing, I've seen several auto racing
- incidents involving fire. The fuel does not burn up
- very quickly.

Well then you must have your own opinion then. What you could is try the heat effect: wipe your hand with gasoline and set it alight. I tell you that much that you won't get burned. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:26 PM
tagert wrote:
- Hristos wrote:
-- This a$$hat lives in Europe and cannot watch the
-- mentioned TV channel, thus I must resort to logic,
-- sorry.
--
-- Case 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
-- Projectile hits object A, bounces off it and
-- penetrates object B.
--
-- Conclusion: object B is softer than object A.
--
--
--
-- Case 2
-------------------------------------------------------------
-- .50 cal hits ground, bounces off it and penetrates
-- the Tiger.
--
-- Conclusion: Tiger armor is softer than ground.
--
--
-- Now, ask yourself this. You can penetrate the ground
-- with your umbrella tip, right ? Can you penetrate a
-- tank with your umbrella tip ?
-
- Not saying I belive a .50 could penetrate a tigers
- belly, but your CASE 1 and CASE 2 are in error. In
- that your assuming the .50 hits the gnd at such an
- angle 90 to 45 that it dug in.
-
- Now CASE 3
-
- A tiger tank cresting a hill top or plato with the
- front part of the belly exposed. Low flying P47 out
- looking for a good time, like we have seen so many
- WWII footages of, you know the ones where the P47 is
- so low that it is kicking up dust... Well while
- looking for a good time it spots that tiger and
- associate inftry and support comming over the crest
- of that hill i mentioned, NOW the .50 does not dig
- in at a 90 to 45 degree angle to the gnd, but 44 to
- 5 ish... Which would result in a glancing blow where
- most of the energy is conserved.... and contines on
- to the BELLY O D TIGER... That is just one senario I
- can come up with in under a min... If you need more,
- let me know! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Oh, and before you point out
- the odds of it happening, note, I never said it was
- the norm!
-
-
-
-
- TAGERT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your
- QUESTION?


But you fail to remember how much armor a .50 cal will penetrate. 24mmish at 200m at 90. It deflected at 45degrees, therefore it lost energy, drop that 24mm lower now. Now unless that hill is a 45 degree incline, and the tank is somehow floating above it, that bullet doesnt hit at 90 degrees to the armor and the penetration depth will lower even more. I want to see pictures of tigers will 50 cal holes in the bottom, but I doubt i will, because it is simply impossible. If you think it is possible you find a way to mathimatically prove it.


--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- Found in British testing
-
- A Tiger tank's track link weighed 59 lb, the pin
- 7.375 lb.
-
- Weight of one foot of track >> 155 lb.
-
- Total weight of the track >> 5,450 lb.
-
- driver's front plate > Brinell hardness > 286
- upper nose plate > Brinell hardness > 293
- lower nose plate > Brinell hardness > 302
- upper side plate > Brinell hardness > 320
- lower side plate > Brinell hardness > 320
- turret > Brinell hardness > 340
-
-
-

Excellent post.

as a machinist I can translate what the above numbers mean.
320 on the Brinnel scale is roughly equivenent to 38 Rockwell C scale.
That means it is a soft free machining steel.

This is not to say it's not good armour!!!!!!!!

But it is NOT hard steel, it is soft enough to be easily
machined, drilled and formed. By contrast ASA4340 can be
heat treated to 60 Rc and is un machinable except by
CBN, carbide or abrasives. Diamond will cut it but diamond
is rarely used for the machining of steel and steel alloys.

Any steel hardened to 60 Rc would make for poor armour. It
would be likely to crack with a hit from a Tungsten cored bullet.

What milo's facts do is to blow away the idea that a barrage
of .50 cal bullets from above or behind a tiger tank can not
penetrate the armour!

This is not to say the .50 was the weapon of choice for killing
Tiger tanks. Not at all. But there are plenty of soft or
lightle armoured points to slow or disable the tank. Perhaps
the armour is sufficent to save the crew, but a couple
of hundred rounds of AP ammo might mangle a track or
dolley and disable the tank. A concentrated hit on the rear
deck may, and probibly did chew through more than one tank.

Knock the .50 all you like, but in the .5 in class it was king
of the hill. It's bullet shape and weight were excellent.
It's high velocity made for deep penetration and long range.

I read a comment eariler about the energy loss between
100 and 400 yards, the answer is less that 200 FPS loss!

Eight .50's from a P-47 was not to be trifeled with.
That's over 6,000 rounds per minute! That's 100 rounds per second.

I'll bet not one of you would volenteer to stand behind
4 inches of mild steel heat treated to 38 Rc for a two
second burst of 8 .50s!!!!!

Tiger tanks were awesome weapons, but they were not indestructable!

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:29 PM
Coon-Chow wrote:

- Tactical Mission accomplished ....now you have
- disabled tank, + infantry to secure area, plus
- rescue tank, none of which are on the
- advance....kind of like, dont kill the guy, wounded
- soldiers create much more length in the logistics
- tail. Knocked out = disabled

As you wish then. Just keep your head low if you're still in range.


- Interesting ....ask residents of Dresden, Tokyo,
- Hamburg ...alll they had to do was stay indoors ??

Pretty poor comparison isn't it?


BLAH,BLAH,BLAH
-
- Simple fact ...ask a tanker what has caused him and
- his guys to throw a track on REFORGER or someother
- armor picnic ...

I was a tanker, newer threw off a track though. Must have been a crappy driver in your case then. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- CAN YOU SAY FULDA GAP ???

Can you say Mortain? 252 claims, 9 really destroyed. I wonder how many of the nine were destroyed with .50cals as they had rockets and bombs too? link (http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:31 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
- How often?


Does it matter how often? We're talking about burning tanks, and i'm telling you one of the ways they become burning tanks.

- What disabled the track?

The P-47 silly.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:31 PM
If the M2HB was that good then why was not the Boys a/t rifle not standard issue to infantry?

stats:

mv > 3250f/m
penatration > 21mm @ 330yds

M2HB

mv > 2900f/m




http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:36 PM
Hristos wrote:
- This a$$hat lives in Europe and cannot watch the
- mentioned TV channel,

We get History channel, Discovery, Discovery Wings,
and all sorts of other stuff in Europe. The History
channel is basically "the WW2 channel" over here.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:37 PM
lbhskier37 wrote:
- But you fail to remember how much armor a .50 cal
- will penetrate. 24mmish at 200m at 90.

Never failed to remember in that I dindt know in the fist place! But, I do remember when I fired the .50s when I was in the Army, at some old APC and such... Granted, APC dont have the same thickness, nor hardered steel of a TIGER.

- It deflected at 45degrees, therefore it lost energy,
- drop that 24mm lower now.

Agreed, but why did you pick the worst case of 45? I have a range listed from 45 to 5! Oh, that's right, your not trying to make my point for me, your tryig to make yours! <G>

- Now unless that hill is a 45 degree incline, and
- the tank is somehow floating above it, that bullet
- doesnt hit at 90 degrees to the armor and the
- penetration depth will lower even more.

Well, tanks dont float, but the a$$ end on a TIGER is heaver than the front, thus cresting a hill the front belly will be exposed a bit.

- I want to see pictures of tigers will 50 cal
- holes in the bottom, but I doubt i will, because it
- is simply impossible.

Ok, here is a picture of CASE 3
\
\
||__---___| - \
\---------| * * * * * * * * * * * o\-\/ \
o\ \ \
------------------------------------\o \ /
\o\ \
\o\|
\o|
\-------------

And note, here the assumption is 0 degrees, which is actually not the best case, in that it would allmost be better for the round to hit at an angle to the gnd, thus glancing up into the bottom at a more perpindicular angle.

- If you think it is possible you find a way to
- mathimatically prove it.

Keep in mind, Im not saying it is posiable, Im only pointing out the two cases were best case for the argument of it not happening, I simply showed the best case for it too happen.





TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:37 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:


- Knock the .50 all you like, but in the .5 in class
- it was king
- of the hill.

Russian 12.7x108 was/is the king of the hill. 19.2kJ from normal loading compared to 17kJ of a .50 Browning. Also the rate of fire if fired from UBS was higher at +1000 rounds per minute.


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:38 PM
tagert wrote:
Well so much for my picuture, dang spaces dindt stick! <G>


TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:45 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:
- Tiger tanks were awesome weapons, but they were not
- indestructable!

DING! And all this what if talk reminds me of a funny story, My DI in basic tolds us, never use a .50 on infintry! It is illegal to do so and a war crime under the genivy convention!! He did go on to note that it was Ok to shoot at the infintrys equipment though!!! Like the infintrys trucks, tanks, radios, guns, helmet, boots, belt buckle... All that EQUIPMENT was fair game!!!



TAGERT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:46 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If the M2HB was that good then why was not the Boys
- a/t rifle not standard issue to infantry?
-
- stats:
-
- mv > 3250f/m
- penatration > 21mm @ 330yds
-
- M2HB
-
- mv > 2900f/m
-

And they even got rid of this 20mm beast in it's original role:

Lahti AT-rifle (http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/lahti/l.htm)

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/lahti.jpg


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:46 PM
- Never failed to remember in that I dindt know in the
- fist place! But, I do remember when I fired the .50s
- when I was in the Army, at some old APC and such...
- Granted, APC dont have the same thickness, nor
- hardered steel of a TIGER.
-

The armour on US APC's is of ASA 4340 hardened to roughly 50Rc.
Truth is it is MUCH harder than the steel of a Tiger!

WWII era half tracks used light armour around 3/4 in or less.
I had a piece of it in my tool box and shot it with various
rifles, it is tough stuff but a 30-06 AP round can nearly
pierce it.

Again you guys got it backwards, super hard materials make for
poor armour, tough materials in layers work best. Most
WWII armour is bad at best! Large naval warships got it close
to correct by layering the defences. Tanks caught up
much later, in the 1970's I believe!

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:50 PM
I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

This reminds me of the whole "Are UFO's real" debate...Many people have seen them and the ones who haven't don't believe the ones who have to save their life.

Anyhoo... I just ordered the DVD and it should be here in a early next week. I will post the video clip of the P-47 strafing the tank and you all can decide for yourselves if what you see is real or not... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stay tuned...

<div align="center">
&lt;object classid="clsidhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,29,0" width="252" height="100">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
&lt;embed src="http://www.redspar.com/sig.swf" quality="best" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="252" height="100"></embed></object>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:59 PM
Jippo01, that must have given quite the kick./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:07 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Mr-Awesome wrote:
-
-
-- Knock the .50 all you like, but in the .5 in class
-- it was king
-- of the hill.
-
- Russian 12.7x108 was/is the king of the hill. 19.2kJ
- from normal loading compared to 17kJ of a .50
- Browning. Also the rate of fire if fired from UBS
- was higher at +1000 rounds per minute.
-
-
--jippo
-

WWII numbers are 2790FPS, post war the numbers were improved
to 810-820MS, or around 3,200fps.

BMG numbers are slightly better as advertized in WWII.

Very close though.

I always doubt advertized numbers from any ammunition
manufacturer, including goverment arsenals. I have chronographed
hundreds of rounds from many manufacturers in many calibers.
Most are well below the advertized data. One exception
was Norma (Sweedish) 6.5X55 140gr loads, they were correct
in a sweedish M-1896.

Funny thing, but the .50 BMG from a friends bolt action
rifle with a 32 inch barrel was over 2900fps, i was suprised.

The soviets claimed over 2,900 fps for the Moslin Nagant
7.62 X 54 round, but out of a stock, un altered rifle
with a VERY long barrel (over 30"!) we got only 2.500fps
with millitary full metal jacket ammo, it looked like a chezch
head stamp on the brass.

My 2c worth.

Mr.



Message Edited on 06/28/0310:11PM by Mr-Awesome

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:08 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- Jippo01, that must have given quite the kick.

The designer(Aimo Lahti, also designer of the famous Suomi-SMG (http://guns.connect.fi/gow/suomi1.html) of which the even more famous Russian PPsh -41 was a further development) had to testfire it personally first because nobody else would do it. His first comment after firing was: "Well, it doesn't quite break your collarbone"! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:13 PM
tagert wrote:
--
- Not saying I belive a .50 could penetrate a tigers
- belly, but your CASE 1 and CASE 2 are in error. In
- that your assuming the .50 hits the gnd at such an
- angle 90 to 45 that it dug in.
-
- Now CASE 3
-
- A tiger tank cresting a hill top or plato with the
- front part of the belly exposed. Low flying P47 out
- looking for a good time, like we have seen so many
- WWII footages of, you know the ones where the P47 is
- so low that it is kicking up dust... Well while
- looking for a good time it spots that tiger and
- associate inftry and support comming over the crest
- of that hill i mentioned, NOW the .50 does not dig
- in at a 90 to 45 degree angle to the gnd, but 44 to
- 5 ish... Which would result in a glancing blow where
- most of the energy is conserved.... and contines on
- to the BELLY O D TIGER... That is just one senario I
- can come up with in under a min... If you need more,
- let me know! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Oh, and before you point out
- the odds of it happening, note, I never said it was
- the norm!
-
-
-
-
- TAGERT

My case 1 and case 2 presumed ricochet. This means 0-15 degrees angle. I'd say ground penetration would occur at anything higher than 15 degrees.

Ever seen a .50 cal round ? The angle at the point ? I'd give it 10 degrees. Any angle over that is very likely to tip the round due to the round tip impacting first and momentum giving the rotation. Here you can forget any useful trajectory /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tigers exposing bellies ? Uh oh, a tiger going up hill at 30 degrees (it couldn't hanle more, I believe) and round ricocheting at 15 degrees would give it 45 degrees impact. With plate thickness of 25mm, it would mean over 35 mm for the round to penetrate.


<center>http://easyweb.globalnet.hr/easyweb/users/ntomlino/uploads/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:16 PM
Mr-Awesome wrote:


Yes it is very close between the two, biggest difference being the weight of the projectile.

Energies were calculated according to Williams where muzzle velocities are almost equal (890 and 860m/s):

here (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ammotable1.htm)


-jippo

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 11:27 PM
MiloMorai wrote:
- If the M2HB was that good then why was not the Boys
- a/t rifle not standard issue to infantry?
-
- stats:
-
- mv > 3250f/m
- penatration > 21mm @ 330yds
-
- M2HB
-
- mv > 2900f/m
-
-
-
-
Because a Fifty Cal is Bloody Heavy. It is not suited for the fast moving nature of non-mounted infantry units. You see it on the modern mechanized infantry all the time, but for WWII it was no good for an entire squad to carry..maybe one or two men working in a support team, but certainly not an entire division.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:32 PM
Someone above mentioned about hit tracks on a tank. IIRC Jippo is also like me Commander of a Tank in out specific countries. What will Jippo an me doing if the track is damaged?? Guess we'll will repaire it after the attack and the enviroment will that allow it. Parts of the track or wheels will be replaced by 10-30minutes, depends on the parts and quantity of parts./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Things that are needed are on board.

BTW Cowace an unmovable tank with an intact armament is still a combatant.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura



Message Edited on 06/28/0311:34PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:40 PM
Not active though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , in reserve since '95. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



-jippo

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 11:41 PM
I guess in other countries parts are easier to replace than an entire tank and the tank itself is worth the crew staying and trying to repair it. A couple of million dollars is not worth the guy next to you being in danger. Screw the tank it can be replaced You and your Buddy Can't be!!!

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:42 PM
Yupp, but you did experiences on tanks by yourself and knows what is possible and what is not possible./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 11:45 PM
Don't confuse MODERN tanks with Past tanks. Do not forget that Germany at the end of the war was running low on everything..certain aircraft had some components switched to wood to cut back metal consumption. Not saying that this is the case of the Tiger I doubt it..but then again how can you believe that the tank coming off the asssembly line last when times are bad will be equal in quality to the first one to roll off the assembly line when times are good?

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 11:49 PM
Devil my point was that a damaged track alone doesn't knock out a tank longer than several minutes. As long as enough replacement parts are on board such kind of small calibre damage could be repaired within minutesm by the own crew itself - there is no special repair unit neccesary. Tracks can be pulled off and on by the crew, also the wheels can be replaced.

http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura

The_Blue_Devil
06-28-2003, 11:55 PM
KIMURA wrote:
- Devil my point was that a damaged track alone
- doesn't knock out a tank longer than several
- minutes. As long as enough replacement parts are on
- board such kind of small calibre damage could be
- repaired within minutesm by the own crew itself -
- there is no special repair unit neccesary. Tracks
- can be pulled off and on by the crew, also the
- wheels can be replaced.
-

Point noted m8..but again that is modern times..I have no idea how long a tiger would take to repair..especially if it had been set afire on top of th broken treds/wheels/ etc. Do you really want to risk opening your hatch while in the open having previously been straffed? Who knows what is next? Not worth the risk to the men under the tank commander.


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0310:55PM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:04 AM
uclanupe.blue devil
you saw it on tv,so it must be true,right.bet you think p51
won the war too!lol

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:06 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:

- Point noted m8..but again that is modern times..I
- have no idea how long a tiger would take to
- repair..especially if it had been set afire on top
- of th broken treds/wheels/ etc. Do you really want
- to risk opening your hatch while in the open having
- previously been straffed? Who knows what is next?
- Not worth the risk to the men under the tank
- commander.

The fact still is that it was very very difficult to .50 untrack a tiger (IMHO almost impossible).

Tracks haven't changed that much in last 50 or so years, and on tiger tracks needed to be extremely durable because of the weight of the tank. Roadwheels are also steel so I cannot really see how .50 (or few) could instantly immobilize a tank.

To put all this in perspective, an antitank mine designed to immobilise a modern tank has 10kg (22lb) of TNT in it and it is expected to breack the track and some wheels, damage transmission, and on a good day destroy the tank.All the power in .50 projectile comes from 14-15 grams(0.014-0.015kg) of gunpowder.



-jippo




Message Edited on 06/28/0311:07PM by Jippo01

The_Blue_Devil
06-29-2003, 12:06 AM
LOLOLOLOLOL Wunsch...You are so funny. Jump on the band wagon luftwhinner if anyone even remotely mentions the FW you all break down in tears.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/03 11:07PM by The_Blue_Devil

Message Edited on 06/28/0311:17PM by The_Blue_Devil

The_Blue_Devil
06-29-2003, 12:14 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- The fact still is that it was very very difficult to
- .50 untrack a tiger (IMHO almost impossible).

No offense but that is just your opinion. We had a machinist say that a .50cal could actually destory the linkage yet you still debate.

- Tracks haven't changed that much in last 50 or so
- years, and on tiger tracks needed to be extremely
- durable because of the weight of the tank.
- Roadwheels are also steel so I cannot really see how
- .50 (or few) could instantly immobilize a tank.

A .50 can go through steel like a hot knife through butter.
And no one said it would be immobilized instantly. Those tanks were taken out in more than one pass.

- To put all this in perspective, an antitank mine
- designed to immobilise a modern tank has 10kg (22lb)
- of TNT in it and it is expected to breack the track
- and some wheels, damage transmission, and on a good
- day destroy the tank.All the power in .50 projectile
- comes from 14-15 grams(0.014-0.015kg) of gunpowder.
-
Again that is a modern tank!!!!! A fifty was effective against WWII armour more than present. Materials on A/C have changed too m8...in case you missed that. US aircraft went from .50s to 20mm cannon because of this.
-
--jippo
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 06/28/03 11:07PM by Jippo01



<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:15 AM
Several Minutes ??

Several Minutes ??

I cant change my tire in under 15 in the rain !

I dont even give a crap anymore ..........

THE UNDISPUTED KING OF THE BATTLEFIELD NOW IS THE 2 TIME WORLD HEAVYWIEGHT CHAMPION

M1A2 Abrams .... 120mm of steel diplomacy

cc

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:23 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
- No offense but that is just your opinion. We had a
- machinist say that a .50cal could actually destory
- the linkage yet you still debate.

Well maybe that's the reason why I put the IMHO bit in? We also have at least two ex-tank commanders educated opinions against the opinion of educated machinist. I believe I know, so I will stick with my opinion.

- A .50 can go through steel like a hot knife through
- butter.

Put in 40mm of steel and it doesn't do squat anymore. Put 500m firing distance and it doesn't do squat to 10mm. Put 60 degree firing angle and it'll again do squat as it ricochets.

- And no one said it would be immobilized instantly.
- Those tanks were taken out in more than one pass.

Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger destroyed by .50cal.


- Again that is a modern tank!!!!! A fifty was
- effective against WWII armour more than present.

Steel I believe is still the same. Tracks and road wheels are steel. Listen to the machinist, he just explained some facts about armour.


- Materials on A/C have changed too m8...in case you
- missed that. US aircraft went from .50s to 20mm
- cannon because of this.

What does it have to do anything with Tigers being taken out by .50's?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:29 AM
Coon-Chow wrote:
- Several Minutes ??

AFAIK it takes well trained crew 30-60 minutes to replace a Leopard 2 engine.


- I cant change my tire in under 15 in the rain !

Well in F-1 they do it in 6-7 seconds.



- THE UNDISPUTED KING OF THE BATTLEFIELD NOW IS THE 2
- TIME WORLD HEAVYWIEGHT CHAMPION
-
- M1A2 Abrams .... 120mm of steel diplomacy


I have to disagree, StrV122 (http://www.wendel.se/rswa/strv122.htm) wins. Even with the short barrel.



-jippo

The_Blue_Devil
06-29-2003, 12:45 AM
Jippo01 wrote:
-- Well maybe that's the reason why I put the IMHO bit
- in? We also have at least two ex-tank commanders
- educated opinions against the opinion of educated
- machinist. I believe I know, so I will stick with my
- opinion.
The are MODERN tank commanders..I haven't seen any 80yr old tank commanders say anything to the contrary..but I have seen the Veterans describe what we are seeing in their guncam footage. A fifty does little to no damage to a modern hard target...but to light armor it is devestating.
-- A .50 can go through steel like a hot knife through
-- butter.
-
- Put in 40mm of steel and it doesn't do squat
- anymore. Put 500m firing distance and it doesn't do
- squat to 10mm. Put 60 degree firing angle and it'll
- again do squat as it ricochets.
-
No one said anything over 25mm..We were discussing the bottom of a Tiger which has 25mm of armour. A MaDuce penetrates 24mm at long range. I keep hearing about Degrees and Angles..but not one of you has taken into account the firing angle of the aircraft. A pilot doesn't break out a protractor on a straffing run..he watches the tracers and makes split second decisions..and tracers bounce like a superball when they hit cement.

- Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger
- destroyed by .50cal.

I have the footage..I just need to render it..anyone know the smallest way to do that for posting?
-
-

-
- Steel I believe is still the same. Tracks and road
- wheels are steel. Listen to the machinist, he just
- explained some facts about armour.

Modern steel is actually a blend of many different elements. Modern steel if I am not mistaken is stronger yet thinner in comparison due to modern technology.
-
-
-- Materials on A/C have changed too m8...in case you
-- missed that. US aircraft went from .50s to 20mm
-- cannon because of this.
-
- What does it have to do anything with Tigers being
- taken out by .50's?
-
The Point is tech back then was low compared to today. That includes armour and the naterials that make it. Low tech weapon for low tech armour. Armour materials are better today therefore you need a better gun to get through it.


<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>



Message Edited on 06/28/0311:46PM by The_Blue_Devil

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:46 AM
British test

6pdr

300 yds > 21* > shot penetrated 3". Plate cracked vertically. shot turned and rebounded whole

300 yds > 20* > shot penetrated 3.5". Bulge in back, plate split in 2

Plate was 102mm thick (Brinell 302). Plate was supported by drums filled with stone on both sides.

Test done by Dept. of Tank Design, Armour Branch in N. Africa

a. 75mm M61, 100yds @ 30* > plate(82mm) immune
b. 75mm M61, 100yds @ 18.5* > shot not through
c. 75mm M61, 100yds @ 16.5* > shot holed the plate

shot was APCBC HE 14.4lb



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:58 AM
Hey guys, I haven't read all 216+ post on the subject, just the first few and the last few, this is a quote I read from a P-47 web site: http://www.p47advocates.com

http://www.p47advocates.com/messages/1245.html

This is from a WW2 P47 named Ross...

........................

This is a great site!

The 513th Sq of the 405th Group, 9Th Af was equiped with 4 5inch rockets around April or May of 1944. Tank busting was not their original objective, we were told the Buzz bomb sites along the coast of France were not being destroyed by the bombers and the rockets were to be used, delayed fuse, to penetrate and explode inside the reinforced concrete emplacements.

We never used rockets on these sites, D Day came and they were quickly found to be effective not only on Panzers but almost anything else that was a little too heavy for the 50s. From the intelligence report dated August 31, 1944 on the 513th Sq ( unit history )"The appreciable part that the 513th played is shown by a total of 73 tanks destroyed up to the 10th of August" This total was for the Month of July and to Aug 10.

I was a pilot in the 513th till Aug 9, shot down by ground fire, crashlanded, captured immediately and spent the remainder of the war as a guest of Hitler. During my brief tour with the 513th I shot at a number of tanks with the 50s and all I got was their attention. I know the 513th went on to a great record, I'm just sad I could not have been there at the finish.
-Ross

............

Dale, the 8 50s on the P47 were not too effective against a Tiger, it was probable that with luck a ricochet could cause damage, the tigers were not too prone to expose themselves to an air attach if they could avoid it, they hid when they could, in woods, under comouflage, backing into buildings etc. Bombs could be effective but hard to deliver with accuracy, a few 47s were equiped with 4 5 inch rockets that were very effective. Hope this info helps.
-Ross

............

Ed and Dale Guess I should have stuck with the origonal question, " can 50's stop a tank". Did'nt mean to start other topics.

On the subject I've learned a lot about the underbelly of tanks and other armored vehicles with this posting. As a Pilot all I remember is they were well protected, even on the bottom.

Now to the point of the question, my experience of only a few months, I shot at maybe 7 or 8 moving tanks with 50's with no evidence of any damage. some of these were open or clear shots a couple fron the rear, plenty of hits. Nothing but evidence they were being hit by the way they manuvered for cover.

I have never seen positive film footage that 50,s were credit for a tank. In all the after mission critiques I do not remember any pilot given credit for a tank with 50's alone.In all the pilot gab or bull sessions I can't recall anyone claiming the ricochet theory for a kill. I vagely remember reading of it somewhere in the distant past but sorry nothing certain. It's my opinion that is we were lucky enough to kill one with 50's it would have been just luck. Eds detailed postings on the subject explains the luck possibilities.

All the debates in the world will not resolve this subjest simply because there is no way to know for certain if a 50 was the cause or other factors made a tank vunerable to anything that could torch them. Ed, I will email you direct in answer to your questions and thanks for listening! Just remember its been 59 years and who would have thought anyone would be interested? Regards Ross

..........

Now go enjoy your weekend

-Clay

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:06 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:

--
-- Steel I believe is still the same. Tracks and road
-- wheels are steel. Listen to the machinist, he just
-- explained some facts about armour.
-
- Modern steel is actually a blend of many different
- elements. Modern steel if I am not mistaken is
- stronger yet thinner in comparison due to modern
- technology.
--
--
--- Materials on A/C have changed too m8...in case you
--- missed that. US aircraft went from .50s to 20mm
--- cannon because of this.

Steel and Steel alloys have changed little since WWII.
There are some new alloys and a host of new non ferrous super alloys
but steel has changed little.

Aluminum alloys have improved in purity and new heat treat procedures
have made todays aluminum alloys superior to those of the 1940's.

What has improved is armour manufacturing techniques, composisits and
non metallic materials such as carbon fiber.

Mr.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:15 AM
thickness of 1"

impact angles from the horizontal

30* > 2.091"(53.1mm)

45* > 1.607"(40.8mm)

60* > 1.255"(31.9mm)



http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap18a.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:39 AM
JG52_wunsch wrote:
- uclanupe.blue devil
- you saw it on tv,so it must be true,right.bet you
- think p51
-
- won the war too!lol

Did you see The Color of War, which is the program depicting the P-47 attacks?

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/0305:40PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:44 AM
Give it up, Milo. You're wasting your time. No matter how much evidence you produce, you're up against people who have made up their minds to believe something and they just aren't listening.

Anybody who believes fifty-caliber machine gun fire could destroy a Tiger, even a Mark I, will believe anything. And there's no arguing with people like that.

This is one of those things like the old argument about tanks shooting down aircraft with their main guns. It never happened, the people who claim to have done it or seen it are liars, and the people who believe it could happen are the sort of people who (I hate to repeat myself but I must) will believe anything.

No, wait, I need to change that. You're talking to people who will believe anything AS LONG AS IT'S RIDICULOUS. Let somebody who actually knows what he's talking about tell them something that makes sense, and they're not having any.

"The vast mass of humanity is, alas, attracted by nonsense. To be sure, a few individual human beings are reasoning animals. You can tell who they are by the fact that they are denounced by everyone else every time they open their mouths." --Isaac Asimov

"What a good thing for us that most people are stupid." -- A. Hitler

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 01:50 AM
Hauptman99 wrote:
- Hi, I'm a new guy here so I'm not in the fight here.
- I saw it and almost recorded it, but I couldn't find
- a blank cassette, darn. I'm pretty sure it will come
- on again soon and I'll record it for anyone that
- wants to see it. Maybe that UCLANUPE guy could host
- it at his movie site? Ok, I have to go walk my dog
- bye.

Hauptman99 did you get my PM?. Anyway sure I'll be glad to host it. Take a look at the PM I sent you (he he /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ) Pretty funny isn't it? S!

http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat/
JOIN OUR SQUAD TODAY!
http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/1banner.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/il2homepage.html

Message Edited on 06/28/03 05:51PM by UCLANUPE

Message Edited on 06/28/0305:51PM by UCLANUPE

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 02:27 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:

- No one said anything over 25mm..We were discussing
- the bottom of a Tiger which has 25mm of armour. A
- MaDuce penetrates 24mm at long range. I keep
- hearing about Degrees and Angles..but not one of you
- has taken into account the firing angle of the
- aircraft. A pilot doesn't break out a protractor on
- a straffing run..he watches the tracers and makes
- split second decisions..and tracers bounce like a
- superball when they hit cement.

The MaDuce penetrates 24mm at 90degrees. Dont you see, if it is deflecting it sure isnt going to be striking anywhere near 90degrees, unless the pilot is in a vertical dive. And about bullets bounching like superballs? Do you know what a bullet looks like after it hits cement? It sure isnt nice and perfectly pointed anymore. Plus anytime some bounces off something else it loses energy. This is simple highschool physics and you guys just keep pretending it isnt real. A superball deflects without losing much energy because it has a high elastic modulus. Armor piercing bullets have a super low elastic modulus. (maybe its the otherway around, dont have my physics books here). Anyways, armor piercing bullets dont deform and then return to their original shape, so they lose tons of energy. This is precisly why they can penetrate steel, they lose tons of energy in the impact, but that energy is transfered to the armor.

--NJG26_Killa--

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/FW190.jpg .

"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
When Erwin Rommel that British fighter-bombers had shot up my tanks with 40mm shells, the Hermann G¶ring who felt himself touched by this, said: "That's completely impossible. The Americans only know how to make razor blades." and the above was Rommels reply.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 02:29 AM
OMG, LMAO /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


This is gettin' silly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .

Roy Baty
III/7/JG2

"Be happy in your work!"
- Col. Saito

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 03:08 AM
On the fourth day of operations against Russia, Hauptmann Hitschold led the whole of ST.G.2 in to attack a concentration of 60 tanks in the area 80 km south of Grodno. The bombs fell squarely on target, but later it was found only a single tank was knocked out, and this was from machine gun fire from Hitscholds own aircraft(7.62mm).

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 03:11 AM
Ok time for some fun! I love that hat! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://sunstarentertainment.maddsites.com/images/monkey.gif

Thanks for the space dude.



Message Edited on 06/29/0302:12AM by Hauptman99

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 03:27 AM
- Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger
- destroyed by .50cal.


I've seen it with my own two eyes on film, just because you haven't doesn't make us all wrong


Heywood_Jablomi wrote:
- Give it up, Milo. You're wasting your time. No
- matter how much evidence you produce, you're up
- against people who have made up their minds to
- believe something and they just aren't listening.
-
- Anybody who believes fifty-caliber machine gun fire
- could destroy a Tiger, even a Mark I, will believe
- anything. And there's no arguing with people like
- that.
-
- This is one of those things like the old argument
- about tanks shooting down aircraft with their main
- guns. It never happened, the people who claim to
- have done it or seen it are liars, and the people
- who believe it could happen are the sort of people
- who (I hate to repeat myself but I must) will
- believe anything.
-
- No, wait, I need to change that. You're talking to
- people who will believe anything AS LONG AS IT'S
- RIDICULOUS. Let somebody who actually knows what
- he's talking about tell them something that makes
- sense, and they're not having any.
-
- "The vast mass of humanity is, alas, attracted by
- nonsense. To be sure, a few individual human beings
- are reasoning animals. You can tell who they are by
- the fact that they are denounced by everyone else
- every time they open their mouths." --Isaac Asimov
-
- "What a good thing for us that most people are
- stupid." -- A. Hitler
-


And you, the same thing I just said to Jippo applies. Except one extra thing: That is, by FAR, the most idiotic post I've ever read, congratulations.



One more thing to everyone else: I'm not arguing that the M2 can punch a hole through a Tiger, and I'm not so sure about the whole ricochet thing either. BUT, pilots who were there and who DID IT say that they disabled tanks with their 50 cals. And now you, a bunch of armchair pilots that were'nt even alive during this and have never even touched an aircraft (not all of you), are goning to say that they are wrong? Give me a break. I've seen it happen, there is no way in hell you can tell me, nor anyone else who has seen it, otherwise.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 03:33 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- Devil my point was that a damaged track alone
- doesn't knock out a tank longer than several
- minutes. As long as enough replacement parts are on
- board such kind of small calibre damage could be
- repaired within minutesm by the own crew itself -
- there is no special repair unit neccesary. Tracks
- can be pulled off and on by the crew, also the
- wheels can be replaced.
-


Here's the problem, your in combat. If you pop the hatch and jump out to start changin' your track, you're dead. And you won't fair too well sitting still either.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 04:07 AM
I'm sorry to put it this way but do you even have a clue as to what you are talking about? Steel has ALWAYS been a blend of elements, steel isn't a freakin element its an alloy made of iron, carbon and maganese. You add chromium and nickel to make it stainless or tungstun and cobalt to harden it, silicon and copper to give it more mallability and reduce its brittleness.

The ONLY thing that has changed with the production of steel in the last 70 years is the introduction of better quality control thru the ability to remove more and more impurities such as phosphorus, sulfur etc.

A modern .50 API round can only penetrate 1 inch of rolled homogenous steel at 200m. .9inch if the face has been hardened with tempering or cobalt. And these angles you are completely ignoring is the angle the bullet meets the armor which is 90 degrees for this penetration data.

The smaller the angle the less penetration occurs. Say a round hits armor that is 25mm thinck at a 45% angle. That round is now trying to penetrate 35.36mm of armor plate because of its angle of impact. Since the energy required to do this is much greater than the energy required for the round to be deflected and have its vector changed the round takes the path of least resistance and is deflected away from the armor with only surface scarring.


- The_Blue_Devil wrote:
-
---
--- Steel I believe is still the same. Tracks and road
--- wheels are steel. Listen to the machinist, he just
--- explained some facts about armour.
--
-- Modern steel is actually a blend of many different
-- elements. Modern steel if I am not mistaken is
-- stronger yet thinner in comparison due to modern
-- technology.


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

The_Blue_Devil
06-29-2003, 05:05 AM
Cragger wrote:
- I'm sorry to put it this way but do you even have a
- clue as to what you are talking about? Steel has
- ALWAYS been a blend of elements, steel isn't a
- freakin element its an alloy made of iron, carbon
- and maganese. You add chromium and nickel to make it
- stainless or tungstun and cobalt to harden it,
- silicon and copper to give it more mallability and
- reduce its brittleness.

I was explaining that it was a blend to the other guy. In your haste to flame you didn't notice I was comparing older steel to newer steel as refining methods have changed. I explained that it was a blend of many different metals..I never said it was a NEW thing. Jeez..if you want to turn this into a flaming post go right ahead I could care less what someone else thinks about me. People are really brave behind their PC's.

- The ONLY thing that has changed with the production
- of steel in the last 70 years is the introduction of
- better quality control thru the ability to remove
- more and more impurities such as phosphorus, sulfur
- etc.

=0) Read Above.

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center>
<center>[b]"Pilots who liked to dogifght could do it their own way. I avoided it. I always attacked at full speed and I evaded a bounce in the same manner. When you were hit from above and behind, and your attacker held his fire until he was really close, you knew you were in with someone who had a great deal of experience.-Erich Hartmann"[b]</center>


<center> <img src=http://www.angelfire.lycos.com/art2/devilart/MySig.gif> </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 05:12 AM
I just had to look one more time before checking out ....this is a one day thread of biblical proportions

Strv 122 ?? I looked at the link ...looks like some reverse engineering going on there pal... (bore evacuator, turret ammo storage, suspension, 120 mm smoothie, GPS battlefield computer)

Hope the guys copied it correctly, as someone could get hurt.

And until it's had IT'S day in the (steel) rain, it's still just another cool looking clone ...


we've proved ours .... twice!

cc

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 05:22 AM
I have a few honest questions:

Didn't the ground troops use the same .50 cals as the AC? If so, did they ever use them against tanks? Does it make a huge difference if being shot from an aircraft?

Some of the tank buster type aircraft had 30mm or so cannons. These guns were effect against tanks, but if there was a tank with a 30mm main gun it would be totally useless against another tank. Why is that?

And I would like to know what is the difference between a "Cannon" and a "gun".

Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:17 AM
Coon-Chow wrote:
- I just had to look one more time before checking out
- ....this is a one day thread of biblical proportions
-
- Strv 122 ?? I looked at the link ...looks like some
- reverse engineering going on there pal... (bore
- evacuator, turret ammo storage, suspension, 120 mm
- smoothie, GPS battlefield computer)
-
- Hope the guys copied it correctly, as someone could
- get hurt.
-
- And until it's had IT'S day in the (steel) rain,
- it's still just another cool looking clone ...
-
-
- we've proved ours .... twice!
-
- cc

It is a Leopard 2A5 further improved by Swedish you dimwit!


Reverse engineering my ***....


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:22 AM
Achilles97 wrote:
- I have a few honest questions:
-
- Didn't the ground troops use the same .50 cals as
- the AC? If so, did they ever use them against
- tanks? Does it make a huge difference if being shot
- from an aircraft?

Not really. If one can get on a high hill beside the tank odds are pretty much even. Aircrafts speed adds to the speed of the projectile which is plus but aircrafts are unstable aiming platforms compared to a tripod resting on ground.


- Some of the tank buster type aircraft had 30mm or so
- cannons. These guns were effect against tanks, but
- if there was a tank with a 30mm main gun it would be
- totally useless against another tank. Why is that?

Because the 30mm in aircraft could quickly travel to a point where the armor is thinnest like the rear of the & tank top of the engine compartment. AT guns usually have to deal with the much better protected front of the tank.



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:28 AM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:
.
- The are MODERN tank commanders..I haven't seen any
- 80yr old tank commanders say anything to the
- contrary..but I have seen the Veterans describe what
- we are seeing in their guncam footage. A fifty does
- little to no damage to a modern hard target...but to
- light armor it is devestating.

Tiger is 15 tons heavier than e.g. "modern" T-72.


- No one said anything over 25mm..We were discussing
- the bottom of a Tiger which has 25mm of armour. A
- MaDuce penetrates 24mm at long range. I keep
- hearing about Degrees and Angles..but not one of you
- has taken into account the firing angle of the
- aircraft. A pilot doesn't break out a protractor on
- a straffing run..he watches the tracers and makes
- split second decisions..and tracers bounce like a
- superball when they hit cement.

No they don bounce like superballs. Also AP rounds penetrate when they do not hit many obstacles beforehand. To get the shot you describe you would need to fly your P-47 UNDER the Tiger and flying 90 degrees VERTICAL towards the belly of a Tiger.

-- Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger
-- destroyed by .50cal.
-
- I have the footage..I just need to render it..anyone
- know the smallest way to do that for posting?

You couldn't even recognise the vehicle, how can you say it was a Tiger?



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:38 AM
Dylan_D wrote:
-- Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger
-- destroyed by .50cal.
-
-
- I've seen it with my own two eyes on film, just
- because you haven't doesn't make us all wrong
-

How can you recognise Tiger for example compared Pz IVF2?

Real P-47 pilots say it couldn't be done, real tankers say it couldn't be done, but yet it must be true because you saw it on TV. ANd could you answer the recognition question?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:40 AM
- You couldn't even recognise the vehicle, how can you
- say it was a Tiger?

Yes, good point. I would like for him to identify this supposed "Tiger." Mark I or Mark II? If the latter, Porsche turret or later?

My strong suspicion is that our TV-viewing "eyewitness" here couldn't tell a Tiger from a Panther, or either one from a PzKw IV, if it were parked in his driveway.

(Most American soldiers and flyers called all German tanks "Tigers". If you read Patton's memoirs his troops knocked out "Tigers" by the thousands. In fact Tigers of any mark were rare animals on the Western front - which was a good thing, because no Allied tank had a big enough gun to penetrate their armor, until the British stuck a 17-pounder into the Sherman and created the Firefly. What fools they were; didn't they know the fifty-caliber machine gun was what they needed?)

As for the reports by veterans, veterans are notoriously imaginative, and more so as time goes by. I've read an account by an authentic WWII pilot of sinking a Japanese midget sub off the Golden Gate, even though nothing of the sort ever took place.

But, as my old drill sergeant used to say: "Dey ain't none so bline as dem what got dey heads up dey butts."

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 08:43 AM
Dylan_D wrote:
-
- Here's the problem, your in combat. If you pop the
- hatch and jump out to start changin' your track,
- you're dead. And you won't fair too well sitting
- still either.

I have few written accounts of people fixing their tracks in combat during WW2 here. How about that?

And sitting in is a perfectly good solution for other times as well. One still has a heavy cannon and 1-4 (usually) mg's ready to pacify any enemy rising their heads.

How stupid do you have to be to argue about such matters with people who have first hand experience?


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 09:59 AM
Coon-Chow wrote:
- I just had to look one more time before checking out
- ....this is a one day thread of biblical proportions
-
- Strv 122 ?? I looked at the link ...looks like some
- reverse engineering going on there pal... (bore
- evacuator, turret ammo storage, suspension, 120 mm
- smoothie, GPS battlefield computer)
-
- Hope the guys copied it correctly, as someone could
- get hurt.
-
- And until it's had IT'S day in the (steel) rain,
- it's still just another cool looking clone ...
-
-
- we've proved ours .... twice!
-
- cc
-


Before you put your foot all the way up in your mouth, at least bother to do some research... you could easily avoid making yourself look ignorant.

Both the M1 and Leopard 2 share common roots in the MBT-70 project - a cooperation between USA and Germany. However, due to reasons I won't get into here, this cooperation ended in 1967.

I'm glad you're so proud you've "proven" the M1. I won't get into the fact that the "mighty" opponents the M1 had to deal with were heavily outdated models that entered production more than 30 years ago (and I'm talking about the T-72, let us not even consider the T-55). For your enlightenment, the M1 is fitted with an L45 120mm Rheinmettal smoothbore gun - in case you don't realize it, I'll spell it out for you: it is german. Armour: Chobham, second generation - british. Yes, the M1A1(HA) and the A2 have US improved armour - reinforced with DU. Oh, and last I checked - the FCR was being developped in Ottawa, Canada.

... further on this subject, the last armour olympics in Greece, guess who won? The Leopard. Not even the Strv122 which - at this moment - it is recognized to be the most advanced version of the Leopard in service.

http://members.shaw.ca/cuski4678/sig.jpg


Message Edited on 06/29/0302:01AM by cuski

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 11:16 AM
The top armor of the Tiger E was just as thin as it was on the bottom. Different from source to source, but somewhere between 25 and 30mm.

Now looking at the AP capabilites of the 0.50 with it's 25mm @ 200m @ 90? or something I realized that the number comes very close to the thickness of the top armor of the Tiger. If you now add the airspeed of the P-47 to the muzzle velocity, you'll get a 20% - 40% increase in kinetic energy. If this adds up to the armor piercing capabilites of the 0.50 you'll get 30 to 35mm. Enough to defeat the armor.

However, this could only be at very steep (maybe 60?) angles which would almost always make the P-47 crash into the ground. However, if a Tiger is inclined (this can happen quite easily in terrain, as it can also be sideways) somehow offering the aircraft a very good angle of attack, the chance is there that the armor get's pierced. The tanks inclination should be around 45?. A lot.

So, from my initial point of view: Impossible! I step back to: hardly possible.
(This post contains very rough numbers and many estimations and assumptions as I don't want to waste my time in AP research and decent calculation. I posted just to present this idea.)

How does the armor used for the 0.50 AP test compare to the Tigers armor regarding the AP thing?

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 11:48 AM
Tigers and it's protection. The thicknesses which could be endangered by smaller calibres aren't to hit because they're covered due its layout of construction.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Tiger Ausführung B

Ausf.B: Armor
Assembly
Welding
Hull
Location Thickness Angle from vertical
Upper front 5.91"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0cm 50?
Lower front 3.94"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0cm 50?
Upper sides 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 25?
Lower sides 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 0?
Rear 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 30?
Top 1.6"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0cm 90?
Front floor 1.6"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0cm 90?
Rear floor .98"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5cm 90?
Turret
Location Thickness Angle from vertical
Gun mantlet 5.91"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15.0cm 13?
Front 7.09"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.0cm 10?
Sides 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 20?
Rear 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 20?
Front top 1.6"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0cm 78?
Center top 1.6"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0cm 90?
Rear top 1.6"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.0cm 82?



Tiger Ausführung E

Ausf.E: Armor
Assembly
Welding
Hull
Location Thickness Angle from vertical
Upper front 3.94"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0cm 9?
Lower front 3.94"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0cm 25?
Upper sides 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 0?
Lower sides 2.4"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0cm 0?
Rear 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 9?
Top .98"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5cm 90?
Floor .98"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5cm 90?
Turret
Location Thickness Angle from vertical
Gun mantlet 3.94" to 4.72"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0cm to 12.0cm 0?
Front 3.94"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.0cm 8?
Sides 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 0?
Rear 3.1"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.0cm 0?
Top .98"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5cm 90?



There's no way for the 0.5"


http://www.geocities.com/kimurakai/SIG/262_01011.jpg


Kimura



Message Edited on 06/29/0311:57AM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:05 PM
One would think significant statistical evidence would exist of infantry (mechanized, if you will) knocking out Tiger tanks with .50 cals. Their lower angle, the increased opportunity to see the underside of the tank and such should provide many more opportunities. As for "I've seen it with my own eyes"...I saw Forest Gump tell President John F. Kennedy he had to pee. No doubt, he probably did.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:20 PM
Incidentally, what's with the high success rates of these incredibly stupid threads of late, in IL-2 forums anyway?

I mean, nobody comes up with these weird theoretical jerk-off style fantasy assumptions to poke a Tiger to death with a .50 round in other forums of other games.

I've seen debates on how much angle or distance needed to penetrate a Tiger with a 75mm AP shell, but this..??









-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:27 PM
ericson wrote:
- On the fourth day of operations against Russia,
- Hauptmann Hitschold led the whole of ST.G.2 in to
- attack a concentration of 60 tanks in the area 80 km
- south of Grodno. The bombs fell squarely on target,
- but later it was found only a single tank was
- knocked out, and this was from machine gun fire from
- Hitscholds own aircraft(7.62mm).

Some of the Russian tanks being used at the time
had very little armour on the top surfaces - e.g.
the BT7's armour was at most 22mm (frontal), and 6mm at its
thinnest. It's maximum armour was barely any thicker
than the minumum on the T34.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:40 PM
Jippo01 wrote:
-
- Dylan_D wrote:
--- Those? We have yet to see a proof of a single Tiger
--- destroyed by .50cal.
--
--
-- I've seen it with my own two eyes on film, just
-- because you haven't doesn't make us all wrong
--
-
- How can you recognise Tiger for example compared Pz
- IVF2?

A Pz IV would be very possible for a .50 to
penetrate, if it hit the side or rear armour and there
were no additional things there (concrete blocks,
schurzen, etc). The typical PzIV side armour was
20mm, and would present a close to 90 degree angle
to the plane if it was low enough.

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:43 PM
It rolled homogenous steel, which is just standard steel plates made by rolling structual grade steel out from the mix.

The hardened plates are done by tempering the plates after production, increases hardness by driving more impurities out but increases brittleness by driving maganese out and vaporizing some carbon.

Its actually not really even near the steel-nickel plate that German's used. Not the best but the overabondance of nickel in it allowed the armor to give more intsead of penetrating or spalling as much.

JtD wrote:
- The top armor of the Tiger E was just as thin as it
- was on the bottom. Different from source to source,
- but somewhere between 25 and 30mm.
-
- Now looking at the AP capabilites of the 0.50 with
- it's 25mm @ 200m @ 90? or something I realized that
- the number comes very close to the thickness of the
- top armor of the Tiger. If you now add the airspeed
- of the P-47 to the muzzle velocity, you'll get a 20%
- - 40% increase in kinetic energy. If this adds up to
- the armor piercing capabilites of the 0.50 you'll
- get 30 to 35mm. Enough to defeat the armor.
-
- However, this could only be at very steep (maybe
- 60?) angles which would almost always make the P-47
- crash into the ground. However, if a Tiger is
- inclined (this can happen quite easily in terrain,
- as it can also be sideways) somehow offering the
- aircraft a very good angle of attack, the chance is
- there that the armor get's pierced. The tanks
- inclination should be around 45?. A lot.
-
- So, from my initial point of view: Impossible! I
- step back to: hardly possible.
- (This post contains very rough numbers and many
- estimations and assumptions as I don't want to waste
- my time in AP research and decent calculation. I
- posted just to present this idea.)
-
- How does the armor used for the 0.50 AP test compare
- to the Tigers armor regarding the AP thing?
-
-



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight