PDA

View Full Version : This nonsense about P-47's and Tiger tanks



XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:27 AM
Salute All

Reading the claims by various posters that the P-47's .50 calibre bullets could penetrate the hull of Tiger tanks reminds me of the old urban myth about alligators in the sewers of New York.

There's always someone who's ready to claim a friend of a friend of a friend really ran into a 12 foot Gator while he was doing his chores in the sewers, but when you actually try to nail down an actual witness, they are suddenly in short supply. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am the first to boost the P-47, and point to its real combat abilities, backing up my reasoning with real research, but I think these kinds of absurd claims just cast a shadow on the real excellent qualities of this aircraft.

Let's look at some facts:

There is no way a .50 calibre bullet is going to penetrate either the side, front or rear armour of a Tiger tank. The depth of the armour is simply to great for the penetrative power of the bullet. Anti Tank rifles were heavier calibre than the 12.7mm of the American weapon, and they were almost universally discarded as useless after 1942. The only way a .50 calibre round is going to do any damage is by striking the viewing slit of the driver, but that is unlikely, since the angle of the slit is such that a downward travelling bullet would deflect. No to mention that the slit is extremely narrow, and only a perfect shot would penetrate.

Could a .50 calibre bullet penetrate the louvers over the engine compartment? Doubtful. The Tiger was designed to withstand attacks from both enemy Tanks, as well as enemy infantry, including infantry armed with Machine guns which were situated in buildings higher than the tank.

Would the .50 calibre penetrate the armour on the belly of the tank? Doubtful again. The Tiger was built to withstand the blasts of anti-personel mines, and could drive over them with impunity.

The only real chance a .50 calibre bullet has is in damaging the bogey wheels, or treads on the Tiger. And they only way that could happen is with continuous shortrange sustained and focused fire on a single part. Fire from an aircraft is by the nature of the firing platform, scattered, and therefore this type of damage is extremely unlikely to occur.

There is also the issue of identification.

From the air, it is very difficult to identify exact types of tanks. Even for stationary U.S. tank gunners looking through telescopic sights, the Tiger and Mk IV were very often confused for one another. The possibility that a P-47 pilot, travelling at 300+ mph is going to be able to positively identify the type of tank he is strafing is extremely unlikely. So how does the P-47 pilot know he is strafing a Tiger?

Finally, how is the P-47 pilot going to be sure he has destroyed the enemy tank? In most situations, a tank will not catch fire when it is knocked out. The fact that tank is not moving, is not an indication that it has been destroyed. Tank crews were often hit by machinegun fire from enemy infantry, and in that situation, their first response would be to stop and search for a target.

The fact is, and I don't mean to disappoint those dedicated ground attack pilots who love to fly the ground pounders in IL-2, but Tanks were rarely destroyed by attacks from the air.

The US Army Air Force did a comprehensive study of the Mortain Counterattack Battlefield. For those who don't know, the Mortain Counterattack was launched by Hitler in a failed effort to close off Patton's 3rd Army Breakout from St Lo during Normandy Campaign in 1944. The Germans committed a large number of Panzer and S.S. Panzer Divisions. During the Counterattack, the Fighterbombers of the British 2nd Tactical Airforce and the U.S. 9th A.F. were credited with playing a large part in turning back the attack, and in destroying a large number of German tanks.

There is no doubt that the Typhoons and P-47's who participated did do a lot of damage to the Motor Transport of the German divisions, as well as halftracks and self propelled guns. However, the tanks on the battlefield which were examined later were shown to have almost all either to have been destroyed by U.S. Anti-tank guns or Tank Destroyers, or to have been abandoned by their crews either through lack of fuel or poor morale. Very few were actually hit by rockets.

However, that is not to say the air attacks were not effective. U.S. ground observers did report German tank crews abandoning their vehicles when under air attack. Undoubtably, the sight of a Fighter Bomber bearing down on you complete with rockets would be a terrifying sight for those tankcrew who were not aware that the statistical likelyhood of them being hit was small. If I was cooped up in a metal shell with 100's of aircraft taking runs at me with salvos of eight 120mm rockets, I would be nervous too. I'm not a soldier, but I have worked as a cameraman in a combat zone and have been mortared and shot at, and I know my immediate response was to head for the nearest hole to hide in.

In any case, to return to my original point, the possibility of a P-47 taking out a Tiger with its .50's is so small as to be irrelevant.

Now lets get back to the real issue relating to the P-47, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif which is that it is severly undermodelled in rollrate and high speed maneverability.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:27 AM
Salute All

Reading the claims by various posters that the P-47's .50 calibre bullets could penetrate the hull of Tiger tanks reminds me of the old urban myth about alligators in the sewers of New York.

There's always someone who's ready to claim a friend of a friend of a friend really ran into a 12 foot Gator while he was doing his chores in the sewers, but when you actually try to nail down an actual witness, they are suddenly in short supply. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I am the first to boost the P-47, and point to its real combat abilities, backing up my reasoning with real research, but I think these kinds of absurd claims just cast a shadow on the real excellent qualities of this aircraft.

Let's look at some facts:

There is no way a .50 calibre bullet is going to penetrate either the side, front or rear armour of a Tiger tank. The depth of the armour is simply to great for the penetrative power of the bullet. Anti Tank rifles were heavier calibre than the 12.7mm of the American weapon, and they were almost universally discarded as useless after 1942. The only way a .50 calibre round is going to do any damage is by striking the viewing slit of the driver, but that is unlikely, since the angle of the slit is such that a downward travelling bullet would deflect. No to mention that the slit is extremely narrow, and only a perfect shot would penetrate.

Could a .50 calibre bullet penetrate the louvers over the engine compartment? Doubtful. The Tiger was designed to withstand attacks from both enemy Tanks, as well as enemy infantry, including infantry armed with Machine guns which were situated in buildings higher than the tank.

Would the .50 calibre penetrate the armour on the belly of the tank? Doubtful again. The Tiger was built to withstand the blasts of anti-personel mines, and could drive over them with impunity.

The only real chance a .50 calibre bullet has is in damaging the bogey wheels, or treads on the Tiger. And they only way that could happen is with continuous shortrange sustained and focused fire on a single part. Fire from an aircraft is by the nature of the firing platform, scattered, and therefore this type of damage is extremely unlikely to occur.

There is also the issue of identification.

From the air, it is very difficult to identify exact types of tanks. Even for stationary U.S. tank gunners looking through telescopic sights, the Tiger and Mk IV were very often confused for one another. The possibility that a P-47 pilot, travelling at 300+ mph is going to be able to positively identify the type of tank he is strafing is extremely unlikely. So how does the P-47 pilot know he is strafing a Tiger?

Finally, how is the P-47 pilot going to be sure he has destroyed the enemy tank? In most situations, a tank will not catch fire when it is knocked out. The fact that tank is not moving, is not an indication that it has been destroyed. Tank crews were often hit by machinegun fire from enemy infantry, and in that situation, their first response would be to stop and search for a target.

The fact is, and I don't mean to disappoint those dedicated ground attack pilots who love to fly the ground pounders in IL-2, but Tanks were rarely destroyed by attacks from the air.

The US Army Air Force did a comprehensive study of the Mortain Counterattack Battlefield. For those who don't know, the Mortain Counterattack was launched by Hitler in a failed effort to close off Patton's 3rd Army Breakout from St Lo during Normandy Campaign in 1944. The Germans committed a large number of Panzer and S.S. Panzer Divisions. During the Counterattack, the Fighterbombers of the British 2nd Tactical Airforce and the U.S. 9th A.F. were credited with playing a large part in turning back the attack, and in destroying a large number of German tanks.

There is no doubt that the Typhoons and P-47's who participated did do a lot of damage to the Motor Transport of the German divisions, as well as halftracks and self propelled guns. However, the tanks on the battlefield which were examined later were shown to have almost all either to have been destroyed by U.S. Anti-tank guns or Tank Destroyers, or to have been abandoned by their crews either through lack of fuel or poor morale. Very few were actually hit by rockets.

However, that is not to say the air attacks were not effective. U.S. ground observers did report German tank crews abandoning their vehicles when under air attack. Undoubtably, the sight of a Fighter Bomber bearing down on you complete with rockets would be a terrifying sight for those tankcrew who were not aware that the statistical likelyhood of them being hit was small. If I was cooped up in a metal shell with 100's of aircraft taking runs at me with salvos of eight 120mm rockets, I would be nervous too. I'm not a soldier, but I have worked as a cameraman in a combat zone and have been mortared and shot at, and I know my immediate response was to head for the nearest hole to hide in.

In any case, to return to my original point, the possibility of a P-47 taking out a Tiger with its .50's is so small as to be irrelevant.

Now lets get back to the real issue relating to the P-47, /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif which is that it is severly undermodelled in rollrate and high speed maneverability.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:34 AM
And ANOTHER one. Merciful Jesus. They're proliferating like the Borg.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:37 AM
OH NO, THE THREAD IS LIKE VIRUS!!




The Sun is Gone
But I Have a Light

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 04:38 AM
Good post.

Might i add that on the allied side all german guns were 88s, and i dare say that in many cases all German tanks were tigers.

Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear, give an ear!
Ye Jacobites by name, lend an ear,
Ye Jacobites by name,
Your fautes I will proclaim,
Your doctrines I maun blame, you shall hear!
2. What is Right, and what is wrang, by the law, by the law?
What is Right, and what is Wrang, by the law?
What is Right, and what is Wrang?
A short sword and a lang,
A weak arm and a strang, for to draw!
3. What makes heroic strife, famed afar, famed afar?
What makes heroic strife famed afar?
What makes heroic strife ?
To whet th' assassin's knife,
Or hunt a Parent's life, wi' bluidy war?
4. Then let your schemes alone, in the State, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone, in the State!
Then let your schemes alone,
Adore the rising sun,
And leave a man undone, to his fate!
Burns

<img src =http://www.unicef.ca/eng/unicef/lessons/peace/images/peace.gif>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:02 AM
RAF74Buzzsaw_XO wrote:
- Could a .50 calibre bullet penetrate the louvers
- over the engine compartment? Doubtful. The Tiger
- was designed to withstand attacks from both enemy
- Tanks, as well as enemy infantry, including infantry
- armed with Machine guns which were situated in
- buildings higher than the tank.
-

Several things to consider:

The US .50 cal was originally considered an "anti-tank machine gun." It had significantly more anti-armor capability than other machine guns typically encountered. In terms of penetration, it was nearly the equal of the Soviet anti-tank rifles which (with determined gunners) were still knocking out German tanks as late as 1943 at Kursk.

The louvers on the rear deck of a German tank are rather large. A .50 cal wouldn't have to penetrate anything to enter the engine compartment if fired at the proper angle. Yes, the Tiger was designed with infantry attacks in mind, but how many infantrymen had a .50 caliber machine gun?

The .50 cal bullet doesn't have to penetrate the louvers intact to do damage. If it strikes the armored louver, fragments will glance off and enter the compartment. These fragments can penetrate hoses and damage other items.

And lastly, if there was nothing to fear, why did the Germans authorize the placement of additional armor over the rear decks of Panther tanks specifically to give them greater protection against aerial attack? (see Jentz, "Germany's Panther Tank")

S!




"When you're going through Hell, keep going." - Sir Winston

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:03 AM
great post actually read it all, unlike the nonsense goin on elsewhere.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:19 AM
Salute

The Germans installed the extra armour on the Panthers because of the threat of high velocity 23mm and 37mm used by the Soviet IL-2 and Yak9t. The penetrative abilities of these weapons was far greater than the .50 calibre on the P-47. These were true aerial tankbusting weapons. The British Hispano 20mm Mk II mounted on the Typhoon, although not as good as the Soviet weapons, also had much superior capabilities to the .50 calibre.

For a better understanding of these weapons, have a look at this site:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:29 AM
I read this from the popular book "P-47 Thunderbolt at War" by William Hess. He quotes Captain John W. Baer who flew a P-47:
"Those Tigers are the biggest and toughest babies on the road. They're more than 60 tons against 40 or so for our Shermans and their main armament is the famous 88mm gun, which is a murderer."
"So when we missed 'em with our bombs we felt as useful as bees buzzing around a boulder. You see it was a low ceiling and we could only get in a short dive and that wasn't good enough and our near-misses didn't knock them out. They started to shuttle fast, back and forth on the road. We flew around and watched them for a while and then I suggested over the radio that we strafed them. We'll bounce them up into their bellies."
McLachlan [the leader of the flight] related: "We didn't figure it was much use because Tigers and Panthers are lousy with armor. They've got two inches or more, with double that at weak points. But that was a hard-surfaced road and there didn't seem to be any harm trying, so I said okay."
"The four of us dived at the lead Tiger," said Baer, "in a line with the road and we walked our bullets along it toward the rear of the tank. That meant thirty-two machine guns hosing .50 caliber bullets at point-blank range. We reckoned the bullets hitting the road might ricochet underneath the tank, and those hitting it direct might penetrate the engine ventilator grill in the back or set fire to those extra gas tins it carries outside. Well, as we pulled up and banked around for a look, we could see that the Tiger was in trouble. Little red puffballs and white tracer streams were ****ing out of her on all sides. Meanwhile, the other tank was crabbing desperately away, but we went down and worked her over and then watched her split apart like a package of Chinese firecrackers."


I guess it's possible that these guys were mistaking some other German panzers for Tigers, but obviously the .5 inch bullet in great numbers could make some trouble for German tanks.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 05:44 AM
Salute

Well, now we have one account.

And what do we know?

We know that the pilot observed tanks on the road. Were they Tigers? Unless the pilot landed his P-47 beside them and walked up, I doubt he could tell. We know he didn't land.

We also know the Germans used other types of tanks in Normandy, in particular versus the American forces. These types of tanks included obsolete French models like the Somua 35 or Hotchkiss.

The pilot also says the "Tigers" were on a road close by American Infantry. Who is to say the Infantry were not shooting at them as well? All American infantry were issued with Bazookas, and most Combat Battallions had 57mm AT Guns. Not to mention supporting Tank Destroyers and Tanks. So the "Tigers" could have been hit by fire from any of these. Do we have independent confirmation from the Ground that these "Tigers" were destroyed by .50 calibres?

The Study I mentioned above, regarding the Mortain counterattack found zero evidence that German Tanks were destroyed by .50 calibre strafing.

Finally, even if we have an example of USAAF pilots attempting to bounce bullets off the road, has anyone actually considered exactly what a 'bounce' will do to a bullet?

Any .50 calibre round hitting a road surface hard enough to cause a bounce, would be deformed and would lose velocity in the course of the bounce. The likelyhood of the bullet fragmenting is great.

All in all, I stand by my contention. Which is:

The .50 calibre doesn't have the velocity and mass to penetrate Tank armour, especially when the rounds are being deformed by contact with stone or pavement road surfaces.

The possibility that the bullets did damage to the oil lines at the back, or other external equipement may be believable. However, most tanks were not built with vulnerable parts on the outer surface. They were built to withstand Battlefield conditions.

The fact the some P-47's pilots believed they did damage to German armoured vehicles with their strafing does not diminish my opinion, or the findings of an official American Airforce investigating commission.



Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 07/01/0304:52AM by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:08 AM
I'm not sure if someone has pointed this out yet, and i'm not sure if it would really make a difference either, but wouldn't the bullets have a higher velocity since they are being fired from a aircraft that is moving close to 400mph?

400mph would add 586fps of velocity to that bullet, maybe that would make a difference? I have no idea what the muzzle velocity of a .50cal fired from an M2 is though...

Just an idea.


248th_Vgamer
C/O IL-2 Sturmovik Division
248th VFS
http://www.248th.com

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:16 AM
i have a monography about p47 and they do say that concentrated fire from 8x.50 at engine compartment could destroy even heavy tank /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:34 AM
I dont see how a bullet can penetrate armour.

So what if its going fast and its heavier than a rifle bullet? There is at least 5 CM of armour EVERYWHERE on a tank, isnt there? Fine, it may hit an engine compartment and damage something, but I'm pretty sure tank designers arent stupid and would try to minimize that effect.

If a few dozen tanks happened to be put out of running order by a P47, be it, but its not an anti-tank plane like Il2.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:56 AM
this needs to be moved to the P47 vs tiger thread....sheesh

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 06:59 AM
I would say that the numerous documented instances of tigers on the eastern front remaining combat effective after taking 50+ hits from shells ranging from 45 - 76mm just goes to show that, instead of going to 85mm for the later versions of t-34, they should instead have gone to .50cal.

Next time I play Combat Mission, and my opponent takes tigers, remind me not to bother with anti-tank guns and to take HMGs instead.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 07:04 AM
yea better get some wings for your t34s then so they can shoot the one inch thick top armor...

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 07:24 AM
even the light american Tanks "Honey" were able tp destroy Tigers at Sicily, if they were able to fire at them from above. The top armor (an also the bottom one) even on Tigers could not withstand 37mm AT round.
The engine compartment is, moreover, not covered by a solid armored plate, but there are holes for cooling. The same system as Molotov cocktail works. The bullets can damage the engine passing through the vents. But yes, obviously not easy to achieve such kill in a plane flying 500kph /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

"The picture repeats itself when operations, which began with great intent and local successes, degenerated into senseless, wild hammering at fixed front-line positions once they encounter initial heavy losses and unforeseen situations. This incomprehensible phenomenon appears again and again. But, even in extremis, the Russian is never logical; he falls back on his natural instinct, and the nature of the Russian is to use mass, steamroller tactics, and adherence to given objectives without regard to changing situations."

German 9th Army report after repulsing the Soviet offensive "Mars" in Rzhev bulge, December 1942.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:05 AM
http://www.nwf.org/keepthewildalive/images/photos/tiger.jpg

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:09 AM
I liked the other thread better...more arguing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Let's see if this makes 17+ pages /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:12 AM
Meow!

I do love those tigers!

--
Sl inte,
:FI:Kitty

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/amatullah/fis01.jpg
Fightin' Irish Squad (http://www.fighting-irish.org/)

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:25 AM
Dylan_D wrote:
- Let's see if this makes 17+ pages /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Might get a chance to use this then...

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/suicidepistol.jpg

<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~lenazavaroni/images/tva_01a.jpg

<font size="+4">What a fox!</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:39 AM
Salute

At risk of repeating myself:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

If .50 cals worked so well, then why did designers who were creating tank killing aircraft bother to install the heavy calibre weapons on their aircraft.

And regards the Honey tank: The 37mm used on Stuart or Honey fired a high velocity armour piercing round, and yes that would penetrate the top armour on a Tiger. In fact, it would have a good chance of penetrating the rear armour at close enough range. However just because a 37mm would, doesn't mean a .50 calibre would.

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 08:51 AM
It´s true there were some antitank rifles which where 12'7mm, but there is a big difference between them and P-47 Machineguns, AT rifles weren´t automatic weapons, they used a rigid lock (like the pretty old Mauser 98), so had much more power than a similar calibered machine gun.

My vote for pilot´s imagination here ("I think I destroyed a Panzer II of the Panzer Lehr Division, Joe" "C´mon, Mike, if it had a turret and a svastika, it was a Tiger for sure!")

Greetings from Spain

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:15 AM
I've never tested this theory, but I don't think Jolly Ranchers candy would hold up well if fired upon by .50 machine gun fire.


The reason I like Jolly Ranchers candy is because they taste so good. When I fly FB, I always keep a bag of Jolly Ranchers next to my stick.

You should too.



<font face="Courier New">
&nbspBaldieJr
_____ | _____
_\__(o)__/_
./ \.
Whiners don't play vulchers
(er, winners)
</font>

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:29 AM
zzzzzzzzzzz.....

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:30 AM
Lee Harvey Oswald used a single .50 cal, which explains a lot of things now !

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

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:36 AM
sorry for this dumb question: if a tiger does not move while a Jug is vertically diving on it at 600km/h, then open fire within 500 metres, pull out, would the tiger be hurt inside?

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:44 AM
yanqivic wrote:
- sorry for this dumb question: if a tiger does not
- move while a Jug is vertically diving on it at
- 600km/h, then open fire within 500 metres, pull out,
- would the tiger be hurt inside?
-

Yes, the Tiger would probably feel hurt. But only for a short time, since it's relation with the Jug was so short. So in a week or so, the Tiger should be it's normal happy self. Time heals all wounds.

cheers/slush



http://dk.groups.yahoo.com/group/aktivitetsdage/files/Eurotrolls.gif

You can't handle the truth!
Col. Jessep

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 09:48 AM
Trent_H wrote:

- Several things to consider:
-
- The US .50 cal was originally considered an
- "anti-tank machine gun." It had significantly more
- anti-armor capability than other machine guns
- typically encountered. In terms of penetration, it
- was nearly the equal of the Soviet anti-tank rifles
- which (with determined gunners) were still knocking
- out German tanks as late as 1943 at Kursk.

This is utter rubbish. Soviets used 14.5 AT-rifles which have a kinetic energy from a different planet compared to .50 BMG. Also it should be noted that e.g. Finnish developed 20mm AT-rifles with again much higher energy and penetration, but the were quickly moved to other functions as they became obsolete. (figures for E[k] can be provided, but I have to calculate them first if you don't take my word for it)


- The louvers on the rear deck of a German tank are
- rather large. A .50 cal wouldn't have to penetrate
- anything to enter the engine compartment if fired at
- the proper angle. Yes, the Tiger was designed with
- infantry attacks in mind, but how many infantrymen
- had a .50 caliber machine gun?
- The .50 cal bullet doesn't have to penetrate the
- louvers intact to do damage. If it strikes the
- armored louver, fragments will glance off and enter
- the compartment. These fragments can penetrate
- hoses and damage other items.

About that in the "other thread".


- And lastly, if there was nothing to fear, why did
- the Germans authorize the placement of additional
- armor over the rear decks of Panther tanks
- specifically to give them greater protection against
- aerial attack? (see Jentz, "Germany's Panther
- Tank")

Does the book mention about such need on a Tiger?



-jippo

XyZspineZyX
07-01-2003, 10:25 AM
"yea better get some wings for your t34s then so they can shoot the one inch thick top armor... "

-

Provided they can hit anything.

50% of bombs dropped from fighter-bombers landed more than 130yards away from the initial target.

98% of rockets fired against armoured vehicles missed their target.

Strafing passes were always largely limited due to the inherent dangers. One reason the Ju87G series made a notorious tank killer was its stability issues in low-speed, low-alt passes - which helped improve accuracy in the aiming process when firing the powerful 37mm tungsten-core anti-tank cannons. And this, came at a price - increased vulnerability against AA fire and enemy interceptors.

I wouldn't bet P-47 pilots would be willing to attempt strafing passes 500ft above the ground at 200mph or 500mph. As much a lumbering behemoth it was, the P-47 is initially a fighter. It's too damn fast.

A strafing pass is literally a "pass" - the pilot begins firing in a pattern which the bullets land in a straight line - this "line" of bullets draws up to the target where it connects. The more they hold their pippers directly against a ground target, the higher the danger of crashes became.

Even if assuming a strafing pass where a pilot directly aims at the target and tries to land all his rounds at a "point" instead of a "line", a strafing pass where a pilot approaches at a target at 500meters alt, 45 degrees, 500km/h, travels at a speed of about 130m/s. He has 5 seconds till impact to the ground. Save the critical two seconds for pull out, and he'll have three seconds to aim.

Assuming a rounded out figure of 900rpm for the .50s to fire(due to the fact some people may wanna argue field mods tweaked the .50 rof over 1000rpm...), the P-47 would put 360 rounds in the given three seconds, and that's a frickin' big "IF", not withstanding convergence problems, and assuming 100% hit rate.

Assume a attack sequence beginning from 1000meters altitude, and still they've got about 10 seconds. Even if he opens up from 1km away from the target and magically all of his rounds connect, he still hits less than 1000 rounds on the roof.

...

How about a bit more realistic picture? Firing from convergence distances? At a 500km/h, 45 degrees pass the P-47 travels in a speed of about 130~140m/s. Given a convergence setting of 300meters(even this, is unlikely, but let's just say 300m assuming this was a P-47 tuned for ground attack duties), when he fires from the beginning of the convergence distance, how much time does this pilot have?

Even if he was a crackshot-showoff, being able to pull up within meters from the ground, his plane's belly just about grazing the pintle guns of the target tank.. he's got about two seconds of time to fire.


....

Now, lower the attack angle to under 30 degrees, and the plane has a lot longer time to aim and fire. However, putting aside the dangers of such low-angle attack passes against a ground target(guess why Gabreski became a POW..), all his rounds are gonna start hitting the sides of the vehicle, instead of this, so often "presumed" hit from the roof.


As it is, a deeper consideration of how things would really be totally blows away that vauge "image" and "wild assumptions" on some theoretical hit against a tank roof-top. Whoever's going against the rooftops of a tank, in an angle and speed enough to actually penetrate it, is not gonna live to tell about his achievments.













-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Tully__
07-01-2003, 10:31 AM
Thank you for your comments. I trust everyone to make up their own minds and suffer (or enjoy) the consequences /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<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


Message Edited on 07/01/0307:32PM by Tully__