PDA

View Full Version : Video: P-47 Strafes/Busts Tiger Tank with .50cals!



Plunkertx
10-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Yea, it garnared a heated discussion a while back, but here's proof that it actually did happen!

http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/movies

Zyzbot
10-06-2005, 08:14 PM
I guess I'll go get some popcorn for this one.

Waldo.Pepper
10-06-2005, 08:16 PM
HA HA HA HA HA

Whatever the smudge was, lets assume that it was indeed a large tank like a Tiger, Panther, Royal Tiger etc.. it is entirely possible to set it afire from a plane. THe engine deck is weak and full of flamable material.

So no big discovery here I'm afraid.

Thanks for the vid it was interesting.

Grey_Mouser67
10-06-2005, 08:30 PM
The thing that really caught my eye was the height that the gunsite was off of the console realative to the pilot's head....it gave me the impression that the view through the gunsight in a real P-47 is much better than in game and it is really good in game relative to other planes.

In the narration, he mentioned tanks carrying fuel behind them...HMG's with API's would be real good at starting fires no doubt...I do doubt that it would seriously hurt a tiger or any other heavily armored vehicle.

LEBillfish
10-06-2005, 08:40 PM
turn up your sound...The pilot states the Tigers would pull a fuel trailer, they'd shoot that to make the tank burn, if it came loose, they'd do the "bounce" thing up to the belly.

Plunkertx
10-06-2005, 08:41 PM
Hi folks,
It is indeed hard to tell whether it is a Tiger. I have captured two frames and color corrected AND sharpened it a bit...any ideas if it's a Tiger or not based on these pics?

http://www.ww2incolor.com/temp/tank-upclose.jpg

Taking a hit UNDER the tank:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/temp/tank-hit.jpg

RedDeth
10-06-2005, 09:06 PM
thats my old thread with 1000 replies. tiger tank vs 50 cal!!!

i told you homos that jugs took out tigers like frickin rice paper. tigers aint got nothin on a 500 mph diving behemoth..... NOTHIN

Enforcer572005
10-06-2005, 09:24 PM
Homos? Homos?? Whut homos???

Ill have you know i like chicks.....

anyway, why the blazes would i get a box that tells me the link to the tank pics is forbidden, and i dont have permission to access it? Man, i kinda wonder if this earthlink deal is a bit....defective.

I have a hard time with a Tiger having its vitals damaged on a regular basis by .50 cal....sometimes i guess, but that thing could take a high velocity 76mm from any angle.

maybe the bouncing rounds might get to it....but i dunno about tigers getting destroyed like that on a significant basis.

or even a Mk4 panzer.

FritzGryphon
10-06-2005, 09:27 PM
No comment on 'busting' Tiger tanks, but lots of other cools stuff in those videos. Thx for the link http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some things I liked:

Nice quality, can even see the smoke trails for tracer.

Sometimes see rounds colliding with each other and blowing up in midair.

One part looks like the pilot accidentally shot another P-47 (3:45 on Thunderbolt2.wmv video).

When the pilots manuever hard, you can see the nose sway up and down, left and right, like I do in PF.

I downloaded 2 videos (the two P47 ones), then the others were forbidden... weird. Maybe we killed the download quota? Wouldn't be the first time.


Taking a hit UNDER the tank:

Ok, maybe a comment. It looks like the round is hitting the tread or a road wheel in that part. To hit under the tank, you'd have to fire from behind or in front. Hence why you'd have to eliminate the trailer first.

If these mythical riccochet tank kills happened, it's probably not captured on that video.

Even then, a machine gun bullet bouncing off the ground would hit the bottom at a very low velocity, probably tumbling or fragmented, and at less than 45 degrees obliquity. You can also see most of the roads in that video are dirt. You can see swarms of rounds flying up in the air... after deflecting off the armor.

plumps_
10-06-2005, 09:28 PM
SPAM!


Plunkertx, did you hack the WW2incolor site to place that stupid caption there or is it actually your site? In that case at least your ad banners got a few clicks from this forum...

Do you always rely on the gullibility of your visitors? The burning vehicle that can be seen in the second scene is NOT the tank that's fired at in the first scene. In fact the tank doesn't show any effect from the firing. To say the "P-47 pilot knocked out a Tiger Tank" is nothing but a stupid lie. Throws a bad light on that site.

Plunkertx
10-06-2005, 10:22 PM
It is my site...and now my server admin has gotten pissed at me for crashing the video directory. It should be back up in a couple of minutes.

What the pilot said in the video is what I am saying here. He could be wrong (and he probably is), but this is a real video clip taken from recently discovered material (I think 2001) that aired on the History Channel around the same time.

Spam? What do you mean? Man, those banners are barely generating 1/4 of the total cost of what it takes to run a video directory...that is free of watermarks, waiting lines and non-streaming! These things are downloadable...try to show me another site that gives you this number of qualith combat footage stream-free at a decent compression quality. I am working on getting the videos back up, sorry.

Gibbage1
10-06-2005, 10:54 PM
Plunker. Nice web page! I look forward to seeing the video's. Question, do you use PHPnuke or similar? Or did you have someone do the web page for you? Im looking for someone who knows PHP to help me with my own web page.

Udidtoo
10-06-2005, 10:54 PM
I've never killed a Tiger with .50's but I've made a ***** purr.....with a stroke of my hand... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif Wait, that was Ted Nugent.

Move along now nothing to see here, we've all seen trainwrecks about to burst into flames so quit rubbernecking and on we go.

P.S. Almost forgot. Lots of nice footage bud but these always get ripped to shreads.

pourshot
10-06-2005, 11:13 PM
I can not download them?

Udidtoo
10-06-2005, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by pourshot:
I can not download them?

I looked at some of the others 1st and now nothings working for me either. I'll behave if you fix it.Please????

xTHRUDx
10-06-2005, 11:37 PM
their server crash? no links work for me

Daiichidoku
10-06-2005, 11:44 PM
richochets my a**!

any round with enuff velocity left to actually penetrate the undertank would bury itself in the asphalt/gravel/packed earth of the road first, thus not even bouncing up into undertank

any round that hit the asphalt/gravel/hard packed earth of the road at an angle oblique enuff to richochet off of that would ALSO hit the undertank at an angle oblique enuff to richochet yet again, off and AWAY from undertank...not to mention the loss of E from the inital impact with ground

50 cals have as about much chance of killing tiger tanks than do FIAT 50s, excepting fuel stored on tank, on trailer behind, in engine louvers possibly, or open crew hatches


i could say silliness too...like PAK 37s CAN kill T-34s...(if the PAK gets a shot off, right down along the T-34s gun barrel, JUST as the breech is opened for loading)...see? its true, PAK 37s can kill T-34s!

Gryphonne
10-07-2005, 01:14 AM
Time for the umpteenth kill the myth post... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The tank in question looks like an assault gun to me, judging by the picture. (Jagdpanther to be specific) but since I can't see the video, I can't say for sure.

The rear seems too sloped for a Tiger, there seems to be a rising superstructure halfway across the hull and the sides seem sloped.

Anyway, the hit taken, is a hit on the roadwheels. NEVER EVER are you going to hit the underside of a tank from that AoA. Besides, anyone who would seriously think that the picture shows a hit to the underside needs glasses in the first place.

One further comment, anyone with decent knowledge of physics/ballistics will know that belly penetration by "bouncing the rounds", of a tank with a decent amount of armour, is not going to happen, EVER.

AoA too low? round might bounce off the ground, incoming round angle far too low to do anything meaninful (considering it's a clean bounce and they round didn't fragment or tumble). AoA too high? either the round or the incoming plane will bury itself.

Oh, and I have never seen a picture of a Tiger tank with a fuel trailer.

The top armour (and some want to believe it didn't mean squat) was made of 25-40mm RH nickel steel alloy. The grill was made of a curved pattern with sloped slits and a mesh for extra protection. The chance of a round entering through that, hitting something useful is quite small.

Gryph

@Daichidoku 37mm PaK 36 can actually kill an early T-34 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif The turret mantlet is curved, so hitting it @ 0degrees from not too far might actually penetrate it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Besides that, armour quality, tank model, range, lower hull blah blah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

FritzGryphon
10-07-2005, 01:24 AM
Oh, and the idea that the floor of the tank is unarmored is incorrect. Not only incorrect, nonsensical, as some of the greatest threats to tanks are mines.

http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerheavytank/tigerfigure3.jpg

Gryphonne
10-07-2005, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Oh, and the idea that the floor of the tank is unarmored is incorrect. Not only incorrect, nonsensical, as some of the greatest threats to tanks are mines.


Well said Fritz

FritzGryphon
10-07-2005, 01:52 AM
To be fair, the M2 AP rounds might theoretically penetrate the top of the tank under certain bizarre circumstances. (see http://www.survivalmonkey.com/50BMG_ammo_Primer.htm)


Given that the M2 barrel is longer than 45 inches, it might be theoretically possible to penetrate 1 inch of hardened armor. Though, I'm not sure what the Tiger is made of.

But only at a 90 degree angle, at less than 200m range, with AP ammo. If I'm not mistaken, late-war US planes used incendiary?

The bullet would drop through the roof and plop on the gunner's lap. That would not cause any damage, but the P-47 crashing on it would. The P-47 would bust the Tiger Tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

KIMURA
10-07-2005, 02:29 AM
hmmm. AFAIK 0.5€œ do barely manage to penetrate an inch of armor - theoretically. So far so good. It can penetrate an inch of steel under ideal enviroment and parameter, that's for sure and nobody is in doubt of that. But you don€t have such enviroment and parameters with a strafe attack.
Among these needed parameters is a penetration angle of 90? to the surface you want to penetrate.
The bader the angle the thicker the armor gains(the lesser is pentration ability. Strafe angle of 10-30?.)
The bader the angle gains the less power the round can use for penetration(referring 1a).
Short distance you don€t have on such a strafe run of maybe 100-200yards.
That bounce off thing. Rounds can penetrate armor under ideal parameters like straigth stable flight shape of round and others. What you think a round behaves after a bounce off from a concrete sureface??? It staggers and the shape of the round is far away from that shape you need to penetrate something like armor.

RAF23-Chainsaw
10-07-2005, 02:30 AM
still link forbidden, cant somebody please fix this or anyone who Dl it can send it to me? really want it...

/Chainsaw

nakamura_kenji
10-07-2005, 03:13 AM
always find 12.7mm v tiger discussion funny ^_^

i agree chance penetration very very unlikly especial bounce theory crazy ^-^

russian have 14.5mm machine gun that mount on btr-70/brdm-2 that design be use against light armour like apc m113/fv-432 where armour very light
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/kpvt.jpg

luftluuver
10-07-2005, 03:43 AM
If the .50 was that good of a tank killer, why have all those large calibre AT guns?

Abbuzze
10-07-2005, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:


any round with enuff velocity left to actually penetrate the undertank would bury itself in the asphalt/gravel/packed earth of the road first, thus not even bouncing up into undertank

any round that hit the asphalt/gravel/hard packed earth of the road at an angle oblique enuff to richochet off of that would ALSO hit the undertank at an angle oblique enuff to richochet yet again, off and AWAY from undertank...not to mention the loss of E from the inital impact with ground



Originally posted by luftluuver:
If the .50 was that good of a tank killer, why have all those large calibre AT guns?

Sssst, don´t talk about real physic or logic thinking!! This is not allowed in Tiger vs 0.50 threads! Things I learnd in this threads are: Ballgunner glass can withstand 20mm hits Tigers are killed by 0.50, so put ballgunnerturrets from shot down B17 to Tigers!
Beside even this would help cause this is a micoscopic view of the 0.50 warhead:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/droid/buzzdroid/img/movie_bg.jpg

nakamura_kenji
10-07-2005, 04:12 AM
what american ap 12.7mm like is russian steel core lead jacket with hardened steel core?

Gryphonne
10-07-2005, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
To be fair, the M2 AP rounds might theoretically penetrate the top of the tank under certain bizarre circumstances. (see http://www.survivalmonkey.com/50BMG_ammo_Primer.htm)


Given that the M2 barrel is longer than 45 inches, it might be theoretically possible to penetrate 1 inch of hardened armor. Though, I'm not sure what the Tiger is made of.

But only at a 90 degree angle, at less than 200m range, with AP ammo. If I'm not mistaken, late-war US planes used incendiary?

The bullet would drop through the roof and plop on the gunner's lap. That would not cause any damage, but the P-47 crashing on it would. The P-47 would bust the Tiger Tank http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tiger armour was made from RH nickel steel plating with an optimum Brinell hardness (not too soft or brittle). It was the best RHA in ww2. The quality control for Tigers was so strict that the level of quality was maintained even until the last batch of Tiger I tanks was produced. Naturally, all this stuff means that an armoured plate from a Tiger tank has an advantage over normal RHA.

What most people seem to forget too however, is that the 12.7mm is at a disadvantage when it comes to pure (and i'm explaining this for the 6th time or so) round diameter/armour thickness ratio. This means that a 12.7mm round will have an increasingly greater chance to shatter on thicker armour plating than its own diameter (12.7mm).

Plunkertx
10-07-2005, 05:55 AM
Guys, the links are back up and working, sorry for the delay.

nakamura_kenji
10-07-2005, 06:02 AM
see lot richocet but no real damage.

plumps_
10-07-2005, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Plunkertx:
It is my site...and now my server admin has gotten pissed at me for crashing the video directory. It should be back up in a couple of minutes.

What the pilot said in the video is what I am saying here. He could be wrong (and he probably is), but this is a real video clip taken from recently discovered material (I think 2001) that aired on the History Channel around the same time.

Spam? What do you mean? Man, those banners are barely generating 1/4 of the total cost of what it takes to run a video directory...that is free of watermarks, waiting lines and non-streaming! These things are downloadable...try to show me another site that gives you this number of qualith combat footage stream-free at a decent compression quality. I am working on getting the videos back up, sorry.
Are you serious? I simply can't believe that a person who has grown up with TV and cinema and is in the media business doesn't have the least knowledge of how film editing works and is prone to the most simple forms of media manipulation. By adding that capture to the film YOU are becoming a manipulator. Goebbels would have been proud of you...

To me this looks like a desperate attempt to get some attention.


What the pilot said in the video is what I am saying here.
What he says doesn't need to have the least connection to the scenes that we see. That's just some interview that got dubbed into some unrelated guncam scenes.

What do you hear in that video? A former pilot who incompetently tells a very subjective story from his fading memories. A myth, a tall story.

What do you REALLY see:

- 1st scene: A P-47 flies over a village. It looks like there's a cloud layer in the sky; you don't see any distinct shadows on the ground.

- 2nd scene: A guncam scene where an aircraft fires bullets in the approximate direction of two vehicles, one of which is an unidentified tank or assault gun, could be a Jagdpanther. At least one of the bullets hits the second tank, but the scene ends before we can see if there is any effect from the impact (probably not, because the bullet doesn't hit a critical part). The bullets go all over the place, so you can't say that the pilot is trying to "shoot the bullets underneath the tank so they bounce up". Also you don't see any fuel trailer pulled by the tanks. Once more, there is no connection between the guncam film and the commentary. Time/weather: The shadows are not very distinct, when I look at the white smoke in the foreground I get the impression that the sun isn't shining brightly.

- 3rd scene: Another guncam scene where an aircraft attacks an unidentified vehicle. You see another vehicle burning close to it. Weather: The black smoke from the burning vehicle casts a distinct and very long shadow! The sun is shining.

- 4th scene: This material is clearly from the same attack as the 3rd scene. Again the pilot is attacking from out of the sun that is rather low above the horizon (look at the shadows). It could be taken by the 3rd scene's pilot's wingman. On the left side you see the burning vehicle and the road turn that you see on the right side in the 3rd scene.

Note the change in color temperature between the 2nd and the 3rd scene due to the different weather conditions. There's a shade of yellow/red in the 3rd and 4th scene that you don't see in the 1st and 2nd scene. The second scene was clearly captured at a different occasion than the third one.

Abstract:
There's no relation between the commentary and the film scenes. There's no relation between the scenes where a tank is attacked and the scenes where a vehicle burns. There's no evidence that the tank is a Tiger. There's no evidence that the tank gets busted. All this movie proves is that P-47s were firing at vehicles. The caption "Rare look into how a P-47 pilot knocked out a Tiger Tank" is completely made up; it's manipulation, propaganda in the tradition of Goebbels.

Bearcat99
10-07-2005, 07:45 AM
cant see anything.. says Im not autherized..

plumps_
10-07-2005, 07:55 AM
Don't worry, it's nothing new; it's the same movie that was already discussed here a while ago. You probably already know it.

All that's new is Plunkertx's daring interpretation of the scenes.

LEBillfish
10-07-2005, 08:08 AM
Kill by ricochet, doubtful in that IF a .50 could bounce off the road it would be at the same or even less angle when hitting the bottom with even less energy so would most definitely "bounce off".......

HOWEVER!!!!.......some points you all continually fail to mention trying to either boost your wants or not wants.......

This doesn't mean it was also not a "Myth" in the USAAC.....Where pilots would try it possibly even tearing up a track (stops moving or turns crippled), muffler (smoke), or some other component (also possible they may have struck a Jerry can strapped outside engulfing the tank in flames making it look as though destroyed).......

On the other hand......If in a tank and under air attack, what do you do....You get out. Where?....The escape hatch in the floor (would assume a Tiger had one).

So if the crew tried to take cover it is possible "they were actually shot" under the tank.......Seeing it unmoved an hour later would make you think the tank was destroyed.

In kind, if you engulf a tiger in flames (Jerry can scenario above) the air intakes for both engine and men would suck in the heat. So it's possible the engine quit with a belch and even possible the men inside having their air fouled.

Kill it directly by the guns?...Doubtful. Kill/cripple/make it seem dead via indirect means?...Who's to say, I'd say it was a Myth worth trying.

Molotov Cocktails as crude as they are worked till recent times.....so a 5 gallon one might as well.

F19_Ob
10-07-2005, 08:36 AM
I cant watch them either. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Get this message:

You don't have permission to access /video/ohkag4m.avi on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.


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

Apache/1.3.33 Server at http://www.ww2incolor.com Port 80

plumps_
10-07-2005, 08:49 AM
The same movie was posted in January 2004 by a guy named "skunkertx". The file name was "p47strafe.mov". Maybe you still have it on your HD. Here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/793102251/r/739104961#739104961)'s his original posting from one of the many infamous "50 cal. vs. Tiger" threads, but the old link to the file is down.

"skunkertx", "plunkertx" -- I wonder if it's the same person. How many **unkers do they have in Texas?

Lucius_Esox
10-07-2005, 08:50 AM
If the .50 was that good of a tank killer, why have all those large calibre AT guns?

True, but I also see LEBillifishes point. One thing I am pretty sure of though is if the Germans Found that their MBT's like the Tiger and Panthers were Killed this easy, thay would find an easy work-around. As extra panels were strapped to the sides of tanks to defeat non kinetic killers (hollow charges, sets them off before the main armour) It wouldn't be to difficult to hang a chain "mail" front and back to take the "sting" out of a fifty or any other high calibre m/c gun rounds.

That they didn't do something like this would indicate to me that it was not a threat to them,,, so this is a load of old b0ll0x lol

Zyzbot
10-07-2005, 08:55 AM
P-47 pilot Robert V Brulle wrote the book "ANGELS ZERO". In his book, one thing he sought to discover was the actual effect of the 50 caliber strafing upon armored vehicles.

From that book:

"During the war we thought the penetration power of our armor piercing round was sufficiient to disable a tank by shooting off the tank tracks. To research this issue and keep the record factual, I contacted several armored vehicle historians and speialists. Their collective views on this issue are summarized below.

The 50 caliber armor piercing round fired from fast moving aircraft does indeed have a high momentum but the German tank armor was very hard and massive and the round only dinged the armor. The most vulnerable area (least armor thickness) is the rear deck engine compartment and the top of the turret. The tracks are extremely hard steel and 50 caliber rounds were shrugged off with little damage. A lucky hit was possible that might cause the tank to throw a track, but if they were on a hard surface they could just keep moving on the road wheels. The Germans in 1944-1945 had three main battle tanks in use. They were the Mark IV which was a medium tank comparable to the American M4 Shermantank, and two 50 plus-ton heavy tanks, the Mark V Panther and the Mark VI Tiger. The Panther and Tiger tanks completely dominated the M4 Sherman.

The Mark IV had a lightly armored rear deck that could be penetrated by our 50 caliber rounds and set the engine on fire, but the Panther and Tiger were mostly impervious to our strafing. In those tanks the tank crew would button up and hope that we wouldn't call in some aircraft that had bombs since that would finish them. There is a case on record where a Panther tank was strafed by P-47s for an extended time. The massive strafing shot off all the equipment parts carried outside of the tank, and entombed the crew by dinging the hatch lips, essentially welding the hatches closed. If we could catch the tanks while on the road march far from the front line they sometimes carried extra fuel and ammunition strapped to the outside. In those cases strafing could ignite the fuel or ammunition, possible destroying them. Although we couldn't be sure of damaging or destroying a heavy tank, our strafing was sure to affect the crew psychologically, having to stay cooped up and hear the constant rattle of our rounds hitting the tank and not knowing when a bomb or other heavy gun would finish them off. In summary, strafing a tank could do nothing or it could destroy them, depending on the circumstances."

TC_Stele
10-07-2005, 09:11 AM
I don't know it its modeled in IL2/PF.. I havnt checked as long as I've had this game, but does strafing german tanks (pziv on up) from the rear have that effect?

I remember Jane's WW2 Fighters simulated this, but the best chance of doing so was strafing from the tank's rear.

At the very least the tank should be disabled and not blown to bits with its turret blasting off.

p1ngu666
10-07-2005, 10:20 AM
nice post zyzbot, the tanks where often heavily camoflaged, with shrubs and other non organic stuff like nets?
possible sometimes that caught on fire, would produce alot of smoke

F19_Ob
10-07-2005, 12:05 PM
Still can't download.
Is the server down or is it because something on my computer?

Xiolablu3
10-07-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
If the .50 was that good of a tank killer, why have all those large calibre AT guns?

Lol spot on Luftluuver, I love reading this discussion but cant believe its still being discussed! Talk a about 'dead horse' and 'flogging'

EDIT: I cant download from the site either...
Who needs 105mm tank killer guns when a .50 cal bullet will do it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Vipez-
10-07-2005, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
richochets my a**!

any round with enuff velocity left to actually penetrate the undertank would bury itself in the asphalt/gravel/packed earth of the road first, thus not even bouncing up into undertank

any round that hit the asphalt/gravel/hard packed earth of the road at an angle oblique enuff to richochet off of that would ALSO hit the undertank at an angle oblique enuff to richochet yet again, off and AWAY from undertank...not to mention the loss of E from the inital impact with ground

50 cals have as about much chance of killing tiger tanks than do FIAT 50s, excepting fuel stored on tank, on trailer behind, in engine louvers possibly, or open crew hatches


i could say silliness too...like PAK 37s CAN kill T-34s...(if the PAK gets a shot off, right down along the T-34s gun barrel, JUST as the breech is opened for loading)...see? its true, PAK 37s can kill T-34s!

Pak36s did have fair chance in knocking out early T34s with Tungsten rounds, problem was there wasn't really much Tungsten-rounds available http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-07-2005, 07:13 PM
50 cals vs Tiger threds is as funny as 50 cals taking out a Destroyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And yes i know all about that story, even wached the movie....couldnt stop laughing at the way they depicted the event in the movie, 6 50 cals blazing from the wings and voila...a destroyer meets its doom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Plunkertx
10-11-2005, 12:57 PM
Folks,
The "Tiger Kill" video is now available. Also, I have uploaded several other combat footage in color. CHeck it all out at: http://www.ww2incolor.com

Scen
10-11-2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
50 cals vs Tiger threds is as funny as 50 cals taking out a Destroyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And yes i know all about that story, even wached the movie....couldnt stop laughing at the way they depicted the event in the movie, 6 50 cals blazing from the wings and voila...a destroyer meets its doom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It's actually 8 guns but you''re right... 50s aren't going to do much against a tiger. You might get some lucky hits and cause problems but you won't kill it. Rockets+Bombs on the other hand it would be a different story

Bearcat99
10-11-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
50 cals vs Tiger threds is as funny as 50 cals taking out a Destroyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

And yes i know all about that story, even wached the movie....couldnt stop laughing at the way they depicted the event in the movie, 6 50 cals blazing from the wings and voila...a destroyer meets its doom http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Regardless.... the official record says destroyer. It doesnt matter if it was a lucky shot that hit the right spot or not. Or if it was an Italian light cargo vessel or not, as some say. The boat sank and the 50s were the cause. That is a fact. As for the movie depiction...... it's a movie... an HBO movie at that... from the early 90s.... I am curious to see what Lucas does with the story. Finally, as I always say when this topic pops up every other month or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif.... taking a Tiger out of action is often good enough..... and 50s can and have done that. Even if you set the gas cans on fire.. or knock off the treads... if the Tiger cant do it's job... is is neutralized.. even if temporarily.

luftluuver
10-11-2005, 08:41 PM
Bearcat would you call a Flower class corvette a destroyer, for that was the size of the WW1 era Italian vessel? Only the Americans called it a destroyer, not the Italians. Makes for good propaganda.

Sure, a .50 is going to damage the 50lb pieces of steel that the track was made up of. Got proof that .50s disabled Tigers?

Marc-David
10-12-2005, 03:00 AM
Hi, I found the following part in an interview with a german tank commander, describing his memoirs of normandy:



Langanke: After the first couple of attacks, the radio sets on the back of my Panther caught fire. I quickly opened the back hatch of the turret, leaned out and pushed the ignited stuff off the vehicle. I burned one hand, but it wasn't too bad. What was real bad was that the planes had seen one tank left down there, seemingly still operable and with the crew in it. They now concentrated on us. It was finally a considerable number that dealt exclusively with us. The continuous rattle of the bullets on all sides of the turret drove you crazy. Then a big bang! In the turret roof there was a hole, where a discharger for smoke grenades should be installed. When that piece of equipment was not available, this opening was covered with a round plate fastened with four bolts. We had such a lid. The enormous number of bullet impacts had broken the bolts and flung the lid away. Daylight in the turret! The loader and myself had the same reaction. We grabbed our blankets, turned them together into a kind of cone and wedged them into the hole so it served as a backstop. Twice, the impact of so many projectiles threw our contraption down, but luckily we had it in again before more bullets rained down on us.


WWII: Can you describe the scene around your tank?


Langanke: Some 20 to 30 meters in front of us a group of paratroopers had been mowed down by the first air attack. Among those pilots must have been some extremely queer characters. Time and again they buzzed this group and fired into the dead bodies. They flew just above the treetops, so they must have seen all the details. Slowly the limbs were torn off, the intestines were spilled. It's one of the most terrible impressions I remember from the war. The gunner had a view out of the tank with his sighting telescope and its narrow field of vision. That, unfortunately, was pointed at this group of dead soldiers. In this tremendous stress we all had to suffer, the horrible sight tipped the scale, and he cracked up. Hollering and swearing, he wanted to get out. He was for a short while out of his mind. I drew my pistol and stuck the barrel in his neck, hollered back at him and told him to stop playing the crazy idiot. He immediately got back to normal. This man was one of the finest comrades we had, absolutely reliable, sturdy and imperturbable. But I am sure every man exposed long enough to really extreme pressure will have a weak moment.


Source: http://www.tarrif.net/wwii/interviews/fritz_langanke.htm

Doesn't look like his Tiger gut busted by ricochetting 0.50 cals. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Yours, MD

BaronUnderpants
10-12-2005, 03:24 AM
But the 50 cals did have a terrible effect on that blanket...poor blanket http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Btw. Think it is 6x0.50 cals on P-51 and 8x0.50 on P-47

I know 6 fast firing mg can have a devastating effect on various targets, my point is that if a strafing P-51 blows up a ammotruck parked 1 m from a tiger, making the Tiger flipp over from the enourmous blast...doesnt mean the 50 cals took out the Tiger.

Dogtail2
10-12-2005, 12:24 PM
Ive read a couple of books which say that American troops would call just about ANY enemy tank a 'Tiger'.
Same probably goes for pilots as well.

Viking-S
10-12-2005, 01:13 PM
bearcat99;
"when this topic pops up every other month or so .... taking a Tiger out of action is often good enough..... and 50s can and have done that."

Would you be so kind and share the source of your conviction with the rest of the community so that we can put this nonsense to an everlasting end.
As a moderator we expects you to live up to a higher standard of proof and truthfulness when you participate in the forum, as I am sure you realize.

joeap
10-12-2005, 01:21 PM
Did you guys read of the psychological effects of non-stop air attacks? Just above you Viking. Sure a medium or heavy tank couold "brush off" 50s I agree. What about the poor sods the paratroopers, tanks without infantry are pretty vulnerable., and seeing those guys killed and you wondering if the next attack will include some rockets or 500 piund bombs must not be nice.

Otherwise I agree about 50s as an anti-armour weapon...nope would rather pack some nice 37mm cannon.

GR142_Astro
10-12-2005, 02:19 PM
Ahh, we were about due for one of these. Yes, .50cals can and did take out all Mks of German armor and halftracks, including the Tiger I and II series.

As Bearcat states, but nobody can seem to accept, disabling a tank by hits to the fuel cells or radiators and you've got yourself a pillbox. Tigers were prone to engine fires and no crew in their right mind is going to stay long.

Both Panthers and Tigers were modified in the field and factory to offer some additional protection in the rear engine deck area. Tigers received planks of wood below the cooling grates and Panthers received steel armor that was suspended about 2 feet over their cooling grates. The fact is the Germans lost enough armor to strafing to make these type of expedients necessary. What is the ROF for a P47, something like 7200 rounds per minute. Land the stream across the engine deck and it's not too hard to see how radiators and fuel cells would not fare too well.

Until next time.......



http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/breda07.jpg

http://www.tankzone.co.uk/images/showroom/sherman/tiger_rear_500.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
10-12-2005, 03:02 PM
Come on Oleg - there's 'credible' evidence that .50s can take Tigers out if I ever saw it.

If 4.02 doesn't feature Tigers being destroyed by a burst of .50s, I'll be very disappointed.

Ta,
Norris

F19_Ob
10-12-2005, 03:06 PM
Hmm...I'm unable to download the flashfiles.
Is it supposed to be that way or? Kind of new to flash.

dugong
10-12-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
Homos? Homos?? Whut homos???

Ill have you know i like chicks.....

anyway, why the blazes would i get a box that tells me the link to the tank pics is forbidden, and i dont have permission to access it? Man, i kinda wonder if this earthlink deal is a bit....defective.

I have a hard time with a Tiger having its vitals damaged on a regular basis by .50 cal....sometimes i guess, but that thing could take a high velocity 76mm from any angle.

maybe the bouncing rounds might get to it....but i dunno about tigers getting destroyed like that on a significant basis.

or even a Mk4 panzer.

If you think about it the speed of the plane is added to the speed of the projectile. That is an incredible force. A small projectile, hitting a hard target, can cause immense damage. Especially when the entire force of the impact is focused on a miniscule area - the tip of the bullet. Unlike larger and softer projectiles, which spread much of the impact energy across the surface of armour.

So - I say it could be a regular event.

FritzGryphon
10-12-2005, 06:47 PM
For reference, 360km/h of airspeed will add 100 m/s to the bullet muzzle velocity. About 11% more than normal.

A 11% improvment would still rule out 1 inch penetration at a 45 degree angle. Even 22% (720km/h) wouldn't be enough.

Targeting armor gaps to damage or disable the vehicle would still be the only viable solution. Unless you want to fire thousands of rounds to sand away the turret top http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

zombiewolf92553
10-12-2005, 07:26 PM
what a crack up.. I see national lines here.,did you guys watch the vid. is he fibbing when he says the underside of the tigers were unarmoured.
was he fibbing when he said they bounced bullets underneath.
that late in the war I think metal was a little hard to come by.
have you ever shot a 50 cal I have.
they go boom.

If you think 8 50 cals would just be like spitting peas at a Tiger you are Kranken Koph

FritzGryphon
10-12-2005, 07:35 PM
is he fibbing when he says the underside of the tigers were unarmoured

Probably. Though I wouldn't call it fibbing, since the narrator is reading a script.


was he fibbing when he said they bounced bullets underneath.

Could happen, but not from the angles shown in the video. If they did bounce under, what would it accomplish?


have you ever shot a 50 cal I have.
they go boom.

Then that just proves that 50 cal guns are explosive. Thx for the info http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

dugong
10-12-2005, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
For reference, 360km/h of airspeed will add 100 m/s to the bullet muzzle velocity. About 11% more than normal.

A 11% improvment would still rule out 1 inch penetration at a 45 degree angle. Even 22% (720km/h) wouldn't be enough.

Targeting armor gaps to damage or disable the vehicle would still be the only viable solution. Unless you want to fire thousands of rounds to sand away the turret top http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Yeah - but I do believe the equation multiplies(oops - had to edit!) the velocity, which of course increases the impact by far more than those percentages.

FritzGryphon
10-12-2005, 08:42 PM
increases the impact by far more than those percentages.

Maybe you mean kinetic energy? It increases exponentially with speed. So 100m/s increase would increase KE by 22%.

But penetration is mostly linear, AFAIK. KE doesn't factor into it (it's more a function of momentum). Less than linear, in fact, because the projectile disintigrates as it penetrates.

I remember seeing a velocity/penetration chart for M2; I'll see if I can find it.

FritzGryphon
10-12-2005, 09:19 PM
No chart, so I made one using the values from previously posted website.

At a loss for bullet velocity info, I just used the numbers I got from the PF M2. They seem logical.

VERY rough, but you see, the penetration drops at about the same rate as the speed does; a mostly linear relation. Bullet momentum a better indicator than kinetic energy.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/pene.jpg

Edit: Whups, I mislabeled the armor type http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Red is homo, blue is face hardened.

DarkStar68
10-12-2005, 09:40 PM
I swear that I saw an interview with a P47 pilot on the History Channel saying that after thier bombs were on target they were free to strafe any targets of opportunity, and would bust "tanks" using 50's on the thin armor underneath. Also I remember him saying that they would only go after the tanks on paved roads.

I'm not nuts - Did anyone else see this? Anyway - maybe it was all just "pilot talk".

FritzGryphon
10-12-2005, 09:42 PM
Post flood continues...

To all who say you can't kill Tiger with 50cal in PF... you're wrong.

90 degree angle, 950km/h, point blanc.

http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank.jpg http://members.shaw.ca/evilgryphon3/tigertank2.jpg


I'm not nuts - Did anyone else see this? Anyway - maybe it was all just "pilot talk".

I'm sure they actually believed it was working, and might have worked against lighter tanks. After all, how would your average fighter pilot know what model of tank he's hitting?

But I wonder, why not just attack the roof? The armor is just as thin, and you don't have to waste bullet energy on skipping. It's an overly-complicated way of killing a light tank, when direct hits will do nicely. Maybe they didn't have access to specs for German tanks at the time?

VW-IceFire
10-12-2005, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by DarkStar68:
I swear that I saw an interview with a P47 pilot on the History Channel saying that after thier bombs were on target they were free to strafe any targets of opportunity, and would bust "tanks" using 50's on the thin armor underneath. Also I remember him saying that they would only go after the tanks on paved roads.

I'm not nuts - Did anyone else see this? Anyway - maybe it was all just "pilot talk".
Yes but were they *actually* busting tanks.

Lets use another example. Rocket firing Typhoons. By far the most feared sight by German troops. The reality is that rocket firing Typhoons, with those big 60lb rockets firing in salvoes of 8 rockets into a armored collum produced an astoundingly low number of tanks "busted". They proved to be devastating to the roads, unarmored vehicles, lightly armored vehicles, troops, and most other targets...but evaluation of after action results showed a low number of tanks were actually destroyed by rocket firing Typhoons.

Now...the rocket that the British used for said operations is a massive thing compared to a hail of .50cal bullets. So if the overclaiming is being done by rocket firing Typhoons, which I might add has the chance of taking out a tank, then its equally or even more possible that the claims of tanks killed by P-47 pilots were overclaimed in much the same way.

A barrage of 8 .50cals firing all sorts of lead at a tank is going to no doubt produce a hailstorm of lead. There will be sparks and richochets and the road is going to get chewed up and dirt and dust is going to get kicked into the air...and it no doubt looked like a tank just got whacked. But nobody is sticking around waiting for the dust to clear and the Germans to start firing back.

The fog of war shrouds quite a few things.

My guess, based on available evidence of tank armor, first hand accounts, and after action reports, is that the Tiger tank busting thing is a myth that is perpetuated slightly by some patriotic zeal and the recolections of veterans who, with all due respect, were still going to be more worried about having a warm meal at the end of the day rather than confirming that they actually blew a tank up.

I say this every time and nobody listens to me...

luftluuver
10-12-2005, 10:53 PM
The belly of the Tiger was 1"(25mm) thick steel. Bullets richocheting off the macadam would be impacting steel that was at least 3"(75mm) equivelant thick.

RAF23-Chainsaw
10-13-2005, 12:49 AM
Well, here is my comments on it...

Sure, the rounds speed sure increases with the airplanes speed and get more speed to build up and richochet up into the armor... but has anyone of you ever been in the army??????

for you who have, you KNOW that when a bullet hit something firm, like earth, to not talk about paved roads, the bullet will lose its shaped form and start looking ugly, AND it starts wobling and can go anywhere, AND it looses enormous speed and energy so it wont make a differens... the .50cal cant go thrue 20mm hardened armour under that condition and, when the bullet richochets it comes up with a big angle, and as luftluuver points out the bullet wont be facing 20mm but 60-75mm armour suddenly... so no go on that... forget it, its pilots dreams and what they thought they saw...

Im here quoting from an evaluation made of allied firepower over Normandy. Mortain area.

"Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers.
But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have
destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112.(1) This actually
exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation.(2) In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation
and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons.(3)"

I have cheked up the total number of thanks that was supposed to be in the area at the time and they total 177tanks AND assault guns, but only 120 went into action because 116Pz div refused to assault and 1SS Pz Div was late for the assault, still the allied claimed to have knocked out 252 tanks... Ok, with that in mind, how can you belive a pilot saying he knocked out a tiger? and read the fact, only 46 tanks got lost from the germans under that operation...

Here is the summary from Mortain operation that an Allied group of "scientists" (or whatever they are supposed to be called, they had the responsibility to clerify what has knocked out all german wrecks on the scene of battle)

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/Magnusson/results.jpg

as you see, only 9 tanks AND SP guns was knocked out, with further 6 being unknown.. so lets give the unknown to the airforce so they will be pleased, that will give total of 15 tanks and SP guns knocked out by allied air force... of 252 claimed...

so I have a WERY hard time beling this would be a "regular event." as dugong claims and if the .50cal would be such a great anti tank weapon, why is there only 9 confirmed kills ?(and thats for all weapontypes the AF used together)

Alright, I had enough of this bull****, the myth is busted loooong time ago so stop saying it was possible.

IF anyone is intressted in this report I have feel free to pm me and I will figure out a way to send it to you, it is intressted reading, for it does confirms what some of you have been pointing out about psycologic part, refering to Fritz Bayerlin, the leader of the supperb 130th Pz div "Panzer Lehr" claimed that the most of hes division been whiped out by air power...

But anyway, give me a PM and I will send it to you, its in a Pdf format ofcourse.

Oh, btw I have a question for you, have anyone of you actually been able to confirm that its tigers they are strafing in the movie? all I could ID was on the 3rd clip, out on the right side is a SdKfz 250.. the first "tank" in the first clip looked close to a StuG or some typ of SP Guns, I havent been able to ID anything on that movie as Panzer ewen!!... so if you can ID them please say what you see for me!
Best regards Chainsaw

Genie-
10-13-2005, 01:53 AM
After watching this clip (and few more also that I have at home, where P47 is strafing various types of armoured VEICHLES (not a single tank))I still don't understand why this title (and clip) has

"P-47 Strafes/Busts Tiger Tank with .50cals!"

title.

Can maybe Plunkertx explaine?

blindpugh
10-13-2005, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by RedDeth:
thats my old thread with 1000 replies. tiger tank vs 50 cal!!!

i told you homos that jugs took out tigers like frickin rice paper. tigers aint got nothin on a 500 mph diving behemoth..... NOTHIN yup an it shows the fall of shot from the guns which isnt modelled in the game

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 04:03 AM
And again....


http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/breda07.jpg

http://www.tankzone.co.uk/images/showroom/sherman/tiger_rear_500.jpg [/QUOTE]

http://members.tripod.com/~dietmagic/PanEng7.jpg

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/jgjp_13.jpg

luftluuver
10-13-2005, 04:41 AM
Chainsaw, the report is on the web,
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html

Lucius_Esox
10-13-2005, 04:41 AM
Hmmm,, aren't Indycars faster than Formula 1 cars also..

Btw Astro for sure this could happen, but then if I dumped through the driver slit after a curry it would definately have the same results, i.e. incapacitate the vehicle for a while http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lengths people will go to say mine/we are better than you. Saddens me really because you could argue it's a form of "racism" or whatever "ism" you wanna conjur up..

Anyone want some of this Vindaloo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAF23-Chainsaw
10-13-2005, 04:52 AM
GR142_Astro
hum,GR142_Astro Im not sure what you are refering to, but I asume both...
1. the net on the access to the fans, yes that can be penetrated with ease for a .50cal... no doubt about that, still wont knock out a tiger that way, you gonna knock out the cooling fan and the cooler itself, but not gonna start a fire or kill the crew in anyway... the engine gonna burn out,thats all

2. That area have less armor yes, so a high angel P47 diving down and aiming for that area will hit and score and penetrate the armour there, im pretty sure they would manage that.

So you just pointed out some weak spots on a tank, theres more to find, however hits like that wont knock a tank out still. just makes it static (and yes, that is a way to make the crew abondon it)

WOLFMondo
10-13-2005, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Now...the rocket that the British used for said operations is a massive thing compared to a hail of .50cal bullets. So if the overclaiming is being done by rocket firing Typhoons, which I might add has the chance of taking out a tank, then its equally or even more possible that the claims of tanks killed by P-47 pilots were overclaimed in much the same way.

After reading official claims for tank kills vs actual records confirmed by 2nd TAF Typhoons I wouldn't say there was overclaiming. Most tanks (not APC's or other vehicals) where claimed as 'flamed' or 'damaged' until assessment on the ground could confirm the kills, very very few where claimed as kills by pilots after the action because it was acknowledged you couldn't really tell unless the tank actually blew apart.

But then no one ever disputes the Typhoons ability to destroy tanks or any other vehical.

nakamura_kenji
10-13-2005, 05:42 AM
where are fuel/ammo store tiger, as strike either these produce kill.

on russian tank t-44 onward fuel most store on fuel cell on left/right side of tank out main armour idea behind incase fuel expold it happen out side armour protect crew. also carry fuel additional two barrel mount on rear did tiger have this i think may have seen not sure? though if these hit only short range unless damage engine. If fuel store internal with in armour this design more protect offer protection against .50 and low poer at weapon. but if hit can cause fire/expolsion crew fighting compartment. do tiger diesel or petrol engine diesel far more reliable able take damage than petrol bit fuel less flamable also have been storie of t-55/t-62 in afghanistan return base run on only 5 or 6 clynder out of 12 0_0.

i mention ammo because this explode often kill crew especial on t-72 as ammo store under floor turret if hit explode up in gunner comander fighting compartment, sometime cause famous fly turret, one thing note that because turret fly off sometime it act safty valve saveing driver as turret blow off stop failure of armour bulkhead between him and magazine/turret not often but have happen. guess being 2nd gen tank design tiger have ammo store in turret most likly in racking in rear turret? i not mean in bustle like behind armour door like modern tank but in main fight compartment this ok arangement and have some adavantage over under floor setup but ammo strike will be fatal for anyone main crew compartment t-62 have aranagement and result have fance armour feild mod fit on turret rear in place where ambush likly, but turret bustle with ammo behind armour door best design this way most all modern tank go.

i just try figure out weak point and position weak point where penetration maybe possible, german ww2 tank not strong point other know different vesion.

english hurts head p_q

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
thats my old thread with 1000 replies. tiger tank vs 50 cal!!!

i told you homos that jugs took out tigers like frickin rice paper. tigers aint got nothin on a 500 mph diving behemoth..... NOTHIN

yup an it shows the fall of shot from the guns which isnt modelled in the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rice paper???....Tigers must have been cheap to manufacture.

U do know that the Tiger was the most heavily armoured tank in WWII exept for Phanter and King Tiger?

A Sherman could NOT take out a Tiger exept from dead 6 ( shell into the engine ) thats a given fact, and Sherman had what?...76 mm gun?

luftluuver
10-13-2005, 08:14 AM
Baron,

check out the armour thickness of the Panther here, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tfpantherg.htm

For the Tiger I, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tftiger1.htm

For the Tiger II, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tftiger2.htm

Now check out the armour thickness here for the IS-1, http://www.onwar.com/tanks/ussr/fis1.htm

RAF23-Chainsaw
10-13-2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
thats my old thread with 1000 replies. tiger tank vs 50 cal!!!

i told you homos that jugs took out tigers like frickin rice paper. tigers aint got nothin on a 500 mph diving behemoth..... NOTHIN

yup an it shows the fall of shot from the guns which isnt modelled in the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Rice paper???....Tigers must have been cheap to manufacture.

U do know that the Tiger was the most heavily armoured tank in WWII exept for Phanter and King Tiger?

A Sherman could NOT take out a Tiger exept from dead 6 ( shell into the engine ) thats a given fact, and Sherman had what?...76 mm gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the standard M4 Sherman had a 75mm gun but could penetrate the sides as well on close distance as well. then there was a version with had a 76mm gun wich had betther penetration then the 75 but still had to come fairly close to have a frontal kill, still possible thoe. then there was the british rebuild of sherman, known as firefly, who had a 17pdr gun wich could penetrate the front of the tiger easely.

But yes, the Sherman did have troubbel when facing a Tiger, calculations says 5 shermans to knock out one tiger...

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 09:18 AM
This topic always makes me laugh. 4 pages in and we have folks squeeking about racism and now we are off on the 5 shermans to get a tiger dance.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Of course I am pointing out the weak spots, THIS is how a .50 cal round "knocks out" heavy armor. No burst of HMG in he!! is going to penetrate the armor found on German tanks. But heck yeah they could set one on fire, because the fuel cells are right back there beneath the deck grates. And if you will look at my photos, you can easily see how rounds and fragments of rounds could find their way in.

Once a radiator is knocked out, rest assured the Tiger series would overheat in moments and grind to a halt pretty darn quick. After that, you think a smart crew is going to sit there inside while a Thunderbolt makes pass after pass?

Again, this topic brings out some funny folks.

ploughman
10-13-2005, 09:44 AM
A Sherman could NOT take out a Tiger exept from dead 6 ( shell into the engine ) thats a given fact, and Sherman had what?...76 mm gun?

A Sherman Firefly could. Admittedly it had a 76.2mm gun.

panther3485
10-13-2005, 09:56 AM
Hi guys,

Like some others here have already commented, it's difficult to credit just how often this debate comes up and then keeps going around in circles, apparently never to be properly resolved.

I have maintained an exceptionally strong interest in AFV's generally and tanks in particular, for several decades and have studied them with intensive dedication. Of special interest to me has been the performance of their weapons against other AFV's and the effectiveness (or otherwise) of their armour against ALL forms of attack.

This area alone (the strengths and weaknesses of tanks and their performance in every kind of battlefield situation) has been a 'pet' subject of many years study. I know tanks a hundred times better than I know planes. It is therefore frustrating to me, that I run the answers to this through my head every time it comes up.

I don't want to appear arrogant (because I'm not but I fear I'll be seen as such just for saying what needs to be said). I would genuinely like to be helpful but as I see the situation, there are two issues:

(a) Regardless of my good intentions, I have doubts that the true value of my knowledge and judgement would be recognized and accepted here. (Understandable perhaps; after all, you don't really know me.)

(b) It could be my imagination but a few of you guys seem to actually enjoy the fact that this keeps coming up again and again. One could almost suspect that these individuals either DONT WANT the question to be resolved or would in any case refuse to accept the resolution, no matter where it came from.

On the other hand, if I'm reading the situation incorrectly, please tell me. I have much to offer on this subject but I don't want to waste your time/effort or my own.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-13-2005, 10:06 AM
The strange part is that People always think that one bullet fired from a .50 gun can penetrate the same ammount of armor that the Shermans had so much difficulty with and make the tank explode at once. What they do not see is that 8 .50's, at convrgence point is spitting out alot of lead wich gradually decreases the strength of the armor.

And it is of course very possibly that allied pilots used to say Tiger to all German tanks. Even if it was entirely something else.

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-13-2005, 10:09 AM
And I don't believe in the myth that Machine gun bullets would bounce under the tank and penetrate the armor. Bullets would either shatter themselves on impact or burry in the road surface. And if they bounce, I don't think that they would have enough energy to penetrate either IF they bounced up against the armor.

Must 've been a hell of a noise, in such a tin can when you are being shot at by machine guns.

anarchy52
10-13-2005, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Platypus_1.JaVA:
What they do not see is that 8 .50's, at convrgence point is spitting out alot of lead wich gradually decreases the strength of the armor.

Some also fail to see that convergence point is not a point at all.

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 10:52 AM
A Sherman could NOT take out a Tiger exept from dead 6 ( shell into the engine ) thats a given fact,

False.

The sides were thin enough for a 75 or 76mm to penetrate. Many photos out there, check out Tigers in Combat I & II. And yes, the Sherman Firefly could inflict all kinds of pain on German heavy tanks. Thank goodness the Brits had a knack for tinkering with Yank equipment.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.afvnews.ca/-media/camouflage/shrvc1.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-13-2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
(b) It could be my imagination but a few of you guys seem to actually enjoy the fact that this keeps coming up again and again. One could almost suspect that these individuals either DONT WANT the question to be resolved or would in any case refuse to accept the resolution, no matter where it came from.


Although anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of firearms and some very basic physics would instantly realise that this discussion is absolutely bullocks, it does prevent a lot of peoples from complaining about flight models and whatnot. All in all a good thing I guess, though I can understand your frustration.

faustnik
10-13-2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:

The sides were thin enough for a 75 or 76mm to penetrate. Many photos out there, check out Tigers in Combat I & II. And yes, the Sherman Firefly could inflict all kinds of pain on German heavy tanks. Thank goodness the Brits had a knack for tinkering with Yank equipment.



The 75mm M3 would have to get within 100 meters to have a reasonable chance of penetrating the Tiger Ausf. E's side or rear armor. The Soviets had the same trouble with the 76mm F-34 in the T-34s. The 76mm M1A1 was capable of defeating even the frontal armor of the Tiger at short ranges and could penetrate side and rear armor at over 1000 meters. The 17 pounder could penetrate the Tigers frontal armor from over 1000 meters.

The problem for the Sherman was that the Tiger's 88 could light it up from very long range. To make matters worse, the KwK 36 had excellent optics and Tigers were given to experienced crews. All this meant that the Tiger was likely to achieve lethal hits from ranges well outside the effective range of Allied tanks.

ploughman
10-13-2005, 11:43 AM
Here's a good site for Tigers. LINK (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm)

Lots of data.

Lucius_Esox
10-13-2005, 01:51 PM
The Sherman comes in for a lot of criticism, not all of it founded. Montgomery was qouted as saying that for "armoured warfare" the Sherman was in fact better than comparable German armour. He was talking about the Ardennes offensive. The Sherman was fast, very fast in real terms, it also had long legs. He said that if the Germans had been using them in that offensive their chances of success would have been higher!!

The equation send in 5 Shermans against a Tiger and expect to lose four was very much influenced by the way German armour was used, i.e. defensively. Both the Panther and the Tiger's side and rear armour could be penetrated by the 75mm on the Sherman.

As someone else pointed out the 17pdr could defeat both tanks frontal armour at "effective" ranges. The 17pdr was virtually identical to the 88 in performance when using "kinetic" rounds but had the edge when using heat.

Basically it's an attacker v defender thing. Sherman crews had to fight a highly skilled opponent, who, in Normandy, were fighting in exceptionally good defensive terrain. If the roles had been reversed I doubt very much if the equation would have been five to one..

Just an afterthought. The manually rotated turret on the Tiger took 720 turns to do a complete 360 turn.

The German tanks for sure had their weakspots. I must say though that 50 cal fire wasn't one of em http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
10-13-2005, 02:13 PM
The manually rotated turret on the Tiger took 720 turns to do a complete 360 turn.

That would be why it was equipped with power traverse, then. In the Pz IV there was even a separate small engine to power the turret traverse when the main engine was off. This was only deleted in the Pz IVJ at the end of the war.

faustnik
10-13-2005, 02:36 PM
Basically it's an attacker v defender thing.

Standard German tactics were defense through local counter-attack.

If the Shermans had to fight German armor on open terrain like the Soviets were forced to, Casualties would have been much worse for the M4. The M4 was a good tank in 1942 but, it was very dated in the ETO by 1944. They should have equipped our crews with a more survivable tank by then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
[QUOTE]A Sherman could NOT take out a Tiger exept from dead 6 ( shell into the engine ) thats a given fact,

False.

The sides were thin enough for a 75 or 76mm to penetrate. Many photos out there, check out Tigers in Combat I & II. And yes, the Sherman Firefly could inflict all kinds of pain on German heavy tanks. Thank goodness the Brits had a knack for tinkering with Yank equipment.
_______________________________________________



Ok...but i said Sherman, not Sherman Firefly....big differance.

Historical fact: Amaricans refused to mount a brit gun on a amarican tank, they wanted us hardware. Was up to the Brithish to do so.

Very often shells just bounced of...if they wanted to be sure they needed to A. get real close or B. hit from behind. ( Sherman )

And as for the Sherman being "better" than german armour. sherman had the grusom nickname "Ronson" ( cause it light up first try every time ) Ronson beeing a cigarette lighter.

Most Sherman crews where painfully inexperianced and the Army commanders more or less sent lots of them intentionally to their deaths...."massive numbers" tactic.

Can we agree on that?

My piont is still: with that information we are still seriously debating if 6-8 50 cal. can take out a heavy tank ( Tiger ) from what.....300-600 meters ( 900-1800 feet )?

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 03:39 PM
BTW. Would be intresting to hear what Panther3485 has to say on the subject.

GR142_Astro
10-13-2005, 04:50 PM
Reread the post. I said 75 or 76mm, both of which were used in US M4s.

I don't know how this .50cal vs Tiger tank debate always ramps off into this Tiger Vs Sherman thing. Of course the Tiger I was the more lethal tank. But, they only made around 1,500 and compared to the numbers of T34s and M4s alone, that renders the Tiger completely insignificant in the overall picture.

Anyway, coming back to topic. Why is it so hard to understand that .50 cals are not going to penetrate the armor of heavy German tanks? Furthermore, why is it so hard to see and understand how a massive spray of .50cals from a Thunderbolt could find their way into the engine grates and cause a critical failure?

http://www.math.grin.edu/~leachale/banginghead.jpg

ImpStarDuece
10-13-2005, 04:52 PM
The 90mm gun should of been mounted on the Sherman back in 1943. The fitting of a 90mm in the M36 in 1943 showed it was possible, without expanding the turret ring. However, US army high command diverted about 90% of 90mm tube production to the AAA branch and the remaining 10% to the Tank Destroyer branch.

Western Allied tank doctrine was based around infantry support, not armour to armour combat. In the British army the anit-armour role was left to 'cruiser' tanks, with dedicated anti-armour loadouts. In 1943 though they realised the inflexiability of their approach and set about creating the Sherman Firefly, Comet and Challenger as all-purpose mediums.

In the US Army is was the task of Tank Destroyers, such as the M10 with the long barreled 3 inch M7 gun, the lightly armoured M18 Hellcat with the 76mm and the M36, with the 90mm. In terms of doctrine, the role of the Sherman wasn't to fight enemy armour, but to provided bases of fire support for infantry. Unfortunately, the real world got in the way of doctrine.

zombiewolf92553
10-13-2005, 07:26 PM
I a gree with Bearcat once a tank ain't moving anymore it is a pill box, a tank out of comission is as good as destroyed.
also I tend to think our GI's may have been calling all german tanks they saw as Tigers


Sorry but your god the Tiger tank had clay feet.

JG52_Manteo
10-14-2005, 04:03 AM
I didn't take the time to read all of the replies here but I don't know if anyone hit upon the fact that there are( at least today) different types of ammo used by the Browning M2 .50 Cal MG. And I know from experience using them on the ground in todays military that if they had Armor Piercing Incinerating rounds in those days, and I assume they did, 5 to each tracer if I recall with tracers flying farther than the rounds in between and acting mainly as guides for the heavier rounds between (and the gunner would need to relize this and compensate) would do a good job on armor especailly using 8 at a time and concentrated on one point. That would be very devistating and I wouldnt want to be the poor som***** in that tank thats for sure. I dont care if the Tiger was a 50 ton beast and thickly armored.
Those armor peircing incindiary rounds actually have explosives in them like small grenades and they can **** you up. Well thats my opinion anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ploughman
10-14-2005, 04:17 AM
Top of the Tiger's turret the very high quality armour is 24mm thick. Could armour piercing .50 rounds penetrate this?

It seems that a the penetration capabilities of a single .50 caliber M2 AP round fired from a 45-inch barrel against face hardened armour plate is 0.9 in (22.9 mm) at 200m range.

Close, but no cigar.

Must've been scarey though.

nakamura_kenji
10-14-2005, 04:26 AM
think ammo have move bit from ww2 plus gun you fire guess from stable postion not move huge amount unlike plane. remember see thing funny while go about iraqi insurgent sneak up on m1 abram with zsu-23-2 and fire into engine deck caus mobility kill.

now i wonder if 12.7mm could take this out ^_^

http://www.track-link.net/gallery/119

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JG52_Manteo
10-14-2005, 08:58 AM
Yea for sure, IF you could concentrate all eight of those guns steadily on one point and IF the convergance was right on the money it would do the trick. But its impossible from a ground-mounted .50 cal because of all the shaking around, I can imagine how impossible it would be from a diving plane like that. But maybe with enough lucky passes who knows, and the *** end of a tank could definatley be vulnerable to those bullets. I just know Ive seen machine gun rounds do some horrible stuff to metal.

panther3485
10-14-2005, 10:12 AM
Quote:
*"BTW. Would be intresting to hear what Panther3485 has to say on the subject."

Thanks for the encouragement, BaronUnderpants. I'll give it a go.

In common with the previous threads on this topic, we have digressed into a number of fascinating questions, including the performance of the Sherman tank (in its varying modifications) against the Tiger. These questions are all very much 'up my street' but for now at least, I'll resist the temptation and stick with the original question, i.e.; the feasibility of air attack using .50 cals against Tiger tanks.

At this point, I won't go into detail about how good a tank the Tiger was and why. Suffice for now to confirm that it was indeed a very formidable opponent on the battlefield, inspiring great fear, awe and respect in its enemies. But....

The Tiger did have a few significant disadvantages and, like all tanks to a greater of lesser degree, it had its vulnerabilities.

On this specific question, I must award the highest marks to GR142_Astro, who has correctly highlighted the most significant weakness in relation to MG attack from the air.

The Tiger's armour was of such a quality and range of thicknesses that even the thinnest panels (roof and belly) would be all but impervious to .50 cal under any realistic battlefield conditions. HOWEVER, the grille openings in the engine deck were the key weak point in this context.

Even the smaller calibre MG rounds (.303, .30 cal, 7.62mm, 7.92mm) had the potential to do some damage and occasionally did but .50 cal shot entering via these grilles was much more destructive.

Under these grilles were such vitals as the fuel tanks and cooling system. As the photos provided by GR142_Astro clearly show, each of the grilles on the deck of the Tiger had numerous openings. To allow adequate airflow, these openings were of generous size - easily large enough to put your hand into. Usually, the grilles were covered with a heavy gauge wire mesh, which helped keep out debris (though leaf litter, for example, was still a problem in forested areas) but this mesh offered very little impediment to the entry of MG rounds of any calibre.

While it is certainly reasonable to argue that Tiger crews under air attack had more to fear from bombs, rockets and cannon, they certainly could not afford to ignore the threat from strafing. Any air attack was taken very seriously.

Just three more things need to be mentioned for the moment:

Total number of Tiger I tanks produced - 1,354 from July 1942 until August 1944. This made the Tiger a relative rarity on the battlefield.

Identification - During the 1944/45 campaign in Western Europe, more than half of all sightings/encounters/kills reported as 'Tigers' by both ground troops and airmen alike were in fact other AFV types.

Other types - Most other German AFVs were less heavily armoured than the Tiger, some very much less and there were numerous types that had open superstructures with little or no overhead protection for the crew.

I have only touched on the subject briefly and I have deliberately refrained from bombarding you all with technical guff but I hope the post has been helpful. I can supply more detail on this (or any of the other matters raised here), together with sources, if requested.

Best regards to all,
panther3485

JG52_wunsch
10-14-2005, 01:27 PM
i saw shooting at a tank,nothing more?

JG52_Manteo
10-14-2005, 01:35 PM
You all can beat this subject to death endlessly, so I am going to hag it up. It is interesting enough though to cause me to re-watch Kelly's Heros. You know the scene where Oddball in his Sherman gets that Tiger caught in the alley way and hits it in the rear with a paint round, then finally he gets it with the right ammo. Good movie. Gotta see it. "Enough with the negative waves already"
Take care. <S> http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

ploughman
10-14-2005, 01:40 PM
"Oh, you know...eating cheese and drinking wine."

BaronUnderpants
10-14-2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Reread the post. I said 75 or 76mm, both of which were used in US M4s.

I don't know how this .50cal vs Tiger tank debate always ramps off into this Tiger Vs Sherman thing. Of course the Tiger I was the more lethal tank. But, they only made around 1,500 and compared to the numbers of T34s and M4s alone, that renders the Tiger completely insignificant in the overall picture.

Anyway, coming back to topic. Why is it so hard to understand that .50 cals are not going to penetrate the armor of heavy German tanks? Furthermore, why is it so hard to see and understand how a massive spray of .50cals from a Thunderbolt could find their way into the engine grates and cause a critical failure?

http://www.math.grin.edu/~leachale/banginghead.jpg

Wasnt my intention to turn it into Sherman vs Tiger, not at all.

Used the example of how ineffective ( Not all the time ) the Sherman 75 mm gun was against Tiger to make a point about the .50 cal.

Shermans 75-76 mm gun was a far cry from Fireflys 76 mm simply because Shermans gun had a very short barrel = low muzzle velocity

One of the best guns in the war was mounted on the Panther and that was a 75 mm but with a very long barrel = high muzzle velocity

Think the arguing goes on and on because it allways starts with a peice of "solid" proof stating that a P-51 or a Jug blew up a Tiger and it was all caught on video/ a fighter ace stated that he did so on a regular base when he in fact blew up grain carts.

As u say, if u spray 5000 rounds at a tiger, one might hit a engine part...it may even fly into the barrel setting of the shell in it, all sorts of strange things can and do happen in war.
But to go so far as to say ( as many do ) that the pilots had a proven and well working tactic against heavy tanks using .50 cal is just not belivble.

They maby THOUGHT they did but that doesnt make it so.

Aaron_GT
10-14-2005, 04:20 PM
especailly using 8 at a time and concentrated on one point.

That isn't something you would achieve in practice, though, as convergence isn't that tight, and you have a moving aircraft and a moving target, and only a brief moment at covergence.

Hoarmurath
10-14-2005, 04:46 PM
do someone have a photograph of a tiger wreck that have been taken out by cal 50?

GR142_Astro
10-14-2005, 04:54 PM
Done.

What else can I get for you?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-101-Normandy-Destroy.jpg

bolillo_loco
10-14-2005, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
richochets my a**!

any round with enuff velocity left to actually penetrate the undertank would bury itself in the asphalt/gravel/packed earth of the road first, thus not even bouncing up into undertank

any round that hit the asphalt/gravel/hard packed earth of the road at an angle oblique enuff to richochet off of that would ALSO hit the undertank at an angle oblique enuff to richochet yet again, off and AWAY from undertank...not to mention the loss of E from the inital impact with ground

50 cals have as about much chance of killing tiger tanks than do FIAT 50s, excepting fuel stored on tank, on trailer behind, in engine louvers possibly, or open crew hatches


i could say silliness too...like PAK 37s CAN kill T-34s...(if the PAK gets a shot off, right down along the T-34s gun barrel, JUST as the breech is opened for loading)...see? its true, PAK 37s can kill T-34s!

Stop quoting me you puck slapping canuck! I was first to point out that any round that would have enough energy to penetrate the tanks underbelly would have easily penetrated the ground and not bounced. Also the underside of of the tiger's armor was in fact thicker than what the AP round of the .50 cal could penetrate at a 90-degree angle. Rounds that have been destabilized (that is ricocheted) penetrate significantly less armor than the same type of round that hasn't been destabilized. This does not mean however that some Tiger tanks were not taken out by this method. It is a proven fact that the fresh air intake ducts of the tiger tank were on the underside of the tiger. The ducts did not have any "bullet traps" so stray rounds could enter the crew compartment via this intake duct. Tony Williams author of "Flying Guns of WWII" has speculated that this is how American airmen occasionally took out tiger tanks via strafing. Williams also points out that few tanks were knocked out by fighter-bombers.

BaronUnderpants
10-14-2005, 08:04 PM
It is a proven fact that the fresh air intake ducts of the tiger tank were on the underside of the tiger.


I belive u.
_____________________________________________


The ducts did not have any "bullet traps" so stray rounds could enter the crew compartment via this intake duct.

Is that the same "magic" bullit that killed JFK?
________________________________________________


Tony Williams author of "Flying Guns of WWII" has speculated that this is how American airmen occasionally took out tiger tanks via strafing. Williams also points out that few tanks were knocked out by fighter-bombers.


Speculated beeing the key word here.
_______________________________________________


And Astro......looks more like it has been abandoned, all the haches are open and it doesnt look that damaged to me, except for the bits and peices of the house that fallen ontop of the engine compartment.

VW-IceFire
10-14-2005, 09:20 PM
I do have to say that the videos there are of great quality. I checked out a few more.

This is my favorite: http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/movies/thunderbolt2

Shows lots of strafing of non-tank targets and shows all sorts of neat things about the P-47s and shooting at various targets.

Hoarmurath
10-14-2005, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Done.

What else can I get for you?



One that doesn't bear the mark of an anti tank projectile on the side armor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ausmondo
10-14-2005, 09:35 PM
It is a proven fact that the fresh air intake ducts of the tiger tank were on the underside of the tiger.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There are no escape hatches there either.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

RAF23-Chainsaw
10-15-2005, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Done.

What else can I get for you?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-101-Normandy-Destroy.jpg

Astro, who claims this to be a Tiger I knocked out by .50Cal??

Because this is one of the Tiger Is lost in the following battle in Villers Bocage after Wittmans successful lone attack... this tank belongs to 101st SS Schwere Panzer Abteilung and was lost in villers Bocage after fights with Fireflys and Cromwells and Anti tank guns from the infantry (22:e armoured Brigade and 4th County of Yeomanry)

panther3485
10-16-2005, 12:34 AM
Hi again, BaronUnderpants,

I'm going to help you here, because you at least seem genuine.

Quotes:

From bolillo_loco -
*"It is a proven fact that the fresh air intake ducts of the tiger tank were on the underside of the tiger."
Your reply -
*"I belive u."

[I hope your reply was 'tongue-in-cheek' (as I get the sense it may have been). But if your reply was sincere, please DON'T believe it!]

_______________________________________________


*"And Astro......looks more like it has been abandoned, all the haches are open and it doesnt look that damaged to me, except for the bits and peices of the house that fallen ontop of the engine compartment."

[This Tiger has burned out and is totally U/S. If the Germans had been able to recover it and not deemed it a write-off, the vehicle would have required transportation back to the factory for a comprehensive rebuild. (The fire appears to have gone no further than the engine compartment.) The two give-aways are -
(a) The blackened appearance of the rear end of the tank and
(b) More reliably, the collapse of the suspension at the rear end of the vehicle. In common with the Panther and King Tiger, the suspension was by transverse torsion bars that crossed the entire floor of the vehicle from side to side along its entire length (thus making floor escape hatches impossible). Photos of burned out Tigers/Panthers/King Tigers typically show the partial or complete collapse of suspension due to softening of the torsion bars in the intense heat.]

Best regards,
panther3485

Abbuzze
10-16-2005, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Done.

What else can I get for you?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Tiger1-101-Normandy-Destroy.jpg

Impressive! You also proved that 0.50 had a guided warhead flying around walls and roofs in a city! I´m deeply impressed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-16-2005, 11:07 AM
Thx Panther for the reply.

I can honstly say that i dont now exeptionally much about tanks.

But i do know that tanks dont have much of anything on the underside, exept the occasional escape hach.

What i didnt now was the tell tail sign of the fire, the suspension. The blackened parts of the rear should have given me a clue but i thought to my selfe " well, is battle torn, durty and had a bad cammo job" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

At least i got the abandoned part right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The bit i find a little od is the hach closest in the pic, i wonder how the gun barrel ended up above the hach AFTER the hach was opened??? Did the Commander/gunner turn the gun after the rest of the crew got out ( tryed to get one last shot of ) or did the turret do it by itselfe?? Gravity??

Hoarmurath
10-16-2005, 11:19 AM
Well baron, remember that the hatches were open when the tiger did catch fire, and that it must have been burning a bit after that. You could even add secondary explosions (fuel tanks, ammos?) that could have moved the turret. There are a lot of possibilities to explain it. It could even be that the tank wasn't destroyed here but put aside afterwards (not many signs of the burning on the ground?). Tanks have a bad habit of blocking passage when destroyed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GR142_Astro
10-16-2005, 01:17 PM
You guys are rapidly losing your sense of humor. Who knows what took it out. Like many tigers it probably became disabled by some rubble jammed in the intricate roadwheel system or any number of possibilities. I think this was an airstrike, as stated by another angle of this shot that also shows a PzIV, sitting nearby.

Just thought we would all enjoy a shot of one of the coolest looking combat vehicles in warfare history and a visual reminder about how an AFV can be "knocked out".

zombiewolf92553
10-16-2005, 04:29 PM
Well I am going to have to eat crow.
I really would like to believe 50 cals would tear up a tank.
I good friend of mine who carried a 50 cal bar thru most of viet nam says it just aint so.
It was made pefectly clear to me that those bullets hitting the dirt lost over half their power.
it may knock a tread off or something else but nor tear it up.just knock it out of commison for a while

faustnik
10-16-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I think this was an airstrike, as stated by another angle of this shot that also shows a PzIV, sitting nearby.

Which would illustrate the fact that while a .50 might not take out Tiger, but a 1000 pound bomb definately will. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif P-47s were a constant threat to all German vehicles.

Zyzbot
10-16-2005, 04:46 PM
Here is what appears to be another photo of that same tank.

http://panzers2.tripod.com/panzer47.jpg

panther3485
10-17-2005, 01:28 AM
Hello BaronUnderpants,

Quotes:
*"Thx Panther for the reply."
[No worries, mate - happy to be of help. I've learned a lot from some of you guys on this board about a number of things, so it's only reasonable that I 'give' as well as 'take'.]

*"I can honestly say that I don't know exeptionally much about tanks."
[The key word here is 'honestly' and again, mate, no worries. I am growing to like you because of your honesty and because you do not 'pump yourself up'. There are LOTS of subjects that I know three quarters of f@ck all about. As mentioned above, I've been helped in some of those subjects by members of this forum!]

*"But I do know that tanks don't have much of anything on the underside, except the occasional escape hatch."
[Generally true. There were normally a few small service openings in the belly, to enable vital maintenance (such as oil changes and the like), but these were covered when not in use. The covers were usually the same grade and thickness as the belly armour and were securely bolted back into position after servicing the vehicle.]

*"At least I got the abandoned part right."
[You most certainly did. The crew would have had little choice but to abandon this tank.]

*"The bit I find a little odd is the hatch closest in the pic, I wonder how the gun barrel ended up above the hach AFTER the hatch was opened??? Did the Commander/gunner turn the gun after the rest of the crew got out (tried to get one last shot off) or did the turret do it by itself?? Gravity??"
[Please see below, my response to Hoarmurath.]


Hello Hoarmurath,

Quotes:
*"Well baron, remember that the hatches were open when the Tiger did catch fire, and that it must have been burning a bit after that. You could even add secondary explosions (fuel tanks, ammo?) that could have moved the turret. There are a lot of possibilities to explain it."
[Well answered, Hoarmurath. There is also the turret traversing gear and a device that helps to balance the gun (which was barrel heavy) in elevation, either or both of which may have failed.]

*"It could even be that the tank wasn't destroyed here but put aside afterwards (not many signs of the burning on the ground?). Tanks have a bad habit of blocking passage when destroyed."
[Most likely, this particular 56 tons of Tiger is still sitting where it was knocked out. Other photos in this well known series of shots show a number of Tigers and PzKfpw IV's from this unit, in various positions along the road, all in a similar state and all sitting where they copped it. Recovery of a disabled Tiger was a considerable undertaking even for the Germans. For example, attempts to tow one Tiger with another Tiger would all too often result in TWO disabled tanks! Moving a dud Tiger was a VERY HEAVY job, requiring a specialized vehicle.]


Hello GR142_Astro,

Quotes:
*"You guys are rapidly losing your sense of humor."
[I plead 'Guilty', your honour! I can always be accused of taking this subject too seriously. In my defence, I would like the court to take into consideration that it is a pet subject, about which I am very passionate.]

*"Who knows what took it out. Like many tigers it probably became disabled by some rubble jammed in the intricate roadwheel system or any number of possibilities. I think this was an airstrike, as stated by another angle of this shot that also shows a PzIV, sitting nearby."

[All sources I have read seem to agree, that these tanks were taken out by heavy aerial bombardment. Judging by their condition, their positioning and the general state of chaos surrounding them, I'm inclined to believe that.]

*"Just thought we would all enjoy a shot of one of the coolest looking combat vehicles in warfare history and a visual reminder about how an AFV can be 'knocked out'."
[No argument there! - the Tiger is, beyond doubt, one of the greatest tanks of all time. And yes, tanks have been and still are highly vulnerable to air attack!]


Hello zombiewolf92553,

Quotes:
*"Well I am going to have to eat crow. I really would like to believe 50 cals would tear up a tank. A good friend of mine who carried a 50 cal bar thru most of Viet Nam says it just aint so."
[Sounds like your friend knows what he's talking about!]

*"It was made pefectly clear to me that those bullets hitting the dirt lost over half their power."
[True but in the case of the Tiger at least, irrelevant. Even if a .50 cal bullet managed to defy the laws of physics and retain its full power and then, by some freakish phenomenon, managed to strike the underbelly, it still would not achieve a penetration.]

*"It may knock a tread off or something else but not tear it up. Just knock it out of commission for a while."
[Some lighter tanks and other less heavily armoured tracked AFV's could concievably be damaged by .50 cal fire in such a way (your example was track damage). This would have been more difficult to achieve against most medium tanks and next to impossible against a heavy tank, particularly one with tracks like the Tiger.]


Hello faustnik,

Quote:
*"Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
I think this was an airstrike, as stated by another angle of this shot that also shows a PzIV, sitting nearby.
Which would illustrate the fact that while a .50 might not take out Tiger, but a 1000 pound bomb definitely will. P-47s were a constant threat to all German vehicles."
[As were a number of Allied fighters and fighter/bombers, especially if they had cannon armament or carried rockets and/or bombs in addition to the MG's.]


Best regards to all,
panther3485

zombiewolf92553
10-17-2005, 03:41 PM
Thanx panther3485

panther3485
10-19-2005, 09:49 AM
Hi guys!

I have carefully read through all of this thread again, including my own posts and I would like to make a small edit/correction to one of them, where I made this statement in relation to the Tiger tank:

Quote:
*"In common with the Panther and King Tiger, the suspension was by transverse torsion bars that crossed the entire floor of the vehicle from side to side along its entire length (thus making floor escape hatches impossible)."

Anyone reading this statement would naturally take it to mean both of the following -

(a) All three tank types had the same basic design of suspension (transverse torsion bar)

AND -

(b) All three tank types were unable to be fitted with any floor escape hatches

While (a) is completely correct, (b) is correct only for the Panther and Tiger. The King Tiger did have one small floor escape hatch (just enough for a man to wriggle through). This was positioned towards the front of the vehicle, on the right hand side, under the position occupied by the Radio Operator/Hull Machine Gunner.

It was possible in the King Tiger because the gaps between the torsion bars were JUST wide enough to allow it.

In my efforts to keep things reasonably simple, I neglected to mention this. In any case, the hatch was designed to open outwards and was intened for use only in an emergency, if escape via the overhead hatch was not possible or too dangerous. Under all other conditions it would be securely closed. Therefore, it makes no real difference to the subject under discussion, it's purely 'academic'.

So why did I bother to bring this up now the thread is pretty well finished? I guess it's pride; pride in the quality and accuracy of my information. I do my very best to ensure that what I post is correct and don't want to pass on anything that might be misleading. Also, I wouldn't want this to come back on me later if someone else discovered it!

Anyway, hope I have been of help to some of you guys, in clarifying this subject!

Best regards,
panther3485

zombiewolf92553
10-20-2005, 07:45 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

panther3485
10-21-2005, 12:00 AM
Thanx, zombiewolf92553!

Now, who wants to take odds on whether this whole thing will or will not come up again in a few weeks or months? (Especially after everyone has finished debating the pros and cons of the new patch and people start to get bored again?)

Once more,
Best regards to all,
panther3485

stubby
10-21-2005, 05:17 AM
it's just amazing to watch the can of wup *** that was unleashed upon the mighty 3rd Riech. Man, they really got hammered.

Plunkertx
11-16-2005, 11:01 PM
They just showed this on TV...why do they keep repeating it??? argh!

Flying_Nutcase
11-17-2005, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by plumps_:
SPAM!


Plunkertx, did you hack the WW2incolor site to place that stupid caption there or is it actually your site? In that case at least your ad banners got a few clicks from this forum...

Do you always rely on the gullibility of your visitors? The burning vehicle that can be seen in the second scene is NOT the tank that's fired at in the first scene. In fact the tank doesn't show any effect from the firing. To say the "P-47 pilot knocked out a Tiger Tank" is nothing but a stupid lie. Throws a bad light on that site.

plumps_, I know you for the way you've helped people with FMB probs if my memory serves me correctly.

So what's with the vitriol? The guy has a site with an amazing collection of vids and images. He's spent scores of unpaid hours on the site and yet you make him sound morally corrupt for looking for a little revenue to cover just a part of his $$$ costs.

Plunkertx: Nice work mate, you've got an awesome site.

Kwiatos
11-17-2005, 04:11 AM
Ok how to download these videos? they are great!

Hawgdog
11-17-2005, 06:53 AM
Fantastic video's.
Thanks for posting.

and, yes, 50's have taken out tigers, so remodel and wait for patch #5

Bearcat99
11-17-2005, 07:22 AM
Who let the dogs out.....

Jagdgeschwader2
11-17-2005, 07:43 AM
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image0001.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image0002.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image0003.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/image0004.jpg

http://home.earthlink.net/~jagdgeschwader26/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jagdgeschwader2s.jpg

panther3485
11-17-2005, 08:08 AM
Posted Thu October 20 2005 23:00
My Quote:

Thanx, zombiewolf92553!

Now, who wants to take odds on whether this whole thing will or will not come up again in a few weeks or months? (Especially after everyone has finished debating the pros and cons of the new patch and people start to get bored again?)


Hmmm.... less than a month...
(LOL)

Best regards to all,
panther3485

plumps_
11-23-2005, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by plumps_:
SPAM!


Plunkertx, did you hack the WW2incolor site to place that stupid caption there or is it actually your site? In that case at least your ad banners got a few clicks from this forum...

Do you always rely on the gullibility of your visitors? The burning vehicle that can be seen in the second scene is NOT the tank that's fired at in the first scene. In fact the tank doesn't show any effect from the firing. To say the "P-47 pilot knocked out a Tiger Tank" is nothing but a stupid lie. Throws a bad light on that site.

plumps_, I know you for the way you've helped people with FMB probs if my memory serves me correctly.

So what's with the vitriol? The guy has a site with an amazing collection of vids and images. He's spent scores of unpaid hours on the site and yet you make him sound morally corrupt for looking for a little revenue to cover just a part of his $$$ costs.

Plunkertx: Nice work mate, you've got an awesome site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've helped people with FMB problems and now I'm trying to help people not to fall for a deliberate lie.

It has been shown a few weeks ago that the caption "Rare look into how a P-47 pilot knocked out a Tiger Tank" does not describe what you see in the video. Even if Plunkertx didn't know this when he started this thread, he knows it by now. But his website still shows the misleading caption. This backs up my assumption that the caption and this thread have been deliberate trolling attempts right from the start. He's manipulating history in order to stir up some controversy, to get some attention. And this thread shows that he€s been very successful with it. To me this is a scandal. Could it be that some of you don€t mind because Plunkertx caters to the patriotic feelings of his audience?

The guy has an amazing collection of videos and pictures, and I don't understand why he damages his own work by resorting to dirty little promotion tricks like this one. By doing this he loses his credibility, and I can no more accept that site as a source that is to be taken seriously.

danjama
11-23-2005, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Posted Thu October 20 2005 23:00
My Quote:

Thanx, zombiewolf92553!

Now, who wants to take odds on whether this whole thing will or will not come up again in a few weeks or months? (Especially after everyone has finished debating the pros and cons of the new patch and people start to get bored again?)


Hmmm.... less than a month...
(LOL)

Best regards to all,
panther3485

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

plumps_
11-23-2005, 01:51 PM
Hm, we need a way to discuss this without bumping this stupid thread!

danjama
11-23-2005, 02:01 PM
private conversations work like a charm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jugent
11-23-2005, 04:37 PM
Nice gun-camera clips.

The only way a 0.5 Mg can set a tank on fire is if it hits one or more "jerry-cans" outside the tank, but it isnt the same as that the tank is destroyed.

Many times tanks where attacked by a/c dropping napalm on them.

The tanks where aflame and assumed to be destroyed.

By the assult by an armoured division after the air-attack, the attackers became aware that the tanks where not destroyed.

The napalm had set rubber, cloth, fabric , comoflaque-net on fire but the crew could rater easy put out the fire with fire-extinguishers.

The tigers fueltanks where locaded beside the engine on both sides. They could of course be torched but they where constructed to withstand fire for some time.
The enginecompartment was designed to withstand schrapnels from heavy artillery. Many of them got more kinetic energy than a 0.5 bullet.

If there where not so much fuel in the tanks the fuel-tanks could be set on fire without destroying the tank.
You can throw 5 l of fuel on the cars engine and set it on fire.
It will take some time for the car to be totally burned.
Its most plastic and insulationmateria that burns.

Its only in Hollywood the cars explode.
Wires host everyting that could be burning was destroyed but after a day or two, the tank could be back in the war again.
The total destruction of a tank was when the heavy ammo exploded.
Then where the tank destroyed beyond repair.
Sometimes could a broken track destroy a tank, if it was overun by the enemy, then it was a totall loss.

chris455
11-23-2005, 05:18 PM
This whole .50 caliber vs Tiger tank" thing is becoming the "Roswell incident" of this forum.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

danjama
11-23-2005, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by chris455:
This whole .50 caliber vs Tiger tank" thing is becoming the "Roswell incident" of this forum.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

quig22
11-24-2005, 04:17 PM
It is possible to destroy a tiger tank with a 50 cal . Here me out, I have studied countless tank battles on the eastern front, and as said by a commander of a tiger, he had one taken out by shrapnel. The upper engine compartment is very suseptible to damage. Plus the tiger tanks radiator is located on the top just under the fans on the rear deck. Good book to read " Tigers in the Mud".
But remember a lucky shot on a vision block or a lucky shot on a gun mantle will also take out a tiger and make it usuless for further operation until repaired.