PDA

View Full Version : P-47 Terror of the tanks



XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:04 PM
can jugs destroy panzer 4s with its 8 50s? yes or no what do you think?..... piece of cake with 3,000 rds i bet

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:04 PM
can jugs destroy panzer 4s with its 8 50s? yes or no what do you think?..... piece of cake with 3,000 rds i bet

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:14 PM
not again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 things we need in FB:
The 110 and the desert!!!
http://exn.ca/news/images/1999/04/23/19990423-Me110coloursideMAIN.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:17 PM
Bee-bee gun is bee-bee gun even if it has 10000 rounds!


Signed:

Gasoline for the fire! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:21 PM
who cares!!!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<center>
Fly at HL as <center>Aceman</center>
http://defence-data.com/storypic/spitfire.jpg

"Take off,is only the beginnigg
Bail out, is YOUR end."

Message Edited on 10/19/0303:22PM by Juego

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:37 PM
With 10000 rounds you will eventually hit the periscope, from time to time. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:38 PM
It surly destroys my nervs and abuses all what we learnd or not learnd in physics...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 10:47 PM
If the 12,7mm was so great, why did the US Navy put 20mm's in its fighters at the end of the war?

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:03 PM
Another shameless troll


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/troll_picking_nose_md_wht.gif


No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

Buzz_25th
10-19-2003, 11:03 PM
I don't know why CHDT. You tell us? Also tell us if they wern't good. Why did they use them for so many years?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:13 PM
In fact, I asked myself this question for a long time.

By the end of the war, the US Navy put 20mm's in variants of Hellcats and Corsairs, Bearcats, Tigercats, Helldivers and just after the war, in Skyraiders and in almost all of its early jet fighters.

During this time, the USAAF and later the USAF was continuing to use the old 12,7mm caliber. Arg, just imagine to shot down a Soviet Tu-4 with a F-94 armed with only six 12,7mm!

It's obvious, this caliber was quite enough to shot down aircrafts like Zero or 109, but to shot down a MiG-15 easily, I doubt it. I bet that many "killed" Mig-15's in Korea just came back to their base with many holes, but nevertheless still alive.

Cheers,

Buzz_25th
10-19-2003, 11:17 PM
Maybe we'll never know. I have read a lot that the pilots really liked the .50's.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:19 PM
Easily.....next question/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
S~
47|FC

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:20 PM
Ohhh, is that another Stracciatella ice cream poll, isn't it?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Yes, I like it.........../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:21 PM
FROM D DAY TO V-E DAY:
ARMORED VEHICLES/TANKS DESTORYED: 6000

Buzz_25th
10-19-2003, 11:25 PM
Yeah but how? It carried bombs and rockets too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th_Buzz
<center>
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto1/anderson3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:30 PM
Why is my gunsight off-centre?

*ducks*

<center>
Read the <a href=http://www.mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm>IL2 FAQ</a>
Got Nimrod? Try the unofficial <A HREF=http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4870c2bc08acb0f130e5e3396d08d595>OT forum</A>

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:32 PM
CHDT wrote:

It's obvious, this caliber was quite enough to shot
- down aircrafts like Zero or 109, but to shot down a
- MiG-15 easily, I doubt it. I bet that many "killed"
- Mig-15's in Korea just came back to their base with
- many holes, but nevertheless still alive.

From what I understand the .50 was good enough for migs becuase it was a flat shooter and any jet engine is a easy kill at least in those years.



No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-19-2003, 11:34 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- FROM D DAY TO V-E DAY:
- ARMORED VEHICLES/TANKS DESTORYED: 6000

That are 20 ARMORED VEHICLES/TANKS DESTORYED per day. Then let be 10% of these vehicle are tanks. That is excactly 2 per day fell victim to all weapons launched by the TAF units /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif







"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/



Message Edited on 10/19/0311:36PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:38 AM
mig pilots in korea were quoted that their 20 mil cannons had a maximum effective range of 300 feet. or 100 meters. they also said the six 50 cals on the sabre could hit their migs accurately at 1000 meters....3000 feet. those are quotes from the enemy. 50 cals did indeed bring down most of the migs shot down in air to air combat in korea. read up on it. itll raise eyebrows and make you wonder about the effectiveness of 50s in FB. definitely undermodelled. now as to the effectiveness against german armor....the 50 was originally designed as an anti tank round. it was able to penetrate most all german armor except for the most heavily armored HEAVY TANKS. and even then they could get lucky hits through the top grills covering exhaust and engine areas on those tanks.

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus! <img src ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_1065509047.jpg">

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:24 AM
Sure, you could kill a Panzer IV with 8 50 cals. But a 500lb bomb does the trick a lot faster.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:43 AM
If .50s can kill a tank so easy, why did the US Army mount large bore cannon on it's tanks? Why not...say, 16~18 .50s in a big turret?
Probably because a .50 BMG isnt anywhere near enough to destroy a tank, and I seriously doubt eight of 'em is either.
Wait a bit.....what if the Jug driver bounced 'em off the road into the tank's soft belly?...........

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 01:58 AM
Fly at on the deck, zoom in and aim for the vision slits.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 02:49 AM
Just out of curiosity, how much damage would it take to break a track?

I'm given to the understanding that whenever infantry are forced to face a tank, while only armed with light weapons, they are supposed to aim for the treads in an attempt to at least M-kill the tank.

While the German tanks ussually had tread skirts, they don't seem to be that thick, and treads are marvelously hittable from the air, especially when you are blazing away at the ground beneath them.

It is, perhapse, possible that some of those claimed Tiger kills were actually mobility kills? They don't seem to have a very well protected tread system.

Side note: The 0.50's we used in Korea had 50% greater rate of fire than the 0.50's we used in WWII.

The 20mm cannons were used on the F-86 Sabers by the end of that war, but they were having problems with the massive amounts of propellent gasses (the 20mm installation generated four times as much waste propellent gasses as did the 0.50 installation) causing engine flameouts durng hard manuvers.

Truth is often stranger than fiction.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 02:50 AM
BluedogKG200 wrote:
- If .50s can kill a tank so easy, why did the US Army
- mount large bore cannon on it's tanks? Why
- not...say, 16~18 .50s in a big turret?
- Probably because a .50 BMG isnt anywhere near enough
- to destroy a tank, and I seriously doubt eight of
- 'em is either.
- Wait a bit.....what if the Jug driver bounced 'em
- off the road into the tank's soft belly?...........

Ever notice the unprotected grates over the rear end of the tank? For keeping the engine cool?

How well do you think that engine can sustain 50 cal fire? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 02:57 AM
i saw a proggie about mig and sabre in korea, and the sabre had a radar gunsite, which helped acracy
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
oh and the mig would take alot of damage /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
cannons have low rpm which is bad for the combat too :\

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:00 AM
IL-2`s 23mm cannons were not enough for destroying tanks /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:09 AM
RedDeth wrote:
- mig pilots in korea were quoted that their 20 mil
- cannons ......

The MiG 15 had 2 23mm and 1 37mm cannon. No 20mm cannons.




http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:13 AM
BluedogKG200 wrote:
- If .50s can kill a tank so easy, why did the US Army
- mount large bore cannon on it's tanks? Why
- not...say, 16~18 .50s in a big turret?
- Probably because a .50 BMG isnt anywhere near enough
- to destroy a tank, and I seriously doubt eight of
- 'em is either.
- Wait a bit.....what if the Jug driver bounced 'em
- off the road into the tank's soft belly?...........
-
-


I'm sure they would have if tanks could fly and hit vulnerable top areas of an enemy tank at high angles and high speeds to get maximum penitration...but already thought of that didn't you. Now sit down and have a cookie. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:16 AM
As to the .50 in Korea. The American MG were considered an advantage. It gave superior range. What you have to keep in mind is that that WWII aircraft are different from Jet age AC because all the valuable components are in the rear of the Jet instead of the front.(so zero deflection @ an enemy's 6 was the best shot, not the worst) And since jet engines are really just controlled fireballs in the first place, it doesn't take too much to turn them into un-controlled fireballs.

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/buck1.gif <font size= 2>
"I don't think it's quite fair to condemn the whole program because of a single slip up"
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"> <font size= 1>Stick_Fiend Home<a/>
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/X45.htm"> <font size= 1>X45 Profiles<a/>
<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/FYLindex.htm"> <font size= 1>Fighting for Your Life<a/></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:16 AM
I know T-34's are immune to my four Mk-108's. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif You would think that occasionaly maybe I could stop one with that kind of firepower. I think Oleg's next sim (BoB) will have a much more detailed damage model for ground vehicles. Actually it is one of the things I am looking forward to most.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~fiveds/images/anthony1.jpg

jg51.com

Message Edited on 10/20/0302:17AM by Hunde_3.-JG.51

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:17 AM
If yur going tank hunting in a Jug...just take bombs and rockets....they make tanks go boom /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stephencohengallery.com/current_exhib/P-40.jpg



Steaks
375th FS

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:55 AM
- It's obvious, this caliber was quite enough to shot
- down aircrafts like Zero or 109, but to shot down a
- MiG-15 easily, I doubt it. I bet that many "killed"
- Mig-15's in Korea just came back to their base with
- many holes, but nevertheless still alive.


You've got to be joking me... 6 .50 cals would rip through an F-18 or Mig-15 the like, like a hot knife through butter... you may take into account that modern .50 cal sniper rifles are used for destroying/crippling tanks...

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 04:12 AM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- You've got to be joking me... 6 .50 cals would rip
- through an F-18 or Mig-15 the like, like a hot knife
- through butter... you may take into account that
- modern .50 cal sniper rifles are used for
- destroying/crippling tanks...

The matter is trying to hit a critical component, and thats reletively easy given that most modern AC are packed with components. The thing is though, the M2 is very ineffecient at high speed, which is why cannons were chosen over heavy machine guns.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg


Oh yeah, I'm a P-63 whiner too! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 04:27 AM
It was a fact that The 50 cals of the Sabre could score many hits and the Mig would not always go down, where as one hit from a Mig on a Sabre and he would usually go down.

The 20mm was a superior weapon to the 50 cals of the Sabre, I have heard some Sabre pilots complaining about their guns on film, compared to the Migs.

Of course it is harder to score a hit in the first place with a 20mm slower firing Cannon.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 05:02 AM
Be very careful when you use reports of armor kills.. The USAAF did their own study and found that killing tanks was extrremely difficult using bombs, let alone MG's. Rockets required a HIT to get a kill.. 500lb bombs required almost a hit.. Tanks by their very design absorb shock waves well, same for fragmentation.. They examined tanks that had been attacked and found that NONE had been rendered combat ineffective by strafing.. NONE.. Most listed as KILLS were actually not even damaged, and many had been previously abandoned for lack of fuel or service.but they were found to have NOT been further damaged by the attacks...but a brilliant show of API ammo hitting their hulls or igniting external or towed fuel made it appear from the air to be more effective than reality.

The Panzer Lehr was ordered to the Normandy Beach head on the 6th of June.. for 3 days the Allies threw 1300+ sorties of FB's and Medium bombers at them.. They were forced to move on roads, in daylight..and were POUNDED for it..

The end result..they lost 130 Mechanized vehicles and Trucks.. and 3 tanks.. yes 3! The Division had to eventually abandon almost all of its equipment because the people and gear needed to keep them in service (a BIG job on Germans armor) were gone or unable to move with them.

The USAAF found that attacking tanks was combat ineffective with strafing.. destroying their fuel, repair trucks, and logistcs support was FAR more effective.

I'll see if I can find a public link to the reports. if anyone has it, please post it.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:21 AM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:

-
- You've got to be joking me... 6 .50 cals would rip
- through an F-18 or Mig-15 the like, like a hot knife
- through butter... you may take into account that
- modern .50 cal sniper rifles are used for
- destroying/crippling tanks...
-


Not so easy. During his first Mig kill in Korea, Gabresky found out that his 6 MGs had hard time downing the jet. He and his mates were shooting at one Mig many times without visible success. The pilot was killed but the engine was far from being caught in the fire.

Modern 50 cal sniper rifles such as Barret are used against APCs and AIFVs, NOT against tanks.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:24 AM
Hunde_3.-JG.51 wrote:
- I know T-34's are immune to my four Mk-108's.
- You would think that
- occasionaly maybe I could stop one with that kind of
- firepower. I think Oleg's next sim (BoB) will have a
- much more detailed damage model for ground vehicles.
- Actually it is one of the things I am looking
- forward to most.

That's because the Mk 108 is not an anti-tank weapon. Try it with the Mk 103 instead.

The Mk 108 fires a thin-walled grenade type explosive shell - it bursts on contact with an aircraft to do massive structural damage. It has _no_ AP component, and it's low velocity means that even if it did, it would be ineffective.

The only ways to make a pure explosive round effective against a tank is either to make it very big (122mm artillery shell landing on the roof), in a HESH round (the round needs to be bigger than 30mm, the explosive squashes against the armour then explodes, the shock wave causes the inside of the armour to spall without having been penetrated), or a HEAT/Hollow charge round, where you use a conical liner to focus the explosion against the armour, which burns a hole through it.

The Mk 108 has none of these, and doesn't have enough explosive to make any of them effective anyway. The 103 on the other hand, has a shell about twice as long, fired at higher velocity, which is quite capable of penetrating a fair bit of armour.

Other good AP guns in the game are the 37mm on the Stuka G, the NS-37, the VYa 23mm (150m/s faster than the ShVAK with twice the shell weight) and the T9 on the P-39. The NS-45 is too inaccurate and seems to have less AP rounds than the 37.

No .50 cal is a good anti-tank gun, nor should it be. They work well against the APCs though, from sides or rear angles.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:41 AM
yes we are going to talk about M-2 .50 cal browning penetrating tank armor. hahaha.

well I found it interesting that some german tanks only had 5 to 10 mm of armor on the top and rear of the tank. an API .50 cal can pierce 25 mm of armor at 90 degrees at I think its 400 yards. now any type of deflection is going to reduce that figure for sure.

here is an interesting link that lists a lot of details about all second world war tanks.

http://onwar.com/tanks/index.htm

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 09:47 AM
once you look at some of the armor values on the tiger, panther, and any of the heavy tanks germany made, its simple to draw the conclusion that unless a lucky .50 or 20mm round found its way through the cooling louvers (and thats really lucky) it could not defeat the armor on these tanks. now on some of the light to medium tanks, well it may be possible with the light armor that they carried.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:00 AM
Aircraft .50 cals which were different from the ma deuc or M@ Browing .50 cal. They had shorter barrels, and interrupters (thats what I call them anyway) to reduce the rate of fire.
Pound for pound it was better than the 20mm except for armor piercing. It shot much faster, and in general wreaked havoc.

By the end of WWII bullet technology took a leap, and a high incendiary explosive .50 cal round was developed which made the .50 cal the 20mm's equal.

However German tanks had thick thick armor. So .50's didn't fare so well against them. The jug's carried bombs simple as that. A flight of jug's toting coming in on a line of tanks was bad for the tanks. Yet just one Jug straffing tanks would be just enough to get on the tanks nerves. Feasably it could knock out a track maybe, and even at the right angle penetrate some of the smaller German tanks. Generally though it was just a waste of ammo.

It didn't have the fire rate or the velocity of the infantry version. Which wasn't much better at penetrating tanks. However when you hit armor in the same place or about the same place over, and over it will go through.
I've seen pictures of German tanks that took fire from a M2 .50 cal.
It looked like some kind of steel clawed tiger had gouged the metal.

Just like Shermans vs Tigers. The Sherman guns sucked, but after the Tigers absorbed 2 or 3 hits in about the same spot one of those shells was going to go through.

Every take-off is optional, but every landing is mandatory!

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:09 AM
So I repeat my question, why did the Navy leave the 12,7 for the 20mm from the end of WWII?

Are they some docs about this fact?

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:17 AM
Hopperfly22 wrote:
- Aircraft .50 cals which were different from the ma
- deuc or M@ Browing .50 cal. They had shorter
- barrels, and interrupters (thats what I call them
- anyway) to reduce the rate of fire.
- Pound for pound it was better than the 20mm except
- for armor piercing. It shot much faster, and in
- general wreaked havoc.
-
- By the end of WWII bullet technology took a leap,
- and a high incendiary explosive .50 cal round was
- developed which made the .50 cal the 20mm's equal.
-
- However German tanks had thick thick armor. So
- .50's didn't fare so well against them. The jug's
- carried bombs simple as that. A flight of jug's
- toting coming in on a line of tanks was bad for the
- tanks. Yet just one Jug straffing tanks would be
- just enough to get on the tanks nerves. Feasably it
- could knock out a track maybe, and even at the right
- angle penetrate some of the smaller German tanks.
- Generally though it was just a waste of ammo.
-
- It didn't have the fire rate or the velocity of the
- infantry version. Which wasn't much better at
- penetrating tanks. However when you hit armor in
- the same place or about the same place over, and
- over it will go through.
- I've seen pictures of German tanks that took fire
- from a M2 .50 cal.
- It looked like some kind of steel clawed tiger had
- gouged the metal.
-
- Just like Shermans vs Tigers. The Sherman guns
- sucked, but after the Tigers absorbed 2 or 3 hits in
- about the same spot one of those shells was going to
- go through.
-
- Every take-off is optional, but every landing is
- mandatory!

I am not sure I understand what you mean about the M-2. are you saying that the aircraft version had lower muzzle velocity and a slower rate of fire than the infantry version? both versions had the same muzzle velocity and the aircraft version had a higher rate of fire. 500 rpm for infantry and 700-800 rpm for the aircraft version.

the M-2 is no where near as effective as the 20mmx110mm hispano. it has 3 times the destructive force and fires at atleast 90% the rate of the M-2

the only exploding M-2 round was the API. it carried only 2% high explosive per weight of projectile while the 20mmx110 hispano carried 6-8% by weight. thats a large increase when you condiser the 20mm projectile is atleast 3 times heavier than the .50

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:28 AM
There are many reasons for that, but a lot of in part simply had to do with mannerism. In case of the pilots, they were already used to planes armed with multiple heavy machine guns, and as for the bureaucracy, changing a established method takes time.

While the combatants of mainland Europe shifted towards the use of 20mm cannons as standard, the USAAF and the USN never really could see what they would do with 20mm cannons. I think it's safe to say that they held back from the inevitable change to more firepower as long as they could - the engagements of the "Mig Alley" in Korea, would be the last theater where multiple 12.7mm machine guns would prove combatworthy.

Another thing which did not help, was the USN's trial with the M2 20mm cannons - the American version of the Hispano - proved disappointing. Particularly, the cannon muzzles installed on the F4U-1C models of 1945, tended to freeze for some reason at high altitudes, making the guns prone to jam. This gave the opinion that the 20mms were miserable and unreliable, and the F4U-1C fighters needed the .50 armed F4U-1D planes as escorts of their own. Not to mention that the pilots hated trying to get used to shorter bursts of fire at closer ranges. Flying around with 800 rounds definately felt different from 1800 rounds or so.

I suspect the Navy and the Army, initially, also reluctantly, foresaw that sometime during the war, they'd have to start using 20mms like other countries. But the crucial need and moment never came, and the war was over before any serious decision in transition came through.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 10:49 AM
Australia built some Avon sabers but fitted them with 2 x 30mm cannon /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:16 AM
Those 30mm Adens were based on the German MK213 cannon.

To quote Tony Williams

"At only about 800 m/sec, the 30mm Aden has a lower muzzle velocity than the Hispano which might seem a retrograde step, but the British had been very impressed by the destructive effect of the low-velocity 30mm MK 108 used by the Luftwaffe to knock down Allied bombers, and felt that the sacrifice of muzzle velocity in favour of shell size was worth making"


The American M-39 was also developed from the German MK213 as was the French DEFA / GIAT and Swiss Oerlikon KCA.





http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:55 AM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- I don't know why CHDT. You tell us? Also tell us if
- they wern't good. Why did they use them for so many
- years?

It suspect inertia part of it. After all they
did think of replacing them with .60s (reengineered
MG151/15), which implies that there was some concern
that towards the end of the war the .50 wasn't doing
as well as it could. Ditto the ROF increases of the M3
version. Ditto also the navy feeling that 20mm was
better, and 20mm being used in the P38, A20G, P61, etc.

Also if you can keep the weaponry largely consistent,
especially if you are island hopping, then it simplifies
supply, even if it leads to some absurdities such
as 14 .50s on a plane, when a third of the number of
cannon would do the same job, and probably with a longer
firing time due to lower fixed installation weight of
the guns.

It's the same sort of question as to why the British
stuck with the .303 for so long despite the assessment
prior to WW2 that it wasn't sufficiently effective.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:58 AM
Buzz_25th wrote:
- Maybe we'll never know. I have read a lot that the
- pilots really liked the .50's.

Douglas Bader liked .303s. Proves very little.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:03 PM
RedDeth wrote:
- mig pilots in korea were quoted that their 20 mil
- cannons had a maximum effective range of 300 feet.
- or 100 meters. they also said the six 50 cals on the
- sabre could hit their migs accurately at 1000
- meters....3000 feet. those are quotes from the
- enemy. 50 cals did in

Go to Ogre's gunnery site. The chances of downing
anything at 3000 feet with any sort of 1950s
air-to-air fixed gun is next to zero.

- definitely
- undermodelled. now as to the effectiveness against
- german armor....the 50 was originally designed as an
- anti tank round.

In a period when tanks had very thin armour!
Notice that similar weapons like the Boys Anti Tank
rifle were not effective except at the outset of WW2,
and possibly not even then. The Boys Anti Tank rifle,
due to its long barrel, has a much higher muzzle kinetic
energy than the M2 machine gun.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:10 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- You've got to be joking me... 6 .50 cals would rip
- through an F-18 or Mig-15 the like, like a hot knife
- through butter... you may take into account that
- modern .50 cal sniper rifles are used for
- destroying/crippling tanks...

When firing at a stressed skin construction aircraft
of a plane designed for high speed (i.e. a relatively
thick skin) at an oblique angle (e.g. the typical
6 attack) it was found that rounds tended to bounce
off. If you look at Ogre's site you'll see that
at 1000 yard shot, with a 1 second burst you are
probably getting maybe 10 rounds on target. Half or
more of those might well bounce off. So basically
the question is - is a handful of .50 holes spread
fairly randomly over a plane enough to down it?
Experience in Korea was that it was possible to down
planes in these circumstances, but it was far from
the most effective way to do it.

There is a considerable difference, by the way,
between spreading .50 rounds from a machine gun
fairly randomly over a tank, and firing a single round,
at higher velocity, and placing it with precision.



-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:18 PM
Anyone who STATES that .50 cal is puny should STAY IN FRONT of a Browning M2 when it fires. THEN HE SHOULD TALK !

.50 cals were armament of planes which WON THE WAR ! PERIOD !!








AaronGT wrote:
-
- WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-- You've got to be joking me... 6 .50 cals would rip
-- through an F-18 or Mig-15 the like, like a hot knife
-- through butter... you may take into account that
-- modern .50 cal sniper rifles are used for
-- destroying/crippling tanks...
-
- When firing at a stressed skin construction aircraft
- of a plane designed for high speed (i.e. a
- relatively
- thick skin) at an oblique angle (e.g. the typical
- 6 attack) it was found that rounds tended to bounce
- off. If you look at Ogre's site you'll see that
- at 1000 yard shot, with a 1 second burst you are
- probably getting maybe 10 rounds on target. Half or
- more of those might well bounce off. So basically
- the question is - is a handful of .50 holes spread
- fairly randomly over a plane enough to down it?
- Experience in Korea was that it was possible to down
- planes in these circumstances, but it was far from
- the most effective way to do it.
-
- There is a considerable difference, by the way,
- between spreading .50 rounds from a machine gun
- fairly randomly over a tank, and firing a single
- round,
- at higher velocity, and placing it with precision.
-
-
-
--
--
--
--
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:22 PM
Xiolablu3 wrote:
- Of course it is harder to score a hit in the first
- place with a 20mm slower firing Cannon.

With the M2 20mm cannon versus the M2 HB (the WW2
comparasion) you have 600 plays 750 rpm. The chances
of scoring at least one hit are not hugely dependent
on the individual ROF. The ROF of the M2 cannon is
80% of the M2 HMG, which probably means 90% of the
same chance of hitting (assuming equal number of guns

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:31 PM
BAnderss wrote:
- Anyone who STATES that .50 cal is puny should STAY
- IN FRONT of a Browning M2 when it fires. THEN HE
- SHOULD TALK !

Oh don't be ridiculous. I have never said that
the .50 is puny. However, during WW2 it was not
an effective anti-tank weapon. The notes on
the experiences in Korea are the things that led
to the F86 being regunned with 20mm cannon, so
if I think the .50 is puny then in the 1950s
so did the USAF...

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 12:57 PM
BAnderss wrote:
- Anyone who STATES that .50 cal is puny should STAY
- IN FRONT of a Browning M2 when it fires. THEN HE
- SHOULD TALK !
If I can sit in a PzIV or a Tiger, I'd be happy to. No-one's saying it's puny, just saying it's not an anti-tank weapon. It was a perfectly good aircraft gun even through to 1945, but 25mm penetration at 90 degrees isn't sufficient for an anti-tank weapon even in 1939.


- .50 cals were armament of planes which WON THE WAR !
- PERIOD !!
Uh huh. Whatever. Caught patriotitis sometime did we? Have a Cup of tea, a Bex and a lie down mate. Then turn off caps-lock.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 02:15 PM
Jtasker,

I have read studies which gave more or less the same results as yours :
- In the Mortain perimeter, only a very low number of AFV were incapacitated through air attacks, (let alone destroyed), and 80% of them with 20 mm guns, and only 2 tanks were destroyed with rockets.
- In the Ardennes (Houfalize sector) : only 1 or 2 tank destroyed with bombs, over more the a hundred claimed by the allies.
The results might be more optimistic due to the number of tanks incapacitated or destroyed for unknown reasons.

On the other hand, in both cases, the number of destroyed, immobilized trucks (+ horse driven vehicles) is absolutely enormous ....

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 02:25 PM
BluedogKG200 wrote:
- If .50s can kill a tank so easy, why did the US Army
- mount large bore cannon on it's tanks? Why
- not...say, 16~18 .50s in a big turret?
- Probably because a .50 BMG isnt anywhere near enough
- to destroy a tank, and I seriously doubt eight of
- 'em is either.
- Wait a bit.....what if the Jug driver bounced 'em
- off the road into the tank's soft belly?...........


I guess you dont read very much.

one 50cal can go threw any med armor in WW2.

Do any of you realy know what a 50cal looks like or the amount of damage it can cause.

oh and when this Jug pilot that bouced his 50's of the road to kill a tank, It was a King Tiger Tank, Heavy armor. Proubly a very lucky shot.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:23 PM
I really don't know which posts are meant to be serious, but anyway, I had a couple of good laugh reading this thread. As always when reading those 0.50 threads.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 03:34 PM
Those sherman drivers, wasting their time with the usless 75mm! All they needed to do was use their M2 and fire it at the road under the Tigers! America would never have needed the 76mm sherman or the Pershing if they'd only known.

As for the Soviets, I don't know why they wasted their time with 152mm guns when they could have just used their 14.5mm PTRD to take out any Tiger tank, just bounce it off the road kids!

</sarcasm>

Anyone got some popcorn?

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 05:14 PM
Surly 8 0.50cal can destroy a tank you simply have to bounce with your Jug from the street and hit the tank...

with a 0.50 bullet, take some time, visit your physic teacher and enjoy his face while you asking him this...
sometimes it realy helps not to sleep in lessons....

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:40 PM
"Ever notice the unprotected grates over the rear end of the tank? For keeping the engine cool?"

Ever notice that on German tanks they are actually 3 inches thick cast armor, and to get a round through an open slot to the engine it has to be fired almost vertically? I bet you never noticed that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:50 PM
jtasker wrote:
- "Ever notice the unprotected grates over the rear
- end of the tank? For keeping the engine cool?"
-
- Ever notice that on German tanks they are actually 3
- inches thick cast armor, and to get a round through
- an open slot to the engine it has to be fired almost
- vertically? I bet you never noticed that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-

Not only that but the grates for the engine cooling air were on the top deck, NOT on the rear end.

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/plans/tiger1.gif


It should be noted that the engine was enclosed in an armoured box.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 06:53 PM
"Surly 8 0.50cal can destroy a tank you simply have to bounce with your Jug from the street and hit the tank..."

Nope.. wont happen.. looks great on TV, and it sounded like a good idea when the guys tried it, but it does not work. The Ammo they had simply would not let it happen.. API reacts to initial contact with a hard object..therefore API is useless to "bounce" Straight AP requires the penetrator core to be parallel to the path on impact to work at all..and solid core bullets TUMBLE on impact putting the penetrator off line therefore making it ineffective.. plus the impact angle is so shallow that even clean hits would not penetrate.

Same goes for the roofs of the tanks.. the impact angle is extremely shallow.. hence the rounds bounce off. Later war AT cannons that were designed for tank killing DID have the capability to penetrate the roofs if they could actually hit them..and I've seen Panthers with an additional plate of armor welded to the top of the turret for that purpose.

Most of the Tanks "Killed" by the air war were in factories http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The tanks left on the side of the road were usually abandoned for lack of fuel or a mechanical failure with no means to repair them in the field. The massive losses to the support and logistics vehicles is what doomed the tanks..plus the inability to maneuver in daylight without drawing fire frrom the air..no maneuver means envelopment.

In FB the ability to hit tanks is exaggerated because you can fire a rocket that hits the aim point 100% of the time..something that just wasn't within the real rockets capabilities in WWII.

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:19 PM
CHDT wrote:
- If the 12,7mm was so great, why did the US Navy put
- 20mm's in its fighters at the end of the war?
-
- Cheers,
-
-

USN nightfighters were generally equipped with cannon for greater punch per second of firing time, but the dayfighters stayed with the .50 cals. The confusion may come from the Navy's aircraft model designations for night fighters; F-4U-2 instead of the the F4U-1, or F6F-3N or -5N instead of the plain vanilla F6F-3 or -5. The F4U-1C had cannon, but they were relatively few, and had problems with reliability and with freezing at higher alts.

Post war types started going to cannon, but their performance at high altitude was still not too great, being subject to freezing and gun gas ingestion problems. That may be why the Navy versions of the Phantom II were solely missile armed.

To be honest, US cannon installations were pretty poor, until the Gatling guns installed in the F-104 and 105, a little late for WWII, but not for the Air Force flavored F-4E.

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" - LCOL Don Blakeslee, CO, 4th FG, March, 1944

XyZspineZyX
10-20-2003, 11:57 PM
The Bearcat was not a nightfighter and it was designed with four 20mm canons.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 01:16 AM
I think most people believe you have to blow a tank to pieces for it to qualify a kill. This is not so, there is many ways to take a tank out of combat without knocking the turret off the thing. Even if that mean bouncing .50s off the ground to hit the underbelly of the tank...which was down quite frequently.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:04 AM
im not saying that the 50.s thay used in ww2 would go through the armor of a tiger but i have seen a 50.bmg sniper rifle go through the side of a vietnam era tanks turrent. as far as ingame i think thay might be overmodeld on ground targets but undermoddeld aginst the aircraft...or mabie all the other guns are just overmodeld lol

"life moves preaty fast if you dont stop and look around once and a while you could miss it" {Ferris Bueller}

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:15 AM
I didn't believe a P-47 could penetrate tank armor either. But I recently I bought a series of VCR tapes called "Warbirds of WWII" (Timeless-Videos) and damned if there isn't footage in it showing a P-47 hosing down a large tank and setting it afire. The Pilot says he could never penetrate the armor, but sometimes they could get enough rounds through the grate and into the engine to set it alight.

Also, there are plenty of things ON a tank that can be damaged by heavy machinegun fire, especially that of a P-47 spraying 100 rounds per second. Gun tubes can be fractured, periscopes, hatch hinges, exhaust pipes, gear, machine guns, antennnas, etc can all be damaged. Not to mention the god-awful racket tank crews must have had to endure during a moment of strafing, even if they were not knocked out.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:03 AM
Do consider, the Bearcat started with a 4x 0.50 armament, and only went to 4x20mms a few years after the war ended.

Additionally, the Bearcat was a Fleet defense fighter; it was tasked only with knocking down anything that threatened the Fleet. That demands the maximum weight of fire, disreguarding firing time.

Primarily, the US went to the 20mm after WWII, because we finally produced a 20mm cannon that was better than the 20mm after WWII. Most of the Allied 20mm's were to heavy, and prone to jamming with long ammo belts (as in, 30 *feet* of ammo belt per gun). Considering how the USAAF prefered to have 40 seconds or more firing time for it's aircraft, that was a very serious problem. The 0.50 calibre was still very effective against fighters, and was relatively reliable with heavy ammo loads.

Considering how we already had a very large production capacity for 0.50 based weapons, it didn't make any snese to switch to a new round during the war.

I will also point out that the USAAF was the *first* airforce to switch to large calibre weapons. We were using the Browning 0.50 as our standard armament when all other airforces were still only using rifle calibre machine guns. We started the large calibre trend. When you also consider that it took until 1942 for any weapon, other than the Russian ShVaK, to equal outperform the M2, it makes even more sense for us to stay with it through most of the war.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:21 AM
Oh well, at least the topic has gone from the PzKw VI to the PzKw IV, I know one thing for sure:

The P-47's 8 .50 could rip the PzKw I and II apart/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

rgds

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:11 AM
Some facts about my hometown, Aachen near Dutch Belgian border, the first city to surrender in late 1944. In May 1945 about 1400 destroyed tanks and armored vehicles had to be salvaged in and around Aachen. About 120 of these vehicles were German, the rest were all American. The statistics don't tell us how many of the German vehicles were perforated by the 50 caliber weapons of the P47. The numbers are taken form the book "Battle between Maas and Rhein"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:13 AM
I'am with you on this skychimp I have similar video but I wonder if it was not a external fuel tank or perhaps a hatch was open? It's very hard to see on the tape exactly what happend.

No1RAAF_Pourshot
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CA-15%20Kangaroo.jpg

No1_RAAF

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 09:34 AM
I rather like the German Wirlbewind Anti aircraft Tanks, with their 4 20mm cannons.
Imagine the deadly trap you could set in Olegs new Sim titled Battle Field Commander due for release in 2004.

The German Commander could be dominating the Battle field with a single Jagd/Panther, in an ambush position over looking the Battle field.
Of course when the allied commander finds the Location of the Jagd/ panther of course he will send in a P47 Air strike, say a pair of P47s as an example.

However what about the twin Wirlbewind AA Tanks the German Commander has set on either flank of the Jagd/Panther ?

Sucked in he he !

S!

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:06 PM
just testing my sig

<CENTER>http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 02:35 PM
Artic_Wulf wrote:
- I rather like the German Wirlbewind Anti aircraft
- Tanks, with their 4 20mm cannons.
- Imagine the deadly trap you could set in Olegs new
- Sim titled Battle Field Commander due for release in
- 2004.
-
- The German Commander could be dominating the Battle
- field with a single Jagd/Panther, in an ambush
- position over looking the Battle field.
- Of course when the allied commander finds the
- Location of the Jagd/ panther of course he will send
- in a P47 Air strike, say a pair of P47s as an
- example.
-
- However what about the twin Wirlbewind AA Tanks the
- German Commander has set on either flank of the
- Jagd/Panther ?
-
-

First off, it is very improbable that the Wirbelwind would be used to provide AA cover for your Jagd/Panther. There was many more, more valuable targets that would have priority. There was not the numbers of Wirbelwinds produced (~140 in 1.5 years, only 40 Ostwind))either to allow for such a scenario.

In such a scenario as you describe, the Allies would have called in an artillery bombardment because it would do a better job than the pair of a/c. Allied artillery, especially the British, was very accurate. With its supporting infantry desimated (and possibly the JP destroyed), the Allied forces would have relatively little trouble advancing on the JP's position.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:09 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Primarily, the US went to the 20mm after WWII,
- because we finally produced a 20mm cannon that was
- better than the 20mm after WWII.

True, the M2 20mm cannon was the poor relation of
the Hispano II in terms of jamming.

- 20mm's were to heavy, and prone to jamming with long
- ammo belts (as in, 30 *feet* of ammo belt per gun).
- Considering how the USAAF prefered to have 40
- seconds or more firing time for it's aircraft, that
- was a very serious problem.

With half the number of guns (for only slightly more
weight per gun, but less total weight) and a little
less than half the ammunition (although heavier
rounds) the firing time could be largely the same
for something like the P47. I did some rough calculations
a while back, and reckoned you could have at least
2/3 the fire time, with 4 20mm Hispano V cannon
as mounted on the Tempest V putting about about 3/2
of the firepower per second, so it would mean the
same amount of total firepower over time, with
the possibility of penetrating aircraft skin better,
and with less gun maintenance required.

The Tempest V is a good example - 200 rpg, Hispano V
rate of fire 750rpm, total firing time 27 seconds.
The British tended to go for shorter firing times.
If you scale up the ammunition effectiveness, though
it's the equivalent of about 40 seconds of P47 firing
in terms of raw firepower, just delivered in more
concentrated bursts.

Basically whether 8 .50s or 4 20mm are the better
option depends on whether you want more destructive
power in a short window of opportunity for attack,
or a longer firing time of less powerful guns.

- Considering how we already had a very large
- production capacity for 0.50 based weapons, it
- didn't make any snese to switch to a new round
- during the war.

I think this was the big advantage, plus keeping
supply lines simpler for ammunition given commonality
across services.

- I will also point out that the USAAF was the *first*
- airforce to switch to large calibre weapons. We
- were using the Browning 0.50 as our standard
- armament when all other airforces were still only
- using rifle calibre machine guns.



- We started the large calibre trend.

Well you could argue that in the 1930s in Europe
the rifle calibre gun was enough to down fighters,
and so nations wanted to retain a gun that was
effective enough, and could have a long firing time :-)

The USA was the first to use the .50 on a large
scale, but from the 1920s the British, Japanese,
and Italians all either developed or both developed
and adopted .50 aircraft guns. The British even
considered adoption of the US .50 in the 1920s.

By the mid 1930s most nations were upgrading to cannon.
The RAF planned to, but stuck with the .303 initially
while cannon were being debugged for wing installation
(hampered by the
fall of France). So most nations to a certain extent
missed out .50s except as an adjunct to cannon,
or during a similar transitional phase to the US in
the earlier 1930s (e.g. mixed Italian Breda 7.7 and
12.7 mixes)

It wasn't a bad decision to stick with the .50,
but I'd argue that by mid war the 4 20mm cannon
installation had eclipsed it.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:17 PM
Addendum - I don't have any malice against the .50,
it just seems to have mythology attached to the nth
degree.

This having been said, I think the RAF would have
done better to have had 4 .50s in Spits and Hurricanes
in the Battle of Britain as opposed to 8 .303s.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 03:18 PM
VMF-214_HaVoK wrote:
- I think most people believe you have to blow a tank
- to pieces for it to qualify a kill. This is not so,
- there is many ways to take a tank out of combat
- without knocking the turret off the thing. Even if
- that mean bouncing .50s off the ground to hit the
- underbelly of the tank...which was down quite
- frequently.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Well sure you know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I wonder why they train tank crews to keep shooting at an enemy tank until the turret rockets to the sky or the tank catches fire in the crew compartment. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But sure, you know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 05:57 PM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- I guess you dont read very much.

Guess again.
You wouldnt have a clue about what, when, or how much I read mate, so keep your half smart comments to yourself.
Judging by the spelling and vast knowledge of weaponry displayed in your post, I would bet I read a great deal more than you do.

-
- one 50cal can go threw any med armor in WW2.

'Threw'....as in the past tense of 'throw'? hmmm, OK, think the word you are after is 'through', I read that somewhere /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Oh, and that would be 'armour'

I ask you again, if "one 50cal can go threw any med armor in WW2." as you so confidently state , why bother with the expense of fitting large bore cannon to armoured vehicles? Why not just use one or more fifties?
The answer is because it isnt enough bang to do the job.
Armies are notoriously thrifty organisations, if something cheap will do the job just as well as something that costs more, the cheap way wins out every time. If the .50 BMG was a tank killer, the Army would use it as one.


-
- Do any of you realy know what a 50cal looks like or
- the amount of damage it can cause.

Yep,I have an inert .50BMG round on my desk, I have fired one before, and I have a fair idea of what sort of damage they are capable of inflicting, really.

- oh and when this Jug pilot that bouced his 50's of
- the road to kill a tank, It was a King Tiger Tank,
- Heavy armor. Proubly a very lucky shot.

'Probably' be an idea to grab a dictionary and catch up on some reading old son.

Not sure if you caught the sarcasm dripping from that last line about 'bouncing them into the soft underbelly'......ever seen the underside of a main battle tank? Dragons have soft underbellies, tanks dont.
Ever seen the way a bullet deforms and tumbles off course when it hits a hard surface like a road at a shallow angle? Have any idea of the amount of kinetic energy lost on that impact?
What about how much force is actually required to penetrate hardened steel armour?
Ever seen an anti-tank mine? Know why they are so big?
Do you really believe that wobbly, aerodynamically deformed, half inch chunk of copper and lead that has lost a great deal of it's velocity is going to have enough energy to penetrate the skin of a tank? Especially since the angle it would strike the underside of the tank at, would more than likely be very shallow.



C'mon folks, the 50 calibre Browning machine gun is a great weapon, for soft targets like people, trucks, cars maybe even APCs and lightly armoured vehicles like trains etc if you have 6 or 8 of them on an aircraft, but it is NOT an effective ant-tank weapon. It never has been.
If it was, it would have been commonly used as such, it wasnt.

By the way, I think the six fifties on the P40, and the eight on the Jug are more than enough to tear any plane in the game to shreds, not complaining about their modelling or power at all.

XyZspineZyX
10-21-2003, 06:59 PM
jtasker wrote:
- "Surly 8 0.50cal can destroy a tank you simply have
- to bounce with your Jug from the street and hit the
- tank..."
-
- Nope.. wont happen.. looks great on TV, and it
- sounded like a good idea when the guys tried it, but
- it does not work.

I thought of the whole plane! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It&#180;s quite simple, the german MG151/20 (similar ROF to 0.50) with AP ammo wasn&#180;t able to penetrate the amour of a modern tank like the T34 from any side (reported by groundattack pilots), so why should the 0.50 could?!?
simply no way...

maybe sometimes it was possible to set a tank on fire with some luck.. but this would be also possible with a 0.303 if a lucky bullet would find it way.


JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 04:09 AM
"Even if that mean bouncing .50s off the ground to hit the underbelly of the tank...which was down quite frequently."

Not a SINGLE instance of the underside of a tank being penetrated was EVER located by the USAAF team looking for theat EXACT case.. not one..

As someone referred to a video of a tank burning.. I believe you saw the FUEL TRAILER the tank as towing go up in a massive explosion.. I have the tape you are referring to I believe..

The engine decks of the Tiger, Panther, and all later war tanks had vents that were made of extremely think Castings... Picture this.. Put your hands palms toward each other about 1-.15 inches apart. No look at the angle required to get a bullet to get through that narrow opening without impacting (and delivering its energy to the side walls (your palms)

Thats how thick the engine grates are on those later German tanks..

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 07:19 AM
easy to understand why us pilots were quite fond of their .50 MG rather than 20mm cannons...

better to have a lot of ammo when you are trigger happy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
10-23-2003, 07:31 AM
jtasker wrote:
- "Even if that mean bouncing .50s off the ground to
- hit the underbelly of the tank...which was down
- quite frequently."
-
- Not a SINGLE instance of the underside of a tank
- being penetrated was EVER located by the USAAF team
- looking for theat EXACT case.. not one..

If it was the case then tanks would use this to
take out others. After all it would be easier to
bounce a bullet off a road at a shallow angle
when located close to it.

It's probably theoretically possible to get
a bullet under the mushroom-like castings over
engine vents on the Pather et al, but it would
be hard to do. What would be more possibe would
be to damage the exhaust cowlings. On later
Pathers these included secondary fuel burners to
ignite unburned fuel that would otherwise be
a hazard (the Panther was great apart from the
fuel system it seems). Damaging those might
well be able to at least make a Panther unreliable,
perhaps.

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:18 PM
This should be worthy of reading http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


The Effects of Allied Air Power

Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 08:48 PM
The .05 cal Browning, Circa WW2 as used on US fighters was a weapon that pro's and con's like any other weapon system.

As an air to air weapon it had the all important advantage of high muzzle velocity and flat trajectory. You could carry a good number of them, so single jams did not eliminate a large section of your offensive punch (compare to a Bf-109 G-10 with a single MK-108 that has a jam). Likewise, a large amount of ammunition could be carried allowing for long sustained fire (excellent, sepecially on an escort fighter).

On the downside, it lacked the punch of 20mm Cannon like the SHvak, Hispano or MG-151/20 and as aircraft designs reached maturity that could carry 4 (or more) such cannon the .05 Cal installations fell behind on firepower. Late in WW2, both the USAF, RAF and Luftwaffe considered critical areas of single seat fighters to have a reasonable degree of protection against .05 cal rounds (at typical firing deflections from an enemy fighter attack).

By Korea, with the advent of jets (with much stronger airframes to withstand higher flight stresses) the .05 cal was definately low powered as an air-to-air fighter weapon. That is not to say it was ineffective (as the Combat records show) but it had fallen behind the various 20mm options then available. I have read (sorry, don't remember the specifics) several accounts by American pilots of the opinion that had the F-86's carried 20mm cannons, many MiG-15's that were just damaged by .05 cals would have been shot down by 20mm.

As to any aircraft armed with 0.50 cals "destroying" tanks like the Panther or Konigstiger with anything other than the most unusual chance hits is simply ridiculous.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:50 PM
There are still plenty of German commentary on the problems of operating under Allied air supremacy:

1. Major unit movements were restricted to the hours of darkness unless absolutely necessary.

2. Re-supply was likewise restricted to the dark hours.

3. Soft transport was extremely vulnerable to air attacks by ANY aerial weapons.

(4) Towed artillery had to hide itself well because of the air threat.


Tactical air support must share a large part of the credit for the large numbers of German tanks abandonded by their crews. There are two basic reasons why a valuable armored vehicle might be given up. (1) the vehicle is out of fuel and cannot be re-supplied; (2) the rout of retreat has been irretrievably blocked. Air support can take a considerable share in the credit for creating such situations.

The credit count should not depend solely upon finding enemy tanks physically destroyed by aerial weapons.


Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-27-2003, 11:58 PM
I saw a German general once say when asked the two things he feared most about the Americans: 1) Tactical airpower, 2) artillery.

Artillery cost the Germans huge quantities of tanks and motor transport vehicles.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 02:03 AM
SkyChimp, Germans (and everyone else on the recieving end of it) hated our artillery because we were just real damn good at it. This was one area where the USA was Best in World, whereas say Germany was recognized as having the best infantrymen, at least until the end drew near.

Between the wars, a fire direction system was developed at Ft Sill, Oklahoma, based on some lessons learned in WWI. They were able to acheive massed TOT (time on target) barrages better than anyone. Calculations could quickly be made that allowed batteries from different locales and ranges to all hit an area simultaneously. Good forward observers (FO), and close knit communications allowed dispersed, and therefore less susceptible to counter-battery fire, placement on the battlefield. The guns themselves were reliable, accurate (esp the 155), and all motorized. There were German guns that were mechanically finer peices, but they were much more maintenence intensive, and took longer to build and train on. My dad was an artilleryman, trained at Ft. Sill (not during WWII, I'm not THAT old).

I, on the other hand, was an armorer in the US Army for 6 years. The M-2 was the gun that rode in the US fighters, and it differed very little from the one the infantry used then, and still do. It was lightened, and solenoid-fired, and had a higher ROF (there's controversy over this last fact, I'm going with what the pilots and ground crews claim). Ma Deuce is fine weapon, in use to this day in fact. And, like it or not, has been involved in the destruction of more aircraft than any other gun in history. It wouldn't defeat tank armor by WWII, but it would sure as hell defeat aluminum and fabric. Also, there's something known as a "maneuver kill", where a mobile weapon platform is rendered non-mobile. And even though the .50 wouldn't outright kill a tank, manuever kills were not uncommon, and I would be willing to conject that shots from above, where armor is usually weak, were succesful in damaging/destroying engines, as several people have noted.

Where the .50 began to show weakness is when aircraft got tougher, in the jet age. Also, in WWII, the USA didn't build dedicated interceptors like GB, GE, JP. If you're shooting heavy bombers, especially ones that shoot back, you need cannon. We did not face that problem. Not until the Kamikazee attacks, made by sometimes large and usually non manuevering aircraft, did the 20mm cannon become neccesary, as 4 of those would bring down an airplane FAST. Still, some pilots prefered the .50.

Weapons like the Mk-108 were defintely not good for tanks, as the miengeschoss (sp) round was a thinly drawn shell, filled with explosive, and pretty low velocity to boot. Great for shooting at airplanes, but for shooting armor, not so good. Worthless for tanks, in fact. You want high velocity, and heavy projectile, ala the GAU-8 and depleted uranium. The Germans had great, probably the best, anti-tank gun in the 88, but that wasn't gonna ride in the wings of a FW http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Mk-103, however, was probably a good gun for anti-armor, with high vel and I beleive a tungsten core shell. Good enough to knock out a tank? I don't know, but anything less would hate life for sure under fire from the 103.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:01 AM
Klatuu

I was born at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.

My father was the Operations Officer of the 2nd Battalion, 94th Artillery that was posted to Camp JJ Carroll, Vietnam. He was there in 1967-68. The 2nd/94th was a US Army unit attached to and under the control of the 1st Marine Division. It fielded the M107 175mm self propelled gun.

http://www.willpete.com/LONGGU1.jpg


I'm quite an artillery fan.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/28/0305:15AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:14 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
- This should be worthy of reading <a
- href="http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/
- articles/airpower.html"
- target=_blank>http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/n
- ormandy/articles/airpower.html</a>
-
-
- The Effects of Allied Air Power
-
- Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy


That's a good read, but it seems to suggest tactical airpower was less effective than usually stated. However, review of the overall picture reveals very successful operations:

Summary of Allied Air Attack Claims
December 16, 1944 - January 15, 1945

Aircraft on ground
66 destroyed, 5 probable, 58 damaged

Gun positions
299 destroyed, 157 damaged

Tanks and AFV
751 destroyed, 509 damaged

Motor transport
6,037 destroyed, 3,178 damaged

Locomotives
584 destroyed, 657 damaged

Rail cars
4,217 destroyed, 7,117 damaged

Tugs
4 destroyed

Barges
27 destroyed, 57 damaged

Buildings
1,178 destroyed, 573 damaged

Fuel and ammo dumps
10 destroyed

Oil tanks
10 destroyed

Bridges
18 destroyed, 10 damaged

Tunnels
7 destroyed, 2 damaged

Railway cuts
654

Highway cuts
161

(Source: 2nd Tactical Air Force Operational Research Section, "The Contribution of the Air Forces to the Stemming of the Enemy Thrust in the Ardennes.")


These totals represetnt the the results of 36,000 sorties flown by Allied tactical air forces, and 5,600 missions by the 8th Air Force.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:14 AM
watch gun camera footage of jugs and p51s of what they can do to germanys heaviest armored fighter the 190, a quick burst and a hugefireball, ripping wings off in hundreds and hundreds of guncam clips. .50s in fb are so underestimated but so is the p47 and p40s and the b239 in 1.0, 1.2 now the p39s are crap and most likely the p51 when it gets here, guess its frances way of getting the us back

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:27 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- MiloMorai wrote:
-- This should be worthy of reading <a
-- href="http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/
-- articles/airpower.html"
-- target=_blank>http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/n
-- ormandy/articles/airpower.html</a>
--
--
-- The Effects of Allied Air Power
--
-- Attacks on German ground combat units in Normandy
-
-
- That's a good read, but it seems to suggest tactical
- airpower was less effective than usually stated.
- However, review of the overall picture reveals very
- successful operations:
-
- Summary of Allied Air Attack Claims
- December 16, 1944 - January 15, 1945
-
- Aircraft on ground
- 66 destroyed, 5 probable, 58 damaged
-
- Gun positions
- 299 destroyed, 157 damaged
-
- Tanks and AFV
- 751 destroyed, 509 damaged
-
- Motor transport
- 6,037 destroyed, 3,178 damaged
-
- Locomotives
- 584 destroyed, 657 damaged
-
- Rail cars
- 4,217 destroyed, 7,117 damaged
-
- Tugs
- 4 destroyed
-
- Barges
- 27 destroyed, 57 damaged
-
- Buildings
- 1,178 destroyed, 573 damaged
-
- Fuel and ammo dumps
- 10 destroyed
-
- Oil tanks
- 10 destroyed
-
- Bridges
- 18 destroyed, 10 damaged
-
- Tunnels
- 7 destroyed, 2 damaged
-
- Railway cuts
- 654
-
- Highway cuts
- 161
-
- (Source: 2nd Tactical Air Force Operational
- Research Section, "The Contribution of the Air
- Forces to the Stemming of the Enemy Thrust in the
- Ardennes.")
-
-
- These totals represetnt the the results of 36,000
- sorties flown by Allied tactical air forces, and
- 5,600 missions by the 8th Air Force.
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp

You headed these numbers as "claims." Are they claims or on-the-ground assesments?


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:34 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- You headed these numbers as "claims." Are they
- claims or on-the-ground assesments?
-
-
-
---AKD


What you see is what the report says.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:42 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-
-- You headed these numbers as "claims." Are they
-- claims or on-the-ground assesments?
--
--
--
----AKD
-
-
- What you see is what the report says.
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
<img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.j
- pg">
-


Hmm...then I assume those numbers are claims and that is exactly what the article Milo linked was questioning. For example, note the second paragraph:

"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. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons."


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:43 AM
If you want some good images of XIX TACTICAL AIR COMMAND
results, look here:

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/photo_galleries/xix_tac_photo_album/TOC/Payoff.htm

http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/photo_galleries/xix_tac_photo_album/Photos/01069634_194.jpg


http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/wwwroot/photo_galleries/xix_tac_photo_album/Photos/01069634_223.jpg


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 03:50 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

- Hmm...then I assume those numbers are claims and
- that is exactly what the article Milo linked was
- questioning. For example, note the second
- paragraph:
-
- "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. In fact no
- more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of
- these only nine had been hit by air weapons."
-
-
-
---AKD


The claims in the example you cited were over a 3 day period. The period covered in the above report is 30 days.

I don't think 1,260 tanks --AND-- AFVs over 30 days and 41,600 sorties is an unreasonable number. Is that what you wish to suggest? Do you have a source with more reliable numbers?



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/jug_sig.jpg


Message Edited on 10/28/0305:52AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 04:04 AM
Nice piccys, SC.

I seem to remember that the top picture was from a series of a train being stafed (I may be wrong though).

Poor Jagdpanzer IV, thats one of the things bombs do to heavy armour.



"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 05:20 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-
-- Hmm...then I assume those numbers are claims and
-- that is exactly what the article Milo linked was
-- questioning. For example, note the second
-- paragraph:
--
-- "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. In fact no
-- more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of
-- these only nine had been hit by air weapons."
--
--
--
----AKD
-
-
- The claims in the example you cited were over a 3
- day period. The period covered in the above report
- is 30 days.
-
- I don't think 1,260 tanks --AND-- AFVs over 30 days
- and 41,600 sorties is an unreasonable number. Is
- that what you wish to suggest? Do you have a source
- with more reliable numbers?
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

The ratio of claims to tank kills for the Mortain operation was around 28 to 1. If a similar ratio held true for the Ardennes, then of the 715 claims for tanks/AFVs, only 25 would be actual kills. Now I don't think it was quite that bad, but I do have serious cause to doubt the claimed numbers.


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 04:07 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- I don't think 1,260 tanks --AND-- AFVs over 30 days
- and 41,600 sorties is an unreasonable number.

That would likely be 50% of all the German AFVs deployed
in the Bulge (I presume that is what you are referring
to). It seems unlikely that 1940s airpower could knock
out 50% of all the AFVs when modern airpower is not
able to do the same.

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 05:33 PM
Klatuu wrote:


Klatuu, try to find reading about General V. P. Nenonen, and the fire control methods he developed in the 1920's. Internet doesn't seem to be a very good place to look, but if you have access to a specialised library you shouldn't have problems. You might be surprised what you can read about the man and the battles in the Karelian Isthmus 1944. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just something I found in the net:

"78 different field gun types were in use including some almost ancient ones (French "De Bange" cannons from the 1870's!). Despite of the miscellaneous variety of gun types Finnish artillery has used phonomenally accurate firing methods since 20's created by Artillery-General V. P. Nenonen. Nenonen's firing methods were the best in the world (fast and accurate) and are still used in the Finnish Defence Forces (and very many armies around the world). [ Of course alterations have been made: calculations and corrections are done much faster nowadays (almost immediately).] "

"The real problem was with Finnish artillery. Although artillery training was excellent and Finnish artillery tactics were generally superior to the Russians, there simply weren't enough guns. One division had approximately 36 artillery pieces, while a Russian division had 78. The Russians also had reserve artillery units almost every time they attacked. The munitions situation was even worse; the artillery had 200,000 rounds for field cannons and 70,000 rounds for howitzers when the Winter War began. In comparison, Russian artillery shot over 200,000 rounds at the 2nd Division (the former 11th Division) in 6 hours during their February-offensive. Luckily, Gen. Lt. V.P. Nenonen had designed and taught Finnish artillerymen tactics which were greatly admired by the Russians. Once a captured Russian artillery officer asked his captors: "Your artillery hits almost every time with the first shots, but why don't you shoot more?""



-jippo





Message Edited on 10/28/0304:36PM by Jippo01

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 05:35 PM
NegativeGee wrote:
- Poor Jagdpanzer IV, thats one of the things bombs do
- to heavy armour.


..... Judging from the condition of the superstructure, it's more likely that the damage suffered by the JP IV in the photo was caused by an an internal demolition charge. It was common practice for German tank crews to blow up their vehicles when abandonment became necessary.



Blutarski

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 05:44 PM
BLUTARSKI wrote:
-
- NegativeGee wrote:
-- Poor Jagdpanzer IV, thats one of the things bombs do
-- to heavy armour.
-
-
- ..... Judging from the condition of the
- superstructure, it's more likely that the damage
- suffered by the JP IV in the photo was caused by an
- an internal demolition charge. It was common
- practice for German tank crews to blow up their
- vehicles when abandonment became necessary.
-
-
-
- Blutarski

Makes sense!

I don't suppose you know if the upper hulls of the JP IV were held on "by gravity" like a tank turret is?

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 05:51 PM
They were welded.


-jippo

The_Blue_Devil
10-28-2003, 07:11 PM
RedDeth wrote:
- can jugs destroy panzer 4s with its 8 50s? yes or no
- what do you think?..... piece of cake with 3,000 rds
- i bet
-
- www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions
- Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying. Semper Invictus!
- <img src
- ="http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_120_106550
- 9047.jpg">
-

We've covered this..they often disabled em by destroying the tread linkage or exploding the fuel cart behind it. sigh

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

<center>Lt.Col Mike "Devil" Brown
XO 361st Virtual Fighter Group </center>


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

<center> http://www.361stvfg.com </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 07:41 PM
Actually with the way the Panzers were made as long as you disabled it it was as good as destroyed. Supplies were hard to come by and the Panzers required a lot of maintenance and the parts were limited unlike the Shermans, which could bew patched together with car parts if need be and they were available....... Everybody knows you cant "destroy" a Panzer with 50 cals.........unless you get a whole lot of them with pinpoint aim...which doesnt happen too often from a moving platform with a firing window of a few seconds....

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

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

The_Blue_Devil
10-28-2003, 10:19 PM
AaronGT wrote:
-
- SkyChimp wrote:
-- I don't think 1,260 tanks --AND-- AFVs over 30 days
-- and 41,600 sorties is an unreasonable number.
-
- That would likely be 50% of all the German AFVs
- deployed
- in the Bulge (I presume that is what you are
- referring
- to). It seems unlikely that 1940s airpower could
- knock
- out 50% of all the AFVs when modern airpower is not
- able to do the same.
-
-
-
-

Hmmm, claims and proof are two different things gents. As chimp stated this was over the course of a month, when Jugs and other allied planes were allowed to free hunt.It is very likely that those numbers are accurate. Also other countries in modern times have had their ground and air forces smashed by US airpower...



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

<center>Lt.Col Mike "Devil" Brown
XO 361st Virtual Fighter Group </center>


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

<center> http://www.361stvfg.com </center>

XyZspineZyX
10-28-2003, 10:53 PM
The_Blue_Devil wrote:

- Hmmm, claims and proof are two different things
- gents. As chimp stated this was over the course of
- a month, when Jugs and other allied planes were
- allowed to free hunt.It is very likely that those
- numbers are accurate. Also other countries in
- modern times have had their ground and air forces
- smashed by US airpower...
-

As in Jugoslawia for example ...

<HTML> <Center> http://fuchs667.bei.t-online.de/sig2.jpg

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif (http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de)</Center></Body></HTML>

XyZspineZyX
10-29-2003, 01:25 AM
I would like to know how a 50 cal can 'hurt' a hunk of high quality steel(tank tread) the size of your keyboard and weighing at least 30lb.


http://www.thundercycle.com/photos/dropdead2.gif



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"