PDA

View Full Version : .50's thread # 847



Obi_Kwiet
02-17-2005, 06:41 PM
Ok, sorry to bring this up again, but I believe I have some info that shows that a .50 bullet could penetrate a Tiger. First, the early variants of the Tiger had just shy of an inch of armor plating on the top of it's turret. A .50 can penetrate greater than one inch of steel. 6 to 8 of them @ 550 rpm each, or 55 to 74 bullets per second. Why is the general consensus that they coudn't?

VW-IceFire
02-17-2005, 06:53 PM
...general consensus that they couldn't stems from data I think. Some fairly convicing arguments at the time.

What do you have?

I think the argreement was that there was the off chance that a .50cal may penetrate a softer area and cause damage but that it was unlikely.

carguy_
02-17-2005, 07:14 PM
Better be a well documented info.:|

jarink
02-17-2005, 07:40 PM
There's much, much more to armor penetration than simple "this bullet will penetrate y inches of armor". Some of the many factors include hardness of projectile and armor, brittleness of projectile and armor, velocity, mass, angle of attack, and even the relative diameter of the projectile compared to the area of the armor plate being penetrated (a larger diameter round will penetrate armor better than a smaller diameter round having the same kinetic energy).

In short, .50 cals barely have a snowball's chance of penetrating the top armor of a Tiger.

Obi_Kwiet
02-17-2005, 07:42 PM
I just saw a guy on CNN shoot through a 1 inch thick steel plate with a .50. :/

EnGaurde
02-17-2005, 08:25 PM
all things are possible.

viewing that, not all things are likely.

maybe on a day when the sun was shining brightly, and the p47 was in a perfectly vertical dive, and the armour had too brittle or too soft a composition due to the slave labour construction, and several bullets struck the same fault line in the armour, you may have a winner.

my addition to this merry go round is that a 50cal is NOT the mightiest of all bullets, it would not penetrate hardened steel armour likely to be on a heavy tank at any kind of angle.

unless it had a tungsten core, i doubt it would penetrate at all.

are we forgetting the energy at point of impact, no doubt deteriorated by the condition of the guns, if the bullets tumbled in flight, etc.

its like me saying i -could- be a famous movie star and have many equally famous women after my attentions, if the right circumstances presented themselves. No one can reasonably say to me, that wouldnt happen. And heres the key bit: a statistician dealing purely with numbers, would never say it cant happen..... But i know it wont. And i bet you know why just as well as i do.

its just too unlikely to be... likely. Small enough in fact to be considered impossible.

its obvious there are still some getting hung up on the concept of possible = likely. Ill sleep tonight knowing it never actually did. And im happy with that.

FFS learn to understand that a %0.0000001 chance ( OR ANY PERCENTAGE FOR THE BUTIFFERS), is so small as to be nothing eh?

sleep now thread, sleeeeeep....

heywooood
02-17-2005, 08:34 PM
oh yes! lets please do this again! I love the '50's

Remember Elvis?

Poodle skirts?...

Saddle Shoes?...

Drive in movies and restaurants?

Chevy Nomads?....

no?...know why?...'cause they're OVER!!

like the whole friggin .50 cal thinger...over.

let it go, louie...let it go.

lbhskier37
02-17-2005, 08:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
I just saw a guy on CNN shoot through a 1 inch thick steel plate with a .50. :/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Their is a BIG difference between steel and armor. Can this stupidity just die already?

heywooood
02-17-2005, 08:40 PM
please http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

J_Weaver
02-17-2005, 08:46 PM
Yea, the .50's are fine as is. Your beating a dead horse old boy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Oilburner_TAW
02-17-2005, 08:49 PM
.50's were effective against tanks but not on top armor. There was show on the history channel about the P-47 (one of the shows where they talk to pilots/soldiers from both sides) and the P-47 pilots learned they could penetrate tanks by shooting at them either head-on or tail on and aiming for the ground just in front or behind of the tank letting the bullet ricochet up into the belly. They really didn't say but I am assuming this would be when they found them on a paved road or very hard surface. They were very clear on the fact that this did work on tanks, however not clear on WHAT tanks.

chris455
02-17-2005, 09:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
.50's were effective against tanks but not on top armor. There was show on the history channel about the P-47 (one of the shows where they talk to pilots/soldiers from both sides) and the P-47 pilots learned they could penetrate tanks by shooting at them either head-on or tail on and aiming for the ground just in front or behind of the tank letting the bullet ricochet up into the belly. They really didn't say but I am assuming this would be when they found them on a paved road or very hard surface. They were very clear on the fact that this did work on tanks, however not clear on WHAT tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I'm going to flucking throw up.

jarink
02-17-2005, 09:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oilburner_TAW:
They were very clear on the fact that this did work on tanks, however not clear on WHAT tanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would work great on tanks like this one:
http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/dummy3.jpg

eddiemac0
02-17-2005, 10:41 PM
That's the stupidist thing I ever heard, something from a bad movie or comic book.

GR142_Astro
02-18-2005, 01:09 AM
From another .50 vs the world post:


The Tiger Is were actually slightly more vulnerable. The fuel cells were under open grates. Beginning with Tiger no. Fgst.Nr.251075 in April 1944:

"Wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks: DW to Tiger I, Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle.

Did Jabos take out German tanks at will with their HMGs?

No.

Was it repeatable and worthwhile trying?

Yes.

For the last time, NO armor penetration but if enough lead hits the engine deck and open grills, there is a CHANCE to punch a hole in the radiators or possibly start an engine fire. Either way, the vehicle is out of comission.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-18-2005, 03:43 AM
This is not the first place I've heard of the 'comic book' ricochet technique. My uncle, who is a WW2 armour expert/hobbeyist first told me of this when I was quite young. Given the controversy, I decided to take a look around for mention of it.

This document describes a situation where the 324th strafed a convoy, and bullets that ricochetted of the ground killed tank crews:

http://www.324thfighter.org/314/html/314thhistory.htm

Von_Zero
02-18-2005, 04:20 AM
1. 1 inch of steel doesn't mean armor.
2. the old story about shooting in the road and bounce the bullets into the belly of the tanks is bogus.. this was already demonstrated several times.
3. some bullets hitting radiators or other stuff like that may take a tank out of commision for some time, but it would be far from destroying it for good.
4. VFA195-MaxPower, if you are going to use that as reference, at least use the entire quote. the way you posted it leaves place for missunderstandings. from that article:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This mission could be labeled "The Valley of Death". The retreating Germans had formed a convoy several miles long near Valence in the Rhone River valley. The lead vehicles were destroyed blocking further movement of the convoy and the vehicles at the rear of the convoy were also destroyed thus blocking their moving back. Several sorties were flown by the 324th as well as other Groups against this trapped convoy. It was found out later that in strafing the convoy that more damage was done to tanks by the 50 caliber bullets than we realized. Apparently the crew compartment was very hot and the tank was considered a fire trap. For this reason the hatch cover was left open. The 50 caliber bullets would bounce off the road or ground and ricochet around the crew compartment killing or injuring the crew as well as damaging equipment. Before our troops could advance bulldozers had to push the charred remains of the convoy off the road. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
so they strafed a german column. but bullets went through the open hatches.

Foxtrot-Hotel
02-18-2005, 05:11 AM
Chack this site:http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm
maybe most of it was said in this treat, but take it as a proof for the said thinks ....

Akronnick
02-18-2005, 05:39 AM
IBTL

Bearcat99
02-18-2005, 06:31 AM
Not this dog again...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

EnGaurde
02-18-2005, 06:44 AM
*banging fists against moderator hull....*

**** you moddys... kill this evil thread.

yeah yeah we ALL accept its maybe-ness.

nobody here knows for real.

nor will they ever.

just kill the thread... PLZ.

Obi_Kwiet
02-18-2005, 12:44 PM
It was a question! I was just wondering why it couldn't.

AlmightyTallest
02-18-2005, 02:30 PM
I don't know why either, 6 or 8 gunned .50cal aircraft firing AP and API bullets averaging 50+ rounds per second striking a relatively small area... The term "Metal Fatigue" comes to mind, especially if a second plane comes by and straffed the same tank again, or if the plane made multiple passes on the same targets.

darkhorizon11
02-18-2005, 05:56 PM
I wish my 50 thread lasted this long.

AlmightyTallest
02-18-2005, 06:47 PM
lol, darkhorizon find your old .50 post and bump it back up, I guarantee others will take a whack at it to keep it going http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Obi_Kwiet
02-18-2005, 10:53 PM
Teh Bump! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif In other words, Post Count +1!

ARM505
02-18-2005, 11:53 PM
'Metal Fatigue?!?!?' Dont be....well, silly. That occurs over thousands of cycles! One tank would have to be pummelled by entire squadrons of planes before a round got through because of 'metal fatigue'.

If anyone is interested, a lively discussion was had on the Russian Lock-on forums, and the Steelbeasts (Armour sim) forums about a similiar topic - only they were discussing the GAU8 vs modern MBT armour!!

Cajun76
02-19-2005, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Ok, sorry to bring this up again, but I believe I have some info that shows that a .50 bullet could penetrate a Tiger. First, the early variants of the Tiger had just shy of an inch of armor plating on the top of it's turret. A .50 can penetrate greater than one inch of steel. 6 to 8 of them @ 550 rpm each, or 55 to 74 bullets per second. Why is the general consensus that they coudn't? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


At the low end ROF of 750 rpm, the P-47 puts out about 100 rounds per second.....

AlmightyTallest
02-19-2005, 09:18 AM
lol, I forgot to put the winking smiliey at the end of that post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

At any rate, I think most of the kills were because tank crews weren't properly buttoned up, the .50cal's struck vital components of the tank, engine compartment, started fires, etc. I don't think it was a guarantee by any means that a straffing pass against a tank ensured a kill.

reddevil49
02-19-2005, 05:54 PM
This amazes me. they think a .50 would penatrate a tiger when .75mm bounced off.

AlmightyTallest
02-19-2005, 07:21 PM
All depends where the .50s hit the Tiger and what components are hit, like the engine in the lightly armored rear for instance. The top, back, and undersides aren't armored nearly as well as the front and sides http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And although the front could deflect a 75mm round, the top and rear of the tank couldn't. Depends on how the armor is arrayed around the tank and in what thicknesses and metals used, among other things to consider.

reddevil49
02-19-2005, 10:51 PM
Ok I see what you mean and what you say makes a lot of sence. I stand corrected, but would'nt the penetrating power depend a lot on the range or am I way off base.

civildog
02-20-2005, 01:33 AM
Oh, the humanity!

I've stood on the back deck of a Tiger I and know that the armored grills over the fuel tanks/radiator fan intakes are huge. The spacing between the grills is a couple of inches and was only protected by a woven steel screen (for shrapnel protection). I can imagine that if a pilot strafed the beastie from the rear and got a few rounds through those gratings - and if you look at photos you will see that that wouldn't be all that unlikely- that the fuel cells might ignite.

The Tiger I was a notorious oil and fuel leaker. The maintenance manual stresses the need for topping off the oil and draining the fuel sumps regularly to prevent fires and burnt out engines. The fuel sump is under those big open grills.

Now that same pilot would see smoke and flame then fly home to brag about the Tiger he "killed" with his .50's. It would scare that **** out of the crew and be a good "softkill", but it wouldn't be because the bullets had punched through hardened rolled steel.

It's not like a lot of planes had Tiger kills painted on thier sides, ya know. It was a pretty rare thing. But like the tankers on the ground perception was magnified. To the Sherman crews every panzer was a Tiger and every AT-gun an 8.8. So if a jabo pilot strafed a panzer and it started smoking he'd probably get all excited about killing a "Tiger" even if it was just a MkIIIL wienie tank.

Slick750
02-20-2005, 07:17 AM
I think the steel plate was at a 1000 yards, went trough like it was butter, probably not tungsten.

AlmightyTallest
02-20-2005, 03:39 PM
reddevil, your not off base, penetrating power does depend on range.

I think the USAAF had their P-47's boresighted at 305.8 meters or 1000 feet, but this probably varied at times. At that point I belive something to the effect of all 8 .50 caliber guns fired into an area of 6,12, or 15 feet square.

What we need is info on the penetrating power of .50 cal Armor Piercing from WW2, and penetrating power and other attributes of API, and Incindiary rounds striking armor.

There's many factors to consider, but the USAAF seems to think that strafing tanks with .50's had merit. Other posters here have a point that it depends on the tank, and a pilot would probably be convinced that a burning tank was a killed tank. And probably some pilots were like some posters here that would say a ship is a ship, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So a tank is a tank as well to some Thunderbolt pilots. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's a site that mentions P-47's strafing tanks and causing casualties. I wish more definate info proving either sides case would come to light.

http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm

from above site:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

purzel08
02-20-2005, 04:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Ok, sorry to bring this up again, but I believe I have some info that shows that a .50 bullet could penetrate a Tiger. First, the early variants of the Tiger had just shy of an inch of armor plating on the top of it's turret. A .50 can penetrate greater than one inch of steel. 6 to 8 of them @ 550 rpm each, or 55 to 74 bullets per second. Why is the general consensus that they coudn't? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...I already wrote that Hitler was killed by a .50 penetrating the bunker walls.

DarkCanuck420
02-20-2005, 04:44 PM
the armor is multiplated, going though one sheet is one thing going through more than one that are seperated slows down the velocity significantly

Daiichidoku
02-20-2005, 04:54 PM
no 50 could possibly kill a tiger tanks

after all, tiger tanks were made of deltawood, so no contesthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dse1010
02-20-2005, 06:21 PM
The armor of the tanks would most likely resist the bullets, but WWII tank commanders were almost always standing up through the hatch, they weren't effective at all if they didn't. So with the ammount of bullets in the air, it would likely kill the commander, and bullets would probably ricochet into the tank.

jarink
02-20-2005, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
There's many factors to consider, but the USAAF seems to think that strafing tanks with .50's had merit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here's a site that mentions P-47's strafing tanks and causing casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Causing casualties, especially among the elite crews typical of Tiger units, seems worth it. No tank can move very far without someone to drive it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This still does not mean a .50 cal can 'kill' a Tiger.

AlmightyTallest
02-20-2005, 10:25 PM
No doubt jarink. In fact there is no specific mention that it was a Tiger tank that was taken out. We simply don't know. But what we do know is that a number of German tanks were taken out by .50 cal because either the crews were hit, the underside was penetrated by ricochets, tank exhaust was penetrated leaving ammo ricocheting inside the crew compartment, ignition of fuel supply, or even detonating stored ammunition within the tanks, as well as strikes to the engine block. And recently a gentlemen who frequents this forum had a father that was a P-47 pilot, and he claims that pilots were familliar with the tactic and that if anything, striking a tank with a lot of .50's at the very least had the effect of messing up the external optical sights of the tank, plus any of the conditions mentioned above.

Any one of these conditions could result in a tank that is incapable of fighting with full effectiveness on the battlefield, or is varying stages of being completely immobile or incapacitated in some way, and therefore a kill or soft kill.

The problem.... I don't think we can get this modeled in Oleg's sims http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Perhaps in BoB but right now it's an interesting discussion about a WW2 incident. I think it's a pride issue with many as well, it's hard to believe that such a small caliber round could take out a tank, but in some intances apparently they did.

Also, try setting up a tank in this sim. Then take a P-47 and come at it from behind and strafe it. You can look at the recorded track after the mission and see how many strikes you get on the tank. It's pretty interesting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think the P-47 gun convergence should be 305.8m, but some pilots apparently had 4 guns set at one setting, and another 4 set closer.

At any rate see how many strikes you can get into the top and rear of the tank in the sim, then imagine multiple planes or a wingman working them over as well and you can probably get a better idea that casualties and lucky strikes could cripple or destroy a WW2 era tank.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-20-2005, 10:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Zero:
1. 1 inch of steel doesn't mean armor.
2. the old story about shooting in the road and bounce the bullets into the belly of the tanks is bogus.. this was already demonstrated several times.
3. some bullets hitting radiators or other stuff like that may take a tank out of commision for some time, but it would be far from destroying it for good.
4. VFA195-MaxPower, if you are going to use that as reference, at least use the entire quote. the way you posted it leaves place for missunderstandings. from that article:

so they strafed a german column. but bullets went through the open hatches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good example of stupidity + laziness = blind arguments towards an agenda.

My point was simply this: That this 'technique' may have been the evolution of a story that started with this situation, or situations like this.

All you needed to do on that page was to search for the word 'ricochet.' Now, I don't expect you to be as fantastically computer literate as myself, but certainly you are aware of the many excellent search functions available to you on any given page in most popular browsers.

chris455
02-20-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Not this dog again...... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Bear, this DOG. Again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

ClnlSandersLite
02-20-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would scare that **** out of the crew and be a good "softkill", but it wouldn't be because the bullets had punched through hardened rolled steel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may not be an immediate hard kill, but in combat conditions it is for 1 simple reason. As that fire get's hotter: A) If the crew is still inside, it'll kill them unless they can get out in time. B) Sooner or later, there will be a fuel/ammo explosion. It may not be immediate, the crew may even have time to get to a safe distance away. Although with no fire trucks on the average offensive, it's likely to happen.

In any AFV in the field, fire almost always = BOOM.

AlmightyTallest
02-21-2005, 12:08 AM
lol, I don't see why some get upset over this issue, it's an interesting discussion for both sides of the arguement and we're keeping it civil.

I'm searching for more info, so far I found this site with this painting of an actual event against King Tigers:

http://www.brooksart.com/Normandytiger.html

http://www.brooksart.com/Normandytiger.jpg
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A flight of P 51 Mustangs of the 339th FG, under the command of their leading Ace, Francis R. Gerard has started a series of strafing attacks on King Tigers. In the foreground a K├┬Ânigstiger of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion is moving at full speed in an attempt to flee the P 51's and to elude the threat of P 47 Thunderbolt fighter bombers, which the Mustangs would have called in as a special anti-tank force.
Signed by four P-51 pilots of the 8th Air Force and three members of the German King Tiger tank corps.
Maj. Gen. Francis R. Gerard - Col. Rex L. Poutre - Col. Lawrence J. Powell
1st Lt. Robert V. Blizzard.
Col. G├╝nter Piepgras - Lt.Col. Alfred Rubbel - Sgt. Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Good read about Tiger Tanks in various actions, even interesting info on the tank breaking down or how various rounds damaged the tanks in various battles.

http://www.chsk.com/steppenwolf/tiger1_in_action.htm

There's so many stories, I just did a Google search of "P-47 strafing Tiger Tanks" and found many diaries, accounts, and other info about attaks on Tiger tanks with aircraft both using rockets, 500lb bombs, and strafing passes at these tanks. Even one account of a German P-47 which had German markings and was shot down by a .50cal and 20mm US AAA battalion. They saw the pilot salute to the gunners before he slammed into a hillside nearby.

Facinating reading.

Gryphonne
02-21-2005, 12:14 AM
*sigh*

The only thing a 50 cal is going to kill on a Tiger is perhaps the crews morale. I see most of the strafing runs being executed at low level and low angle. The rounds 40 deg from horizontal at most. This means the armour modifier will be favourable for the tank.

According to PRO document WO 185/118, "DDG/FV(D) Armour plate experiments":

Armour plate effectiveness will increase with a factor of 1.89 when the angle of impact is 40 degrees from horizontal.

On top of this the 50 cal has an unfavourable thickness/diameter ratio vs. not an ordinary steel or armour plate but nickel steel with the best Brinell hardness possible during that age.

This doesn't mean a 50 cal wouldn't penetrate any lesser tanks, it just says armour penetrations by strafing aircraft are not at all that common as some of you would like to believe.

Gryph

Giganoni
02-21-2005, 12:16 AM
I never really understood why this thread was in the PF forum. How many tiger tanks did the P-47 strafe in the Pacific again? On Japanese tanks browning should have only minor trouble penetrating on the sides or rear of the chi-ha. I'm not so sure about the front which had 25mm armor. Poor Japanese tank commanders. They were just infantry support tanks and those mean shermans had to engage them tank to tank. I like Japanese tank design, I think they look very good but, even Japanese would use a sherman when they could.

civildog
02-21-2005, 02:31 AM
ClnlSandersLite
posted Sun February 20 2005 21:37
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would scare that **** out of the crew and be a good "softkill", but it wouldn't be because the bullets had punched through hardened rolled steel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It may not be an immediate hard kill, but in combat conditions it is for 1 simple reason. As that fire get's hotter: A) If the crew is still inside, it'll kill them unless they can get out in time. B) Sooner or later, there will be a fuel/ammo explosion. It may not be immediate, the crew may even have time to get to a safe distance away. Although with no fire trucks on the average offensive, it's likely to happen.

In any AFV in the field, fire almost always = BOOM.

************************************************

A kill is a kill. But the Tiger had execellent interior armor compartments for the fuel cells and engine to protect the crew from fire. The fuel explosions would merely blow out the top grills and not reach the ammo bins or crew unless there was a penetrating hit through the armor wall between the fuel/engine compartments and the hull interior. This was purpose-built design to provide protection from catastrophic hits.

Unlike the infamous "Ronson" Sherman or the T34, the Tiger was a more advanced design with crew survivability designed into it. It's size also helped in this. It placed the explosive fuel far away from the ammo bins. Maybe eventually the tank might have a cook-off, but the isolated engine/fuel cell compartment was designed for ease of component exchange in case of battle damamge.

The idea of any hit on a tank causing a catastrophic kill is more a product of modern weapons like APFSDS-DU penetrators and dual-stage HEAT rounds. And Hollywood. But WW2 AP rounds didn't often do that sort of thing unless it was a good hit on the ammo, or a tight design. Even Shermans didn't "cook-off" for several minutes in case of an engine fire. Solid turret hits on smaller tanks like the T34 by 88's, or ammo hits by the same caused pretty spectacular results, though. But most Tigers damaged in battle had high crew survival rates and were quickly repaired. In spite of it's boxy looks most experts have always considered the Tiger I to be the most advanced tank in WW2.

But I still doubt even an AP .50 round could punch through it's 25mm deck armor.

GR142_Astro
02-21-2005, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlmightyTallest:
[ In the foreground a K├┬Ânigstiger of the 503rd Heavy Tank Battalion is moving at full speed in an attempt to flee the P 51's . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Where's a 25mph Henschel Tiger B going to run off to?

I don't think ppl get upset as much as frustrated at the continuing disrtribution of falsehoods, and this topic is about the worst offender.

Not for the last time, .50s stood no chance in Hades of penetrating German tanks armor. Maybe a Panzer I or a Luchs, but I doubt even those! Strafing kills on PzIVs, Vs and VIs were the result of of bullet splash on the rear engine decks. Both Panthers and Tigers had radiators that were vulnerable to a stray hit via the engine deck. In the Tiger I's case, even the fuel cell was vulnerable:

Beginning with Tiger no. Fgst.Nr.251075 in April 1944:

"Wooden decking was installed over the top of the upper fuel tanks to catch shell fragments and bullet splash coming down through the cooling grating."

Germany's Tiger Tanks: DW to Tiger I, Thomas L. Jentz & Hilary L. Doyle.

Finally, there weren't that may Tigers. Only around 1,500 total production. Seems every US Pilot and GI interviewed on the Hysterical Channel duked it out with a Tiger tank. Much more likely "their" tank was a PzIV or V, and the ricochet theory is just plain ******ed. Think engine deck fellows, e n g i n e d e c k. The bullets came through the open vents.

Blutarski2004
02-21-2005, 10:46 AM
I cannot believe that this topic has been raised again. Unbelievable.

Anyone who has been reading the Ubi forums over the past year or so knows that I have been a big supporter of the 50cal as an effective air to air weapon. I've posted a lot of official data on the US 50cal - everything from aircraft-mounted gun dispersion, to bullet drop versus range, to official armor penetration graphs. Anyone who cares to can go into the forum archives and find it. No US 50cal AP projectile had any chance whatsoever to penetrate any armored area of a Tiger tank, including the top.

Engine grate openings and open hatches are another matter, but forget penetration of the armor. It was not physically possible.

As for bouncing bullets under a tank, please recall that troops quite often sought protection from strafing and artillery by hiding beneath tanks and other neArby armored vehicles.

VFA195-MaxPower
02-21-2005, 07:26 PM
So proponents of the possibility of a .50 cal disabling a tank chalk it up to damaging some kind of integral system or aparatus..

...and those opposed rail over and over again that a .50 cal cannot penetrate the armour of a tank.

Anyone even THINKING of using this non sequitor argument needs to check their head. You're not even in the same conversation as the rest of us.

Obi_Kwiet
02-21-2005, 10:03 PM
What is this monstrosity that I have created!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

jarink
02-21-2005, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
What is this monstrosity that I have created!? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bwuahahahaha!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

GR142_Astro
02-22-2005, 12:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

AlmightyTallest
02-22-2005, 07:09 AM
LOL Obi_Kwiet, you just created the (insert twilight zone music here) Thread that never ends!!! Bum bum Bummmm!! (Dramatic Reverb)

Everybody, sing along:

This is the Thread-that-never-ends....
Yes it goes on and on my friends...
Obi started it all, not knowing what it was and now were stuck here posting forever just because This is the Thread-that-never-ends....
Yes it goes on and on my friends...
Obi started it all, not knowing what it was and now were stuck here posting forever just because

Ahh.. Third verse to infinity same as the first http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I'm just glad we kept this thread civil for 3 pages lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif