PDA

View Full Version : .50's took out Tigers IRL-Fakt!!!!



Pages : [1] 2

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-02-2008, 08:57 PM
Listen to the commentary from someone who had been there, done that.......Luftwhiners pay attention. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-02-2008, 08:57 PM
Listen to the commentary from someone who had been there, done that.......Luftwhiners pay attention. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM

berg417448
09-02-2008, 08:58 PM
Yawn.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-02-2008, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
Yawn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gotta love it when the proof is in the pudding. Cat got your tongue? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

VW-IceFire
09-02-2008, 09:35 PM
Ummm...this is not a new video nor is the commentary new either.

josephs1959
09-02-2008, 09:56 PM
Well if .50's did in fact penetrate a Tiger it would have been from the roof of course. So it must of been a high angle of attack. Armour percing shells perhaps in any case that shouldn't be an every time ocurrance in the game. Simply because it didn't happen every day in WWII. I mean why were the rockets used for if all you need is bullets.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-02-2008, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ummm...this is not a new video nor is the commentary new either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes you just need to remind the masses of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Well if .50's did in fact penetrate a Tiger it would have been from the roof of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Listen to the commentary again. Ricocheted off the ground into the underside of the tank which wasn't armored very well. I've seen pix of Tigers that were flipped upside down yet no large caliber holes in them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

csThor
09-02-2008, 11:05 PM
One comment: BS.

stalkervision
09-02-2008, 11:21 PM
P-47 pilots and there 50 caliber machine gun tall tales. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cajun76
09-02-2008, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ummm...this is not a new video nor is the commentary new either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes you just need to remind the masses of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Well if .50's did in fact penetrate a Tiger it would have been from the roof of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Listen to the commentary again. Ricocheted off the ground into the underside of the tank which wasn't armored very well. I've seen pix of Tigers that were flipped upside down yet no large caliber holes in them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the armor piercing bullets bounce off of roads, but then they can pierce metal, which is harder than the road they just bounced off?

Uh huh.

Listen, I got some time share options I'd like to discuss with you....

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

WTE_Galway
09-02-2008, 11:52 PM
One of the ongoing confusions on this forum is the difference between temporarily disabling a tank (bullets into the engine bay hitting critical components that may take the crew an hour or two to fix for example)and cooking it.

Actually 0.50 cal disabling a tiger temporarily may be feasible. The 0.50 cal was definitely used to disable T34's in Korea. Hopefully for long enough for infantry to get close enough to take it out permanently. Making a tank explode I am not so sure about.

I do have it on good authority that if the P51 had been used in an anti-shipping role the 0.50 cal was known to be capable of taking out frigates cruisers and if you bounced the bullets off the water ... battleships. The brass simply refused to use the 0.50 cal against tanks and warships because they would have had to explain the embarrassing excess truckloads of unnecessary rockets and bombs they had ordered.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 12:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
So the armor piercing bullets bounce off of roads, but then they can pierce metal, which is harder than the road they just bounced off?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll bet you have close to zero time with a rifle in your hands. I used to shoot semi-professionally and put 2500 rounds down range a month out of my pistol alone. I shot 3 gun matches so I got plenty of trigger time with high powered rifles as well. Bullets will ricochet off of surfaces that seem relatively soft because of trajectory angle. Especially at the angles that those aircraft were strafing at. Watch any strafing video closely, you'll see the rounds ricocheting off of grass fields. Angle is the key. When shooting pistol matches we used to shoot lead bullets only, to cut down on "backsplash". I got hit in the nuts once with a tiny piece of lead that came off a steel target at 30 meters. The round was a .45 cal 200 grain semi wadcutter at 850 fps. .50 cal rounds are 750 grains at 2850 fps. A copper jacketed round can easily bounce up a few feet and penetrate a target. I've bounced 5.56 rounds off the ground that penetrated steel vehicle wheels. The round stayed intact as it penetrated as evidenced by the completely round hole in the wheel.

Additionally, one round that enters a steel shell (turret) with any velocity usually doesn't exit, it bounces around that shell till it's energy is expended.

Enforcer572005
09-03-2008, 12:20 AM
these kindsa events are rare exceptions to the rule. Yeah I know a couple of "destroyers" got sunk by .50 fire, but that deosn't mean they were effective at that, though they did shoot up AA crews pretty badly.

One of the first combats a Brit Churchill tank got into involved one knocking out a Tiger 1 with its pathetic little 6 pounder (57mm pop gun). It did so by lodging an AP round between the turret and the chasis, jamming it. The crew decided to haul outta there. That sure didn't mean it was a good idea taking on a Tiger with an early 57mm armed Churhill, or with a later 75mm armed one for that matter. Yeah, it happened, but it isn't an accurate picture of weapon capabilities. Tigers used Churchills and Shermans for target practice, except for the 17lb armed Fireflies, which were a small percentage of Shermans.

Rest assured that the vast majority of Tigers and other German armor that was straffed by .50 fire suffered little serious damage in most cases.

And I do have some experience with firearms of all classes, including class three and alot of combat pistol shooting matches that I always placed very highly in. I have shot old cars experimenting, and most of those may as well have been tanks themselves.

To sum up the idea of using .50s against heavy armor and expecting such results........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Said exceptions are interesting though, but they are very rare, and should not be mis-interpreted.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 12:29 AM
AP will typically penetrate modern armor that is 3/4 of an inch (19mm) thick (500 meters). Top and bottom armor of the Tiger was 1 inch (25mm). It's definitely possible that you could get an inch or more penetration because of the older metallurgy in those tanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
P-47 pilots and there 50 caliber machine gun tall tales. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Come back with some experience then. I've put .50's thru armor plate. I don't doubt what the guys who flew these missions say.

Enforcer572005
09-03-2008, 12:40 AM
Well yeah, sure it was. It happened sometimes, but I wouldn't count on it happening with any reliability. 5in rockets were a far more preferred anti-armor weapon. Like you said, it depends on angles.

ballistics is an inconsistent science when it comes to penetration and bullet performance.

It's kinda like the ancient D i c k Tracy legend of .357 magnums penetrating engine blocks, which is pretty absurd in the real world. The tendancy of high velocity pistol bullets to bounce around in engine compartments of cars and take out all sorts of stuff got alot of cop generated legends started. It was pure misinterpretation of the events though. Some odd combination of events caused such things to be spread as fact.

I know .50 cal could probably penetrate bottom armor of alot of tanks under certain circumstances, but as pointed out above, they were rarely actually knocked out or seriously damaged by such. Especially monsters like Tigers. I've never found any reference to such being a major worry among German tankers, not like the 17lb guns and can opener rockets....or T-34/85s. Angle is everything in such cases.

Just because it can and did happen sometimes doesn't mean it did very often. I still think such events are being oversimplified and misinterpreted.

I also envy anyone who gets to shoot a .50 cal of any sort.

I_KG100_Prien
09-03-2008, 12:43 AM
Ah, it had been awhile since one of these threads had been posted.. Guess it was about time.

So, a Priest, a Rabbi, and a Cowboy come walking into a bar.. The Barkeep looks up and says "what is this, some kind of joke".

Much like this thread.

Hopefully one of our kind mods will come in and lock it down before it gets too far outta control.

*tosses the troll a cookie*

I agree, rarity being twisted into something completely different is silly. Lots of things are possible, doesn't mean they are the best course of action- or that they should be relied upon for consistent results.

Kocur_
09-03-2008, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
AP will typically penetrate modern armor that is 3/4 of an inch (19mm) thick (500 meters). Top and bottom armor of the Tiger was 1 inch (25mm). It's definitely possible that you could get an inch or more penetration because of the older metallurgy in those tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't you forgetting something...? Striking angle...? Do you expect .50s projectiles fired from say a P-47 to hit roof of a tank at 90 degrees? And it took that to achieve said penetration.
Modern armour steel is no better than in WW2. What may make the difference are particular properties of different types of armour steel, say hardness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Come back with some experience then. I've put .50's thru armor plate. I don't doubt what the guys who flew these missions say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even when what they say is on obvious fairytale? Like a projectile that in most favourable conditions can go through say 20 mm of steel - pentrating even more AFTER richochet, that is having considerably less KE and even more so, striking the armour in unusual orientation (I guess you would be surprised what going through thin aluminium skinning can do to penetration of plate behind it, that is how serious is the drop in penetriation due to added yaw)? That would be a good reason for calling you naive I'm affraid.

WTE_Galway
09-03-2008, 01:44 AM
I always find these threads amusing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



In reality there are two separate arguments here:

1) How often will strafing with 0.50 cal hit a vulnerable spot (engine bay or underneath for example) and do enough mechanical damage to immobilise a heavy tank like the tiger.

Note immobilisng is clearly possible with 0.50 cal but immobilising is not destroying.



2)Is it possible when firing at such a low angle of incidence that 0.50 cal bullets will bounce off the ground, that those same bullets will penetrate rather than bounce off the underside armor and make the tank explode.

general_kalle
09-03-2008, 01:50 AM
you guys not paying attention to the narration??
he says that they would hit a fuel trailer that the tank used to drag behind it... you cant penetrate a tiger armor with 50 cal bullets. no way
i mean even the shermans 75mm cannon had problems doing it. no way a 50 cal can do it then..and it wont bounce off the ground either.?

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
you guys not paying attention to the narration??
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, listen to it again. He said they'd get ricochets that would penetrate the bottom armor. I'm sure that wasn't just made up. Maybe when taking a look at a destroyed tank they found .50 cal rounds on the bottom side. It only makes sense that's where it came from.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
*tosses the troll a cookie* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your response is to call names........Sad. As for me being a troll, take a look again kid. I wouldn't have lasted this long on these boards with this many posts had this been the case. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not comparing post counts or any such nonsense like that. I'm just making my case that your troll comment is uncalled for.

I know this discussion has taken place before, on these boards. I guess the very first time it was discussed the thread starter was a troll? How bout you do me and the rest of the guys here a favor. Come back with an argument that you can back up. Tell me something to believe that you aren't indeed the troll.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Modern armour steel is no better than in WW2. What may make the difference are particular properties of different types of armour steel, say hardness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You contradicted yourself right there. You clearly know nothing of steel. And to say that metallurgy on something as common as armor plate hasn't changed in the last 65 years is ludicrous. I guess those F-15's and F-22's our Air Force is using have propellers on them, eh?

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
you guys not paying attention to the narration??
he says that they would hit a fuel trailer that the tank used to drag behind it... you cant penetrate a tiger armor with 50 cal bullets. no way
.? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He says they`d shoot the fuel trailer and if that came away then they`d shoot under the tank. Why? He doesn`t say why. I`m guessing it was easier to get at the underside of the tank from the rear than from the front?

This is very little to base the whole destroying of a tiger tank from. Neither do i see any footage that suggests the Tiger was actually destroyed, perhaps incapacitated (which was often enough.

Reminds me of the cries that 0.50s could cut battleships in half along with footage when it was clear that the bullets didn`t cut the ships in half but hit something volatile, like fuel or ammo, that caused a devastating explosion and subsequent destruction.

One bit of film and a pilot report (as much as I respect the pilot) is NOT enough to say that that is exactly what happened.

Also, personal gun experience on the ground is NOT the same as flying a 1940s P51 or Jug at high speed, 2000 feet off the ground trying to hit a moving target the size of a small truck under combat conditions. So stop with the `I`ve fired a gun, so there, I`m better` banter.

It proves nothing in this case.

Von_Rat
09-03-2008, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aren't you forgetting something...? Striking angle...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah really.
the angle of a perfect ricochet should be equal to the angle of incidence.

if the bottom of the tank is parallel to the road surface that means that the ricochet will strike the armor at the same angle that the bullet struck the road. which means that if the angle was low enough for the bullet to bounce off the road, its ricochet will strike the under side of the tank at a equally low angle. which means its gonna bounce off the armor as well.

if the ricochet is not perfect then theres also the problem of deformation and lost kinetic energy as you pointed out.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
the angle of ricochet is equal to the angle of incidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not always. Say it hits hard ground but there's a rock on the right side. Ricochet will be different than hitting hard ground with everything else being the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Also, personal gun experience on the ground is NOT the same as flying a 1940s P51 or Jug at high speed, 2000 feet off the ground trying to hit a moving target the size of a small truck under combat conditions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Personal gun experience (as well as reloading ammo) gives me a bit of knowledge about ballstics. Real life experience plus book learning is twice as good as book learning only. That was the point I was making, sorry if you misunderstood. The .50 cal round is still loaded to the same velocities and same bullet weight as it was in WWII BTW.

Von_Rat
09-03-2008, 03:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not always. Say it hits hard ground but there's a rock on the right side. Ricochet will be different than hitting hard ground with everything else being the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


if it strikes anything that keeps it from ricocheting at the same low angle that it struck, its going to be deformed and lose massive amounts of kinetic energy.

in other words, only a low angle ricochet will keep it from losing massive amount of kinetic energy. any obstruction that changes its low angle to hi angle will make it lose massive kinectic energy.

Kocur_
09-03-2008, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
Modern armour steel is no better than in WW2. What may make the difference are particular properties of different types of armour steel, say hardness. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You contradicted yourself right there.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. There are different types of armour steel, variations being made mostly by amounts of additives (so what adding more molibden would do to steel...? were late WW2 German tanks not made of armour steel, even though it's properties decreaced due to general lacking of metals like vanadium, molibden, chrome etc?) and also processing naturally (say Soviets using sometimes steel as hard as 500 HB).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
You clearly know nothing of steel. And to say that metallurgy on something as common as armor plate hasn't changed in the last 65 years is ludicrous. I guess those F-15's and F-22's our Air Force is using have propellers on them, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for someone saying what he says about others' knowledge of steel you propose rather peculiar argumentation on that particular subject.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 03:42 AM
Bullets do not ricochet with perfect or even near perfect elasticity.
They have spin and they are not round.
They deform on any kind of impact that would send them up back at much of an angle.
It's lunacy to push ideas that a ricochet shot off a road into the bottom of a tank is near
let alone fully the same as perpendicular strikes at any range straight from the gun.

Funny how experience doesn't seem to come into it.

I have yet to see a tank that's totally sealed though. On the back of Tiger I are cooling
slots to let the radiators work. Inside of there I don't know, maybe there are armored
baffles as well? How can you say "this happened" from people who never really investigated
and came up with a story that may have no truth whatsoever to it?

Now if someone had hauled a Tiger tank out at a proving ground and run controlled tests then
that would be completely different.

WOLFMondo
09-03-2008, 04:45 AM
Did that P47 driver actually land his plane, get out and inspect the Tiger after shooting at it? No, guessed not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not always. Say it hits hard ground but there's a rock on the right side. Ricochet will be different than hitting hard ground with everything else being the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


if it strikes anything that keeps it from ricocheting at the same low angle that it struck, its going to be deformed and lose massive amounts of kinetic energy.

in other words, only a low angle ricochet will keep it from losing massive amount of kinetic energy. any obstruction that changes its low angle to hi angle will make it lose massive kinectic energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention that the round would deform after hitting the road resulting in poorer ability to penetrate armour.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How can you say "this happened" from people who never really investigated
and came up with a story that may have no truth whatsoever to it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's funny that you guys say with some authority that it never happened and you completely refuse to believe anything anyone said who actually took part in the tank strafing.

Sorry gentlemen, if I'm gonna take a side with my opinion I'm going with the guys who were there and said it happened. Cuz none of you ever strafed a tank. IRL I mean. I hope none of you ever post here about the specifics of the first time I got laid. Ya'll will be stating things as fact and I know for sure that none of you was there................. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
09-03-2008, 05:20 AM
This whole idea of Tiger tanks being destroyed with .50 cal is total nonsense. Provided the tank was 'buttoned up' (i.e. no hatches open), its armour protection was simply too great for this to happen. And riccochets of aircraft fired .50 cal rounds off roads or other surfaces into the belly would NEVER, repeat NEVER have destroyed a Tiger tank.

I've lost count of how many times this poop has come up on these and other forums. Every time it comes up it gets shot down in flames again, only for somebody to bring it up again. It's RUBBISH!!!!!

The pilot's commentary (if that's what it is) accompanying this video can be safely dismissed as wishful thinking. It may have been commonly accepted at one time and some may even want to believe it today but wishful thinking it remains. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 05:21 AM
I'm just saying that your explanations are no good and you haven't proved your point.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2008, 05:22 AM
Hehe .50 cal bullets richeting off concrete and penetrating tank armour....


I saw a pig flying over my house last night too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


20mm cannon shells would not puncture even the lighter medium tanks of the early war like the Panzer 3 or 4. Thats why heavy caliber AT weapons were developed for Stukas, Hs129, Hurricanes and Mosquitos. Even these very heavy aircraft guns would not have much chance of penetrating a Tiger, that took something like the 17 pounder which was far too heavy to attach to a plane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder

However if it is in fact true, then its a damn shame noone was around at the time to tell them their hard efforts were completely wasted. And that one of the heaviest armoured tanks in WW2 could in fact be taken out by mere bullets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VVS-Manuc
09-03-2008, 05:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Hehe .50 cal bullets richeting off concrete and penetrating tank armour....


I saw a pig flying over my house last night too... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


20mm cannon shells would not puncture even the lighter medium tanks of the early war like the Panzer 3 or 4. Thats why heavy caliber AT weapons were developed for Stukas, Hs129, Hurricanes and Mosquitos. Even these very heavy aircraft guns would not have much chance of penetrating a Tiger, that took something like the 17 pounder which was far too heavy to attach to a plane.

However if it is in fact true, then its a damn shame noone was around at the time to tell them their hard efforts were completely wasted. And that one of the heaviest armoured tanks in WW2 could in fact be taken out by mere bullets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. And a .50 is not even 20 mm but about 13 mm.

Kocur_
09-03-2008, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Sorry gentlemen, if I'm gonna take a side with my opinion I'm going with the guys who were there and said it happened. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Did that P47 driver actually land his plane, get out and inspect the Tiger after shooting at it? No, guessed not.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My guess is the same. P-47 pilots actually were not there, i.e. at the tank, so they had no mean of determinig what exactly happened to the tank they strafed. And quite simple knowledge indicates that probability of doing what they belived they could do was less than negligible.

DuckyFluff
09-03-2008, 05:29 AM
I thought the mods had banned all this "my gun is better than your gun" s**te http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RuggButt my advice to you is STOP DIGGING. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

You may know a bit about firing weapons... SO WHAT? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
09-03-2008, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuckyFluff:
I thought the mods had banned all this "my gun is better than your gun" s**te http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not really banned, I find these discussions quite interesting, as long as they dont get insulting. SOme good info about real armour penetration sometimes comes out, and we all learn something.

However a mod with less patience than me could definitely lock it very soon. Especially if it degenerates into a slanging match.

Some of these old discussions are the funniest IMO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But I totally understand if one of the other mods wants to lock it.

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 05:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How can you say "this happened" from people who never really investigated
and came up with a story that may have no truth whatsoever to it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's funny that you guys say with some authority that it never happened and you completely refuse to believe anything anyone said who actually took part in the tank strafing.

Sorry gentlemen, if I'm gonna take a side with my opinion I'm going with the guys who were there and said it happened. Cuz none of you ever strafed a tank. IRL I mean. I hope none of you ever post here about the specifics of the first time I got laid. Ya'll will be stating things as fact and I know for sure that none of you was there................. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I`ll make it simple.

Take the guncam you posted, and the fighter pilot`s word and see how long it would stand in a court of law...

or..

Put it before a detective, Police inspector or CSI...

They would never use this evidenc alone because it proves nothing at all.

You can`t base the whole theory that 0.50s destroyed tanks on this alone. Reasonable Proof is required.

Now what I reckon happened was he did indeed fire and caused ricochets towards the underside of the tank and he did hit something that caused the tank to stop. So many rounds must do something eventually. This gave the impression that he penetrated the bottom of the tank, but maybe he simply got bullets into an unprotected area of the tank (especially from the rear and low with a constant spray of bullets) or even just disabled the tracks.

p.s. I`m not saying the pilot is lying, I`m sure he believes what he saw (although I doubt he saw the 0.50s actually go underneath the tank and penetrate) and maybe he`s right. There`s just not enough evidence to prove it.


p.p.s Does anyone have GERMAN tanker accounts of what happened when faced with allied (specifically US) fighter aircraft shootting at them? There must be something from their side.

Bremspropeller
09-03-2008, 05:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not always. Say it hits hard ground but there's a rock on the right side. Ricochet will be different than hitting hard ground with everything else being the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LoL, that's just what von-rat says.
If there's a rock, the "vector" of impulse onto the round is gonna be a different one than when hitting flat grass or concrete.

Hence the different riccochet-angle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The .50 cal round is still loaded to the same velocities and same bullet weight as it was in WWII BTW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference is that a P-47 had a different speed than a standstill cal 50 rifle and that there was quite a lot of vibration in a P-4s wing while shooting.

At those angles the riccocheting rounds would impact the tank's belly, they'd just bounce off as well.

Bearcat99
09-03-2008, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
these kindsa events are rare exceptions to the rule. Yeah I know a couple of "destroyers" got sunk by .50 fire, but that deosn't mean they were effective at that, though they did shoot up AA crews pretty badly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo.............

luftluuver
09-03-2008, 06:00 AM
Jeez, some ppl are gullible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Say the bullet hit the ground at an angle of 30* and the ricochet was at 30*. That 25mm of belly armor becomes much greater in thickness, ~75mm(~3").

Nice to know that the .50" was such a good AT projectile. No need for larger caliber AT weapons, be sure.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 06:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ok, I`ll make it simple.

Take the guncam you posted, and the fighter pilot`s word and see how long it would stand in a court of law...

or..

Put it before a detective, Police inspector or CSI...

They would never use this evidenc alone because it proves nothing at all.

You can`t base the whole theory that 0.50s destroyed tanks on this alone. Reasonable Proof is required.

Now what I reckon happened was he did indeed fire and caused ricochets towards the underside of the tank and he did hit something that caused the tank to stop. So many rounds must do something eventually. This gave the impression that he penetrated the bottom of the tank, but maybe he simply got bullets into an unprotected area of the tank (especially from the rear and low with a constant spray of bullets) or even just disabled the tracks.

p.s. I`m not saying the pilot is lying, I`m sure he believes what he saw (although I doubt he saw the 0.50s actually go underneath the tank and penetrate) and maybe he`s right. There`s just not enough evidence to prove it.


p.p.s Does anyone have GERMAN tanker accounts of what happened when faced with allied (specifically US) fighter aircraft shootting at them? There must be something from their side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even before you call in CSI, the problems here include:

(1) Footage does not show Tiger tanks.
(2) Statement that Tiger tank was not armoured underneath is completely false.
(3) Statement that Tiger tanks normally towed fuel trailers is incorrect. This was in fact a very rare occurrence over the whole war and I've seen no evidence, photographic or otherwise, that it was ever done in NW Europe 44-45. Other vehicles perhaps, Tiger tanks definitely not.

Could some of the lighter, less well armoured AFVs be disabled or even destroyed by strafing with .50 cal? Certainly. And at speed in a moving aircraft, reliably IDing an AFV on the ground as you passed over it would be extremely difficult.

As for German accounts, I have done exhaustive research over many years (armour being my area of greatest enthusiasm) and I have NEVER read or seen anything that indicates a Tiger having even been brought to a halt by .50 cal MG fire, much less destroyed. In fact, Allied air-to-ground kills of German tanks in NW Europe generally, using all weapons - bombs, rockets, cannon etc - were much rarer than is popularly believed. Very few German tanks of any sort were destroyed this way and even fewer of the heavier Tigers or Panthers.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 06:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
My guess is the same. P-47 pilots actually were not there, i.e. at the tank, so they had no mean of determinig what exactly happened to the tank they strafed. And quite simple knowledge indicates that probability of doing what they belived they could do was less than negligible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would have been hard pressed to correctly identify whether the vehicle they had hit was actually a tank or some other kind of tracked AFV, never mind what specific type of tank it was.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2008, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
these kindsa events are rare exceptions to the rule. Yeah I know a couple of "destroyers" got sunk by .50 fire, but that deosn't mean they were effective at that, though they did shoot up AA crews pretty badly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely

HayateAce
09-03-2008, 06:34 AM
Like clockwork, it must be Autumn!

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

Fiddy cals are not going to penetrate tank armor, at any angle....ever. Lightly armored cars and halftracks.....maybe.

What they could do, is ricochet enough rounds down into the open engine grates to cause enough damage to disable...and during combat that is every bit as good as knocking a 3 inch hole right through the turret. Tigers ROUTINELY traveled with their engine hatches open to gain cooling for their heat-prone engines.

http://gulfstreamrccarclub.com/tiger_engine_installed.jpg

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

For the record, Tigers or Panthers rarely if EVER towed any type of fuel trailers. Photographic evidence simply does not support this pilot's claim.

Bremspropeller
09-03-2008, 06:37 AM
Sounds way more reasonable than the riccochet-story.

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Ok, I`ll make it simple.

Take the guncam you posted, and the fighter pilot`s word and see how long it would stand in a court of law...

or..

Put it before a detective, Police inspector or CSI...

They would never use this evidenc alone because it proves nothing at all.

You can`t base the whole theory that 0.50s destroyed tanks on this alone. Reasonable Proof is required.

Now what I reckon happened was he did indeed fire and caused ricochets towards the underside of the tank and he did hit something that caused the tank to stop. So many rounds must do something eventually. This gave the impression that he penetrated the bottom of the tank, but maybe he simply got bullets into an unprotected area of the tank (especially from the rear and low with a constant spray of bullets) or even just disabled the tracks.

p.s. I`m not saying the pilot is lying, I`m sure he believes what he saw (although I doubt he saw the 0.50s actually go underneath the tank and penetrate) and maybe he`s right. There`s just not enough evidence to prove it.


p.p.s Does anyone have GERMAN tanker accounts of what happened when faced with allied (specifically US) fighter aircraft shootting at them? There must be something from their side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



As for German accounts, I have done exhaustive research over many years (armour being my area of greatest enthusiasm) and I have NEVER read or seen anything that indicates a Tiger having even been brought to a halt by .50 cal MG fire, much less destroyed. In fact, Allied air-to-ground kills of German tanks in NW Europe generally, using all weapons - bombs, rockets, cannon etc - were much rarer than is popularly believed. Very few German tanks of any sort were destroyed this way and even fewer of the heavier Tigers or Panthers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well there you go. While I`m no expert on these things, I have never heard of Tigers carrying fuel trailers, neither have I read any accounts of Germans mentioning having to deal with shots being fired under their tanks. Plus the rest of the details in this thread, combat conditions, getting angle, pentration, seeing the results, rarity, etc, not least relying only on incorrect film and the , however well-intentiond, words of the pilot who could not possibly have got out and checked the vehicle he strafed to be sure.

He probably hit something near the rear of the tank, possibly causing it to stop or lose track and stop all-in-all. Which at that time would be enough to put it out of action.

It`s a common sense thing, I think.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
"....What they could do, is ricochet enough rounds down into the open engine grates to cause enough damage to disable...and during combat that is every bit as good as knocking a 3 inch hole right through the turret." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it was possible for bullets, bullet fragments/splash or shell splinters to enter the grille openings on the rear deck of a Tiger, the chances of vehicle-stopping damage happening specifically as a result of aircraft strafing were not great. Nevertheless, modifications were made inside these areas to help minimize the risk of damage to the vulnerable cooling system radiators from all possible causes, so the overall risk (from all causes combined, air and ground) was obviously considered sufficient to warrant some attention. On those few occasions when such damage occurred, it immobilized the tank until repairs could be carried out but this was not "every bit as good as knocking a 3 inch hole right through the turret" as the latter would almost always result in killing of crew members, much more serious damage to the tank and very likely even a total loss. On the other hand, total loss of a temporarily immobilized tank would usually only occur if the Germans were forced to retreat and abandon the tank. Tiger tanks were very valuable and every possible effort to recover them was made.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
"Tigers ROUTINELY traveled with their engine hatches open to gain cooling for their heat-prone engines." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was not generally the case in forward areas where action was expected, and I have not seen any evidence that it was routine, especially not in NW Europe 44-45. In any case, the majority of the 'heat prone' problems were overcome with various modifications to the cooling and fuel systems during the first year or the Tiger's service (i.e. well before the Normandy campaign began). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
09-03-2008, 07:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
"He probably hit something near the rear of the tank, possibly causing it to stop or lose track and stop all-in-all. Which at that time would be enough to put it out of action.

It`s a common sense thing, I think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF it was a tank at all, and not some other kind of tracked AFV.

Btw, the tracks on a Tiger tank were among the heaviest and most robust of all WW2 tanks (they had to be, to deal with the vehicle's combination of weight and power). It is extremely unlikely that they would be damaged enough by .50 cal MG fire (especially from a strafing aircraft) to stop the tank.

KIMURA
09-03-2008, 07:18 AM
Maybe a good read for people who are still in the believe of the effectiness of FB's against German Tanks.
German Panzer losses due to airstrikes (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

stalkervision
09-03-2008, 07:24 AM
One could possibley break a track for a mobility kill but this says they were completly destroyed. I also am unaware of Tiger tanks pulling fuel browsers. To me this is very unlikely given the risks to the tank. They were most often transported by rail to where they were needed and then drove a short distance into action.

Xiolablu3
09-03-2008, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
Maybe a good read for people who are still in the believe of the effectiness of FB's against German Tanks.
German Panzer losses due to airstrikes (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm not sure about that essay. Looks a littel dodgy to me.

The writer seems to dismiss even what the sides with the losses reported.

He says things like 'Rommel reported heavy losses to air attacks, but they didnt have heavy losses at all according to my numbers' kind of attitude.

I'm not convinced by that piece. I realise rockets didnt hurt tanks much unless they scored a direct hit, and that the users of rockets often over estimated their effects, however they were pretty devastating to softer skinned vehicles like fuel trucks, AAA and infantry.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
One could possibley break a track for a mobility kill but this says they were completly destroyed. I also am unaware of Tiger tanks pulling fuel browsers. To me this is very unlikely given the risks to the tank. They were most often transported by rail to where they were needed and then drove a short distance into action. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A shower of .50 cal fire hitting the track of a lighter AFV might easily break it, especially if the fire was a concentrated burst (next to impossible to achieve with strafing from an aircraft). Breaking the very hefty and strong track of a TIGER by MG strafing from an aircraft would be so unlikely as to be reckoned just about impossible. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
09-03-2008, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
"Hmmm not sure about that essay. Looks a littel dodgy to me.

The writer seems to dismiss even what the sides with the losses reported.

He says things like 'Rommel reported heavy losses to air attacks, but they didnt have heavy losses at all according to my numbers' kind of attitude.

I'm not convinced by that piece. I realise rockets didnt hurt tanks much unless they scored a direct hit, and that the users of rockets often over estimated their effects, however they were pretty devastating to softer skinned vehicles like fuel trucks, AAA and infantry." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no doubt that attacks from tac air could wreak considerable devastation on vehicle columns and this happened often enough. What didn't happen very much at all, though, was destruction of actual TANKS from such attacks, especially not the heavier Panther and Tiger tanks. Naturally, lighter AFVs tended to be more vulnerable and the whole gamut of softskins and very lightly armoured AFVs such as halftracks - which made up the greater percentage of vehicles anyway - were very vulnerable indeed. Destroying the support vehicles which carried supplies, fuel, tools, repair parts, rations, support personnel etc etc also had devastating effects on the combat effectiveness of an armoured unit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KIMURA
09-03-2008, 08:15 AM
I dare to say that there's no real prove of a single tank of the calibre of a Panther or Tiger was ever lost due to heavy machine-gun fire from strafing a/c, like the P-47 was. If 0.5" could pentrate the floor armor or a MBT, so why for heavens sake the RAF and LW introduced 37mm resp. 40mm cannon to k.o. much lighter armored tanks? Even those much more powerful cannons needed special tactics and special angle of which to attack to be successful.

In reverse to say that in best case these machine-gunned German Panzers suffered light damage in the engine area from bullet which entered the cooling covers. There were some field mods of German Panzer crew to ONLY cover the engine cooling covers. That means that there was no need for further protection against FB˜s which only use machine-guns.

The only needed protection of "heavies" against a/c weapons looked like this.
http://images.kitlink.com/Products/images/Voyager/vyg35013.JPG

Another nonsense of the thread starter is the claim that the 0.5" could penetrate armor of 1 inch after bouncing off from something. Impact-angle=exit angle. An a/c attacks from 20-30? that gives an effective armor thickness on the roof and floor of a Tiger or Panther of some 1.96-2.75 inch. No 0.5" can penetrate that, not to speak of a round that's bent and stagger after 1st contact with the concret of the street.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KIMURA:
I dare that there's no real prove of a single tank of the calibre of a Panther or Tiger was ever lost due to heavy machine-gun fire from strafing a/c, like the P-47 was. If 0.5" could pentrate the floor armor or a MBT, so why for heavens sake the RAF and LW introduced 37mm resp. 40mm cannon to k.o. much lighter armored tanks? Even those much more cannons needed special tactics and special angle of which to attack to be successful.

In reverse to say that in best case these machine-gunned German Panzers suffered light damage in the engine area from bullet which entered the cooling covers. There were some field mods of German Panzer crew to ONLY cover the engine cooling covers. That means that there was no need for further protection against FB˜s which only use machine-guns.


The only needed protection of "heavies" against a/c weapons looked like this.
http://images.kitlink.com/Products/images/Voyager/vyg35013.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be worth mentioning that these mods (improvised plates over the tops of the deck grille openings) were only ever fitted to a very small number of Panthers and Jagdpanthers. I don't recall ever seeing photos of them on Tigers, but these latter vehicles did have internal modifications that greatly reduced the probability of serious damage from bullets or shell splinters that might enter the grille openings. In any case, there were undoubtedly occasions when the risk from artillery airburst was greater than that from strafing aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

staticline1
09-03-2008, 08:36 AM
Fifty schmifty, its a pain in the rear shooting those tanks with rounds, be it .50's, 20 mil cannon or anything else. Blasted things are so small from the air. I prefer to drop a 500lb bomb on them or in their very close promixity. Good-bye kitty tank! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Besides, you never know when that sneaky FW might try to jump you, shoot everything you have into those tanks you're left with nothing to defend yourself.

KIMURA
09-03-2008, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by staticline1:
Besides, you never know when that sneaky FW might try to jump you, shoot everything you have into those tanks you're left with nothing to defend yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC the topic turns around 0.5" not "everthing you have".

panther3485
09-03-2008, 08:55 AM
A direct hit with a 500lb bomb would definitely do the job on even the heaviest tank but the problem was accuracy (or lack thereof). It was very, very difficult indeed to hit a tank by dropping a bomb from an aircraft. A 'near miss' would certainly have to be that, to do any significant damage to the likes of a Tiger or Panther but of course, blast/shockwave effects could easily shake the crew up badly if the bomb was close.

But yeah, this thread isn't about bombs, I know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CaliCheese3
09-03-2008, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Destroying the support vehicles which carried supplies, fuel, tools, repair parts, rations, support personnel etc etc also had devastating effects on the combat effectiveness of an armoured unit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with panther, Why waist your bullets on the tank, when you can take out its support column?

Also, I don't really know anything about bullets penetrating the Tigers or what not, but I would think the psychological affect on the tank crew from a strafing run would probably have shaken them up. From the engine noise, the treads, and focus on the targets ahead of them, they probably didn't hear the planes coming in unless someone said something over the radio. If it were me and I didn't hear them come in and all of a sudden loud bangs against the side of my tank and seeing the ground around me flying everywhere, that would probably scare the S**T OUTA' ME! Tiger tank or not. With that being said I would have probably stopped the tank and gone to see If there was any damage because it sure sounded like there would be.

panther3485
09-03-2008, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaliCheese3:
"Also, I don't really know anything about bullets penetrating the Tigers or what not, but I would think the psychological affect on the tank crew from a strafing run would probably have shaken them up. From the engine noise, the treads, and focus on the targets ahead of them, they probably didn't hear the planes coming in unless someone said something over the radio. If it were me and I didn't hear them come in and all of a sudden loud bangs against the side of my tank and seeing the ground around me flying everywhere, that would probably scare the S**T OUTA' ME! Tiger tank or not. With that being said I would have probably stopped the tank and gone to see If there was any damage because it sure sounded like there would be." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
A well trained and experienced crew - as they generally were for most of the war - would more likely hold steady but a less well trained/green crew (as was more common in the late stages of the war) might panic. I recall reading somewhere of such a crew baling out of a tank, only to re-mount when they discovered that no significant damage had been inflicted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 09:12 AM
Congrats, all of you "experts" have discounted every single thing that P-47 pilot said. The guy who flew the plane......who strafed the ground targets......who survived the war and provided the commentary.

Ya'll are entitled to your beliefs but I've never seen such a huge group of wanna-be fighter pilots who absolutely believe they're right and the guy who was there was 110% wrong. You're the same kind of people who watch what I do for a living and think cuz I make it look easy that it is..........

One last thing: If the tank was stopped or taken out of action by getting some rounds into the engine compartment then it's no longer a weapon the Germans could use. So technically a .50 "took out" a Tiger.

Bremspropeller
09-03-2008, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Congrats, all of you "experts" have discounted every single thing that P-47 pilot said. The guy who flew the plane......who strafed the ground targets......who survived the war and provided the commentary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


...who bragged, to be as cool as the other guys in o-club http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BTW: Santa also doesn't exist, please don't jump off a bridge over that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So technically a .50 "took out" a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it could still fire it's gun.

stalkervision
09-03-2008, 09:25 AM
I have seen where every british and american soldiers plus the allied airman considered every German tank a "Tiger" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IPOF there were few Tigers in the areas P-47 operated. Hell there were few Tiger ever built PERIOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

luftluuver
09-03-2008, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Congrats, all of you "experts" have discounted every single thing that P-47 pilot said. The guy who flew the plane......who strafed the ground targets......who survived the war and provided the commentary.

Ya'll are entitled to your beliefs but I've never seen such a huge group of wanna-be fighter pilots who absolutely believe they're right and the guy who was there was 110% wrong. You're the same kind of people who watch what I do for a living and think cuz I make it look easy that it is..........

One last thing: If the tank was stopped or taken out of action by getting some rounds into the engine compartment then it's no longer a weapon the Germans could use. So technically a .50 "took out" a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep on trolling Butt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's getting good over there. Now I don't believe that 50's took out Tigers. But I do know that Tiger was a generic term for any German tank. But the best part is that they are all such experts that they discount every single thing that the pilot in that commentary said. Granted, I wasn't there either but I'm pretty sure that there's at least one thing the old guy got correct with his commentary. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Keep on trolling Butt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah that's it, I'm trolling cuz I "called out" all you experts. Truth hurts, eh?

luftluuver
09-03-2008, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Yeah that's it, I'm trolling cuz I "called out" all you experts. Truth hurts, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The response one usually sees when one gets their butt hand to them on a platter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Besides your words from CWoS: It's getting good over there. Now I don't believe that 50's took out Tigers.

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:


One last thing: If the tank was stopped or taken out of action by getting some rounds into the engine compartment then it's no longer a weapon the Germans could use. So technically a .50 "took out" a Tiger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, indeed. But we were disputing the bounce off the road and into the Tiger`s under-belly as a way to kill a Tiger.

We haven`t put down the real-life pilot at all, just used reasonable logic (and facts by some) to query the validity of how he felt he destroyed it.

Once again, your experience does not in anyway validate what you think of a fighter pilot`s recollection more than anyone else with a reasonable grasp of knowledge, maturity and logic. Many of us have experience in many fields, that doesn`t mean we use it 24/7 to back our claims, unless it has something directly to do with the subject at hand.

SeaFireLIV
09-03-2008, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:

A well trained and experienced crew - as they generally were for most of the war - would more likely hold steady but a less well trained/green crew (as was more common in the late stages of the war) might panic. I recall reading somewhere of such a crew baling out of a tank, only to re-mount when they discovered that no significant damage had been inflicted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! Never read this bit. I was wondering what if a crew, being attacked by 0.50s bailed in panic, making the pilot think he`d got a tank kill and flying off? I was going to place this as an example of mistaken Tiger kills, but wasn`t certian.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 09:58 AM
A pilot from the same group that overclaimed air to air kills by how many times over?
Yup, they were there and they were all right whatever they said even if the Germans didn't
make half as many planes total let alone lose them all to air combat. But those guys,
everything they said was infallible, yup, yup, yup.

And all the guys I was in the service with were smart as hell and always right too!

CaliCheese3
09-03-2008, 10:00 AM
http://www.lonesentry.com/tanktalk/index.html

Note: Article does not specifically mention Tigers under the part about ways to kill a German tank.

Also, this is mainly about how to take a tank out from the ground.

I don't think this article supports nor denies the current topic, but i thought id like to keep the circus going!

Propwash
09-03-2008, 11:01 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

jarink
09-03-2008, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:

A well trained and experienced crew - as they generally were for most of the war - would more likely hold steady but a less well trained/green crew (as was more common in the late stages of the war) might panic. I recall reading somewhere of such a crew baling out of a tank, only to re-mount when they discovered that no significant damage had been inflicted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! Never read this bit. I was wondering what if a crew, being attacked by 0.50s bailed in panic, making the pilot think he`d got a tank kill and flying off? I was going to place this as an example of mistaken Tiger kills, but wasn`t certian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's hard to believe, but this sort of bail-and-return thing even happened with ships that were torpedoed. Naturally, the U-Boat crews claimed them as sunk. They typically didn't wait around to see if the crew would try and re-board their obviously damaged and possibly/probably sinking ship.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Congrats, all of you "experts" have discounted every single thing that P-47 pilot said. The guy who flew the plane......who strafed the ground targets......who survived the war and provided the commentary.

Ya'll are entitled to your beliefs but I've never seen such a huge group of wanna-be fighter pilots who absolutely believe they're right and the guy who was there was 110% wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to your <STRIKE>logic</STRIKE> argument, then every plane claimed as destroyed by every fighter pilot or bomber gunner during the war was an actual kill. Sorry, but we KNOW that is simply not true. In my mind, that still takes nothing away from them and their service to their countries.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
You're the same kind of people who watch what I do for a living and think cuz I make it look easy that it is.......... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to stoop to your level for a moment, you seem to be the kind of person who is very full of himself to the point of self-worship. You also seem to be the kind of person that is so convinced of his infallibility that you must resort to tantrums and infantile insults when people refute your arguments with logic and facts.

PS. I don't give a rat's *** what you do for a living; it doesn't change the fact that you haven't made a convincing argument on this subject.

thefruitbat
09-03-2008, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How can you say "this happened" from people who never really investigated
and came up with a story that may have no truth whatsoever to it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's funny that you guys say with some authority that it never happened and you completely refuse to believe anything anyone said who actually took part in the tank strafing.

Sorry gentlemen, if I'm gonna take a side with my opinion I'm going with the guys who were there and said it happened. Cuz none of you ever strafed a tank. IRL I mean. I hope none of you ever post here about the specifics of the first time I got laid. Ya'll will be stating things as fact and I know for sure that none of you was there................. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is funny, so your saying that you're going with the guys who were there and said it happened. Even if people try to show you evidence to the contary.

That in itself isn't to bad, as long as you remeber that people back then talked just as much turd as they do now

You ever read the claims, for air victories airforce by airforce in WWII, a lot more planes were shot down than were made... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

fruitbat

Aaron_GT
09-03-2008, 11:31 AM
An AFV that is towing something is most likely going to be an SPG towing a trailer with ammunition, and most of these SPGs were open topped and so would be quite easily put out of action by strafing.

Buzzsaw-
09-03-2008, 11:33 AM
Salute

I'm not going to get heavily into the discussion re. .50 calibres vs Tigers, if a such a tank was destroyed by strafing, it would seem to be an anomaly, and not the usual. However remote a possibility, stranger things have happened in war. One thing to consider: If the tank has any kind of fuel cannisters stored on the top, or any kind of fuel leakage, then the Armour Piercing Inciendary rounds of the P-47 would certainly light this material on fire. And any tank crew which became aware their tank was on fire, even if it was only a deck fire, would certainly bail out until they could get it under control.

But onto my main focus: Someone mentioned 500 lb bombs vs tanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dearly wish that Oleg will model the effects of bombs vs Armoured vehicles more accurately in BoB.

As it stands in IL-2, you have a better chance of destroying a tank with a rocket than a large bomb, even if the bomb lands very close to the tank. This is not very accurate, since the destructive power of a large bomb is considerably more than the warhead of a rocket. (never mind the fact that rockets are far more accurate in the game than they were historically)

There are numerous historical photographs from both sides showing the effects of even near misses by large bombs on Tanks. Even 30 ton Tanks are literally thrown in the air by the blast, turned on their sides or upended. I have seen pictures of KV-1's upside down in bomb craters created by Stukas and 500 kg ordanance. As well as Panthers on their sides as a result of 1000 lb Allied drops.

Hopefully the errors in bomb effectiveness will be a thing of the past once BoB is published.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 11:36 AM
I once had a guy get all PO'd at me because when he asked which German tank was The Panzer
and I told him All Of Them. He got it fixed in his mind that when a video said "Hitler's
Panzers" that there was one tank named Panzer.

I think that people like that go on to make shows for TV or teach school or something.

Jaws2002
09-03-2008, 12:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Keep on trolling Butt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah that's it, I'm trolling cuz I "called out" all you experts. Truth hurts, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are so experienced in firing weapons please, next time you go to the firing range, go down range and find some slugs that ricochet off the ground. maybe you could take some pics too. You'll be hard press to find bullets that are stil capable to penetrate any sort of armor after a ricoche.
Back in the army I've done few patrols around the shooting range. I found loads of all kaliber slugs. the vast majority of them were bent and deformed too bad to have any kind of armor penetration capability.
But you probably know that. You just troll around.

Anyway, there was a very telling article on armor piercing ability of .50cals after penetrating 0.5mm aircraft skin, at Tony Whilliams's site. You should go read it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
09-03-2008, 01:43 PM
actually, i think it only took a single 50 to do the job....bet the pilot had to duck his head as he went under the tiger to flip it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/g50_352sq_decollo.jpg


what's that?

oh, nevermind...

DIRTY-MAC
09-03-2008, 02:25 PM
http://tv-mafia.com/series_images/Mythbusters.jpg

Von_Rat
09-03-2008, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A pilot from the same group that overclaimed air to air kills by how many times over?
Yup, they were there and they were all right whatever they said even if the Germans didn't
make half as many planes total let alone lose them all to air combat. But those guys,
everything they said was infallible, yup, yup, yup.

And all the guys I was in the service with were smart as hell and always right too! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>\



good points.

i would like to add that flying a plane at god knows what speed , while getting shot at, is not conducive to making good observations.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
Well, to stoop to your level for a moment, you seem to be the kind of person who is very full of himself to the point of self-worship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The greatness that is me has nothing to do with what this pilot did, he was there. You don't have to like the video, (all of) you can call the pilot a liar, etc but that only tells me that you guys fancy yourself the consummate expert(s). Don't try to deflect, it doesn't work on me.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You also seem to be the kind of person that is so convinced of his infallibility that you must resort to tantrums and infantile insults when people refute your arguments with logic and facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What tantrum? I pointed out that ya'll are wanna be fighter pilots who think they're right regardless of what the man whose "been there done that" says. You're the one using the foul language in your response, the board had to filter it out. Foul language is often the first sign of anger. I apologize for making you upset.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it doesn't change the fact that you haven't made a convincing argument on this subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not one of you here has made a convincing argument to prove otherwise. No one here has quoted any ballistics fact. Very few of you even know what it's like to put lead downrange. Very few of you have even had a spent bullet in your hand. But ya'll are experts. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Uh huh.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Back in the army I've done few patrols around the shooting range. I found loads of all kaliber slugs. the vast majority of them were bent and deformed too bad to have any kind of armor penetration capability.
But you probably know that. You just troll around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unless you're special forces, I've put more heavy caliber stuff down range in one week than you've put down in a year. I've picked up several spent .50 projectiles that had a small dent on one side. Other than that no deformation. On the small arms range you're mostly correct though, 5.56 rounds tend to disintigrate because of their thin copper jacket. Don't confuse performance of rifle rounds with that of an AP .50. I used to own a M1919 and the AP rounds from it don't deform easily unless they penetrate something really hard. These are slugs that were pulled from WWII era brass, powder and corrosive primers removed, primer crimp swaged out and replaced with non corrosive primers and the correct load of new smokeless powder. AP ain't the same as Ball.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Hell there were few Tiger ever built PERIOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A few hundred, I've read about 600 and that may be Tiger I's.
But then you spread them out and kill a bunch here and there, they were not exactly common.

Michael Wittman gave a whole British column good cause to think that one Tiger is plenty one day.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2008, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I also am unaware of Tiger tanks pulling fuel browsers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only tank I am aware of that towed a bowser was the Churchill Crocodile which pulled a two wheeled bowser with the fuel for the flamethrower (there not being enough space inside for the ammunition for the main gun, crew and the bulky fuel).

There -were- trailers for ammunition for self-propelled guns (e.g. Wespe) as an alternative to the second vehicle (i.e. a second SPG chassis minus the gun).

In the well-known footage things are far too grainy to see what the vehicle attacked is with any certainty, let alone any definitive indication of where it is being hit.

Buzzsaw is spot on with regards to rocket accuracy. If you see any WW2 footage you see the rockets bouncing around and porpoising all over the place. The assessments after WW2 was that they were relatively ineffective in terms of producing actual physical destruction of tanks, rather better against light AFVs, but effective against soft skinned vehicles. However the verdict was that the -threat- of rocket attack was a big factor in abandonment of vehicles by attack and by forcing abandonment due to lack of fuel by cutting supply lines.

In Normandy with the taxi rank system for FBs with rockets could mean forcing the temporary abandonment of tanks, and even for ten minutes, this could be quite decisive. In air power terms in Normandy the artillery spotters, be they army in light planes, or the USN in old Spitfire Vs were also key in allowing accurate artillery, to the same effect.

Phil_K
09-03-2008, 03:01 PM
I once kicked a tennis ball 20 yards and hit a light switch to "on".

So, you know, crazy sh*t sometimes happens.

Aaron_GT
09-03-2008, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
it doesn't change the fact that you haven't made a convincing argument on this subject.


Not one of you here has made a convincing argument to prove otherwise. No one here has quoted any ballistics fact. Very few of you even know what it's like to put lead downrange. Very few of you have even had a spent bullet in your hand. But ya'll are experts. Big Grin Uh huh. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In science the usual null hypothesis is no effect unless shown otherwise by sufficient evidence.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 03:07 PM
M2 barrel changed during the 50's. It's not the same gun as it was in WWII.

We've had one gunner with loads of range time claim here that M2 bullets speed up after
leaving the muzzle and don't hit top speed until 200-300m downrange.

But he's an expert. Shoots them for a living. Been there and knows. Uh-huh.
He was told and believes so that's the truth and anyone who says different don't know squat.

A good part of what one of my drill instructors told in basic was unalloyed BS too.
But you don't argue or correct a gumby like that, not if you don't want trouble.

You just stick with your guns and keep your faith but you ain't exactly converting anyone here.

DuckyFluff
09-03-2008, 04:23 PM
I've fired all sorts of weapons down all sorts of ranges, the only thing it proves to me is that I know diddly squat about ballistics and firing weapons down ranges http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I certainly wouldn't go about BSing about it, there's ALWAYS someone that can make you look stupid when you flap those lips about your expertise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif lol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

VW-IceFire
09-03-2008, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Ummm...this is not a new video nor is the commentary new either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes you just need to remind the masses of the facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by josephs1959:
Well if .50's did in fact penetrate a Tiger it would have been from the roof of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Listen to the commentary again. Ricocheted off the ground into the underside of the tank which wasn't armored very well. I've seen pix of Tigers that were flipped upside down yet no large caliber holes in them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the record I was not agreeing with you.

.50cal cannot kill large tanks and the video footage doesn't prove things one way or another either so its not really a fact at all. Just your interpretation of a grainy video.

KG66_Gog
09-03-2008, 06:50 PM
Ruggbutt and all the other '.50 cal kills Tigers' fans take note,

The US Army conducted detailed assessments of German Armour and the methods that were used to take them out. Any Tiger would have been analysed to see what worked and what didn't. This intelligence would then have been fed back down the line.

I have never seen any damage assessment of a Tiger or other German tank that mentioned anything about '.50 cal holes in underside of tank' nor have I ever seen a picture of Tigers towing fuel trailers!

This entire story is garbage, not supported by any fact. The only 'evidence' you have is some old guys account.

FYI, the US forces in the western front continually incorrectly reported a German tank as a 'Tiger', when it in fact was not. This became so much of a problem that use of the word Tiger in reports was restricted as it caused confusion and unecessary trepidation on the part of allied tank crews.

These pilots blasting away at whatever moved would'nt have known what tank they were shooting at and I'd hazard a guess that US pilots killed more Shermans than they ever did Tigers!

KG66_Gog
09-03-2008, 06:54 PM
Having looked at the footage again, the tank at the 20 second mark is either a Panther or a Jagdpanther and it is not taken out. The rest of the vehicles appear to be lighter armoured vehicles or just great plumes of fire and smoke.

There isn't a Tiger to be seen.

jarink
09-03-2008, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Unless you're special forces, I've put more heavy caliber stuff down range in one week than you've put down in a year. I've picked up several spent .50 projectiles that had a small dent on one side. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical p*ssing match BS. So you say you're SF, eh? BFD. You've shot lots of weapons, huh? So what, so have I (including a .50 cal M2, don't think you're so special there, junior) and so have lots of other folks here. Again, I don't give a da*n who you are, what you've done, what you say you've done (which may or may not be the same thing) or any of this other BS about how you've "put rounds downrange"-so-you-must-be-an-expert. By the way, the only "rounds downrange" experience that's relevant would be if you've actually shot at a REAL PzKfw Mk VI Tiger from a P-47, P-51 or P-38 and inspected it after the fact. Have you? I. doubt. it.

FACTS count more than BS, I have not seen any FACTS presented by you, only hearsay and personal observations that are actually irrelevant to the topic. That, and personal attacks suggesting that no one here besides you knows anything about ballistics or WWII armor and aircraft.

Troll. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Rink out.

WTE_Galway
09-03-2008, 08:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
Having looked at the footage again, the tank at the 20 second mark is either a Panther or a Jagdpanther and it is not taken out. The rest of the vehicles appear to be lighter armoured vehicles or just great plumes of fire and smoke.

There isn't a Tiger to be seen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You mean this vehicle ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/tank1.jpg


I agree its the only one in the clip that looks like an armored vehicle rather than some variant of truck.

I am not prepared to say exactly what it is.

However its significant to note that the attack is from the side. There is no way any riccochet bullets are getting under the vehicle the as the tracks would be in the way.

The bouncing bullets story usually claims it was a front or rear attack.

Also as you note there is no sign in the clip of that particular vehicle taking damage.

stugumby
09-03-2008, 08:43 PM
I spent 24 years on tanks from m48a5 to m1a1, and shot many thousands of rounds thru many a .50 cal, 90mm-120mm. In my humble meaningless opinion it cant kill a tiger tank, maybe a mobility kill by punctures of the radiators by spall thru their armored baffles.. or the fuel tanks at their armored caps.. APIT works wonders on light armor but not on heavy armor.

On the other hand, hitting a tank with about 200-300 rounds with the hatches open, would produce some serious richochetting thru the interior of the turret and hull compartments, setting off ammo and stored pol products etc. Also any external storage would be set afire in no time.

So by no means do I proclaim myself expert but not buying it one bit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

ImMoreBetter
09-03-2008, 09:37 PM
So has anyone bothered to crunch some numbers yet?

I'm not going to spend much time on this perpetual subject... so I Google commando'd.

The Tiger had about 1 inch worth of armor on the floor...
http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerheavytank/tigerfigure3.jpg

While according to this (http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html).50 cals would have about .9-1 maximum inches worth of steel penetration. That is a direct hit.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Someone should quickly cut this post to pieces.

Skycat_2
09-03-2008, 09:52 PM
The veteran's commentary must be considered separate from the guncam footage. At no point does he say, "In this footage I am strafing a Tiger tank." Basically the producers found some very good color footage that illustrates the general concept of strafing armored vehicles.

What vehicle is being hit? It could be a Jagdpanther but it looks to me like it has a turret so I think it is more likely a Panther if it is fact a tank. The longish profile makes me think it is more likely a Puma:
http://www.plasticpanzers.8k.com/images/puma3c.jpg

Like several other posters here, I have reservations about the pilot's claim that it was common to see Tigers (or any other heavy tank for that matter) pulling fuel trailers. Maybe he was shooting up Kettenkrads. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edit: watched the clip again. The vehicle looks wider and heavier than I initially thought. Darn the low fidelity of YouTube! Now I think the T-Bolts were trying to light up a Sherman!

AnaK774
09-03-2008, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
Listen to the commentary from someone who had been there, done that.......Luftwhiners pay attention. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9cqhuARrM </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, popcorn, beer, comfy sofa...any joiners?

Hope you're up to your name, otherwise it might get sore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-03-2008, 10:55 PM
Did a Tiger get knocked out by .50's from the air?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
My father saw a Tiger at Calais that was on display
severly peppered by .50 cal fire from above.
It had been burned out and the crew was supposedly still inside.

True?

Not?

Don't know.

I bet a few thousand hits from above might find a way into the cooling or intake system.

Perhaps a fire started by fuel carried externally.

Donna knowa.

Vinnie

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-03-2008, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AnaK774:
Hope you're up to your name, otherwise it might get sore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hope you're not flirting with me.......... :O

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
So you say you're SF, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said that. In the context of the conversation with the dude in the military, I said that only SF soldiers would expend the same amount of rounds in practice as I did.

What I didn't expect was how emo some of you peeps got over the video commentary.

M_Gunz
09-03-2008, 11:51 PM
Vinnie, you forgot "was a hatch open when the shooting started?".

Tanks with hatches closed, the crew don't see half as much as when buttoned up and must drive
and target slower. It's a big deal to catch tanks unbuttoned and try to kill as many of the
commanders and drivers in the first moments of ambush as possible.
Of course once you hit, your men don't just stop shooting right then. You pay round to insure
the damage.

If you can hammer a single spot of armor for a long time it will heat up, lose temper and fail
to protect that one spot but no plane can hold position and fire just so second after second.

Stugumby, what can you say about very close HE strikes to tanks? I was in service with a guy
who was a Ft. Hood tanker and he claimed that 155 and bigger concussion of not quite hits
could rattle the crew to the point of nose bleed concussions. I asked a WWII vet up at the
VA if very close strikes could be felt, he was recover and repair maintenance and looked at
he is somewhat dread of the question and said "hell yeah they could feel it!".

We've been linked to video of Kursk here that shows air attacks that flipped tanks right up
into the air. If you're inside it would be like a high speed collision in a car. Yet the
mixed services team that inspected post-Normandy results long after the fact wanted to say
that aircraft don't kill tanks! Sounds more to me like battle of the budget influenced that
committee-made report. If such was true then tankers would not be stopped from traveling
down roads just because of a plane or four, but they did.

Buzzsaw-
09-03-2008, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Michael Wittman gave a whole British column good cause to think that one Tiger is plenty one day. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't one Tiger. Was a company operation, 6 Tigers, with 3 engaged at close quarters in the town. Also involved were Panzergrenadiers. Yeah, Wittmann did a lot of damage, but he didn't pull off the attack alone. In fact, many people say he should have withdrawn immediately after the initial attack, and not let himself get hit by multiple tank rounds and the six pounder which knocked his Tiger out.

What is never mentioned in the hero worship for Wittmann, is that later that afternoon, and the next day, another Tiger Company, plus the Panzer Lehr Division attempted to take out the British Brigade which had withdrawn to the west of Villers and formed an all round defence. When the Germans attacked, they suffered considerable losses, including at least 4 Tigers.

Wikipedia article for those who might want to get the full picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Villers-Bocage

M_Gunz
09-04-2008, 12:09 AM
In the operation I was referring to the British were out of their vehicles having tea when
his tank drove up and he went right down the line killing one after the next where they sat.

This is a man who had made hunting AT guns with Sturmgeshutz into an art on the East Front
before he got into turreted vehicles. He was both smart and had brass cojones, to blow his
service off and not hold him in _some_ kind of awe is an act of ignorance and bravado.

But I do note that you are very much into playing with the loaded words to push bias.
Keep at it, in time you may even become equal to Kurfurst when he's whipped up on the British.

Buzzsaw-
09-04-2008, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
In the operation I was referring to the British were out of their vehicles having tea when
his tank drove up and he went right down the line killing one after the next where they sat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the myth of the lone Tiger. For the facts, I would suggest you read the linked wikipedia article as well as the comments at the end re. Wittmann's tactics by another German tanker.

Fehler
09-04-2008, 12:17 AM
I saw Tom Hanks blow up a Tiger with a .45 pistol on a war film documentary. A P-51 happened to fly by to record the event.

Therefore, .45 Colt 1911's can kill Tigers...

Enforcer572005
09-04-2008, 12:24 AM
Ok, I gotta add this. Nobody is discounting what the pilot is saying, but anybody that knows anything about modern military history should know that pilot reports are notoriously ridden with mistaken ID and other mistakes. THis has nothing to do with incompetence or deception; it' just hard to see what's going on when you're hauling A through all that lead that high. Keep in mind that most fratricide is from aircraft, and that is still true today despite our modern systems. It's just not realistic to expect such a high level of accuracy from such accounts.

Besides, this was just a fragment taken out of context from a longer account.

And I am one of the guys on here that DOES have alot of experience with firearms and in fact I AM an expert on weapons and ballistics compared to 99.999% of the rest of the population, having had both a regular FFL and a class 3 dealers lic, as well as an ammunition manufacturing lic. and studied modern armor and military history for most of my 51 yrs (though I've never actually straffed a tank in a P-47). Lots of other guys on here can say pretty much the same.

Besides, as I said, I'd expect military types to realize that pilot accounts have always had understandable and expected accuracy problems. Nobody is lying, but we have historical records and technical info that has since come to light that shows such problems have always been common in air combat.

I do like the sig with the guy sticking his helmet over the wall though. Wish I had a higher res copy of it.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-04-2008, 12:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:

I do like the sig with the guy sticking his helmet over the wall though. Wish I had a higher res copy of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here ya go, it's as big as I could find:

http://iplaster.net/rugg/helmet_on_a_stick.jpg

Enforcer572005
09-04-2008, 01:04 AM
Ha! Thank you sir. I'd love to know the story behind that one. I wonder if it worked.

I think I may try to make a little poster out of that with the john Wayne line you used. It's perfect.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
09-04-2008, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sounds more to me like battle of the budget influenced that
committee-made report. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Allies lost a lot of tanks in tank-to-tank combat in Normandy etc. but few Typhoons, P-47s, etc (apart from in airfield attacks) so that would initially suggest using air power might well be cheaper if sufficiently effective. The humble artillery and the brave people in little Piper's shouldn't be forgotten just because of the exciting footage of Typhoons firing rockets.

luftluuver
09-04-2008, 01:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
In the operation I was referring to the British were out of their vehicles having tea when
his tank drove up and he went right down the line killing one after the next where they sat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your full of the bs as well Gunz.

Opening moves
Villers-Bocage and Point 213 were unoccupied as the battle opened and both sides raced to take the high ground, and thus the tactical advantage. While the British forces arrived in the town of Villers-Bocage first, Wittman's force gained point 213 and could observe the British movements.
The British in the town suffered from poor tactical deployment and were initially crowded by cheering civilians happy about their apparent liberation. The four tanks of the tank squadron's command group parked and the crews dismounted. The men and vehicles of the battle group did not form an all-around defence as doctrine demanded, security was poor and no proper reconnaissance of Point 213 was done. A combined tank and infantry force was finally sent out of the village to take Point 213.
Wittmann watched the column of the 4th County of London Yeomanry leave Villers-Bocage and advance on his tanks on Point 213, nose to tail through a sunken road. The lead squadron halted on the road without deploying into a defensive position, allowing the halftracks and carriers of the accompanying infantry to pass. In the face of unreconnoitered terrain, this was a colossal mistake.

Wittmann saw his opportunity and decided to attack with one tank between Point 213 and Villers-Bocage, cutting off "A" Squadron of the 4th CLY and ordered his accompanying two operational tanks to hold their position. Wittmann counted on the effect of surprise to inflict the greatest possible losses on the British while waiting for reinforcements. Describing his actions Wittmann later said, "I had not been able to gather my company. I had to act very quickly because I must suppose that the enemy has already located us and intends to destroy us at the starting position. I left with my tank. I ordered the two other tanks to move back at once but to hold the terrain."

The battle
At 0900 Wittmann's Tiger attacked. A few minutes later, in the direction of Caen, he destroyed three tanks; a Sherman Firefly and a Cromwell tank on the right and another tank on the left, proceeding to Villers without pause and attacking the lightly armored vehicles of The Rifle Brigade. During this engagement, he destroyed nine half-track vehicles, four Carden Loyd Carriers, two other carriers, and two 6-pounder anti-tank guns, then destroyed three Stuart light tanks and one half-track vehicle. Entering Villers-Bocage alone, he destroyed three of the four Cromwells in position at the top of the Lemonnier farm.

He followed Clémenceau Street where his tank destroyed two Sherman command tanks of the 5th Royal Horse Artillery before knocking out another scout car and half-track. As Wittmann arrived at the Jeanne d'Arc square, he ended up opposite the Sherman Firefly of Sergeant Lockwood of "B" Squadron. The Firefly, whose 17-pounder was the only Allied main tank gun capable of defeating the frontal armour of a Tiger in most circumstances, fired four shells at Wittman. One hit the hull of the Tiger, which returned fire and knocked down a section of wall on the Sherman. Wittmann then made a half-turn, his tank lightly damaged, and returned down Clémenceau Street. The Cromwell tank of Captain Dyas that had not been destroyed, confronted him, firing two 75 mm shells, failing to harm the Tiger. Wittmann put the Cromwell out of action with one shot.

As Wittmann proceeded on the road leaving Villers-Bocage, his left track was hit by a 6-pdr shell, forcing him to stop on the street in front of the Huet-Godefroy store. Wittman engaged targets in range. Thinking that the Tiger might be salvaged and repaired later, Wittmann and crew abandoned the tank without destroying it, leaving the area on foot but without weapons.

They ended up joining the headquarters of the Panzer Lehr Division, nearly 7 kilometres away. Consequently, 15 Panzer IV's of IInd Battalion of the 130th regiment left Orbois in the direction of Villers-Bocage under the command of Captain Helmut Ritgen with the aim of blocking the exits to the North. Before reaching their objective, they came under the fire of British anti-tank guns and their advance was blocked. Fritz Bayerlein, commander of Panzer Lehr, ordered the Panzer IVs to fall back and regroup at Villers-Bocage. The tanks took the direction of the castle of Parfouru on Odon, where, after repairs were made to the 14 survivors, they attacked under the command of Hannes Philipsen; four tanks from the south and ten by Clémenceau Street. Each of the two groups lost two tanks.
Wittmann was then brought back in his Schwimmwagen to Point 213, where he joined with Karl Mobius, commander of the 1st Company and discussed the second attack that the 101st Abteilung was about to deliver. The tanks of the 1st Company entered the city along the d'Evrecy Road and joined those of Panzer Lehr at the marketplace in order to coordinate their offensive. The forces were distributed so as to occupy the city from the Pasteur Street towards the Jeanne d'Arc square, on Saint-Germain Street, on Emile Samson and towards the crossroads of Jeanne Bacon Street and Joffre Boulevard. However, British resistance was by now organized as the Germans had lost surprise. One 6-pounder anti-tank gun of the 1/7th Queen's, placed in Jeanne Bacon Street, managed to score hits on three Tigers of which only one could be repaired.

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-04-2008, 01:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:

I think I may try to make a little poster out of that with the john Wayne line you used. It's perfect.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Feel free! I'd like to see it when you're done.

M_Gunz
09-04-2008, 02:08 AM
Are you sure that I am relating from the same event, Luftluvver? Huh?

panther3485
09-04-2008, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:

A well trained and experienced crew - as they generally were for most of the war - would more likely hold steady but a less well trained/green crew (as was more common in the late stages of the war) might panic. I recall reading somewhere of such a crew baling out of a tank, only to re-mount when they discovered that no significant damage had been inflicted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha! Never read this bit. I was wondering what if a crew, being attacked by 0.50s bailed in panic, making the pilot think he`d got a tank kill and flying off? I was going to place this as an example of mistaken Tiger kills, but wasn`t certian. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trouble is, most couldn't tell a Tiger from any other German tank or for that matter, numerous other AFVs that carried guns. For some, anything with tracks and a gun was a 'Tiger'. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
09-04-2008, 02:21 AM
You can probably watch a lot of "WWII" shows and movies and not even flinch then!

panther3485
09-04-2008, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Did a Tiger get knocked out by .50's from the air?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
My father saw a Tiger at Calais that was on display
severly peppered by .50 cal fire from above.
It had been burned out and the crew was supposedly still inside.

True?

Not?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. The Tiger's armour would not have been penetrated by .50 cal. Didn't happen.

panther3485
09-04-2008, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"We've been linked to video of Kursk here that shows air attacks that flipped tanks right up
into the air. If you're inside it would be like a high speed collision in a car. Yet the
mixed services team that inspected post-Normandy results long after the fact wanted to say
that aircraft don't kill tanks! Sounds more to me like battle of the budget influenced that
committee-made report. If such was true then tankers would not be stopped from traveling
down roads just because of a plane or four, but they did." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact remains that very few German tanks in the NW Europe campaign were directly destroyed by air attack. As for tanks being 'flipped up into the air' by air attack (at Kursk or anywhere else), this could only occur with bombs very close to the tank. It could not be achieved with rockets or cannon. Turrets blown off, yes (by internal ammo explosions) and even hulls ripped apart but not the whole tank flipped into the air. When that happened, it was usually tanks caught in heavy bombardment either by bombing from the air, heavy artillery or naval bombardment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
09-04-2008, 03:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Hell there were few Tiger ever built PERIOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"A few hundred, I've read about 600 and that may be Tiger I's." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The total number of Tiger I tanks built was 1,346. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
09-04-2008, 04:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"We've been linked to video of Kursk here that shows air attacks that flipped tanks right up
into the air. If you're inside it would be like a high speed collision in a car. Yet the
mixed services team that inspected post-Normandy results long after the fact wanted to say
that aircraft don't kill tanks! Sounds more to me like battle of the budget influenced that
committee-made report. If such was true then tankers would not be stopped from traveling
down roads just because of a plane or four, but they did." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact remains that very few German tanks in the NW Europe campaign were directly destroyed by air attack. As for tanks being 'flipped up into the air' by air attack (at Kursk or anywhere else), this could only occur with bombs very close to the tank. It could not be achieved with rockets or cannon. Turrets blown off, yes (by internal ammo explosions) and even hulls ripped apart but not the whole tank flipped into the air. When that happened, it was usually tanks caught in heavy bombardment either by bombing from the air, heavy artillery or naval bombardment. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. BIG explosions! They blowed up real good! And it was planes that dropped the bombs!

However weren't the rockets, at least some used by the US and British, shaped-charge or HESH?
Not thet those had the power to flip tanks in the air cause they didn't but to kill tanks
surely?

All I'm saying is that planes did kill tanks at least enough of the time to warrant missions
despite reports to the contrary.

M_Gunz
09-04-2008, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Hell there were few Tiger ever built PERIOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"A few hundred, I've read about 600 and that may be Tiger I's." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The total number of Tiger I tanks built was 1,346. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, was it Tiger II's then?

AnaK774
09-04-2008, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:

I hope you're not flirting with me.......... :O

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, nope, ones I do flirt with need to fill quite a few requirements...

Some contact with reality and opposite equipment between legs being just couple of major ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-04-2008, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG66_Gog:
Having looked at the footage again, the tank at the 20 second mark is either a Panther or a Jagdpanther and it is not taken out. The rest of the vehicles appear to be lighter armoured vehicles or just great plumes of fire and smoke.

There isn't a Tiger to be seen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You mean this vehicle ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/tank1.jpg


I agree its the only one in the clip that looks like an armored vehicle rather than some variant of truck.

I am not prepared to say exactly what it is.

However its significant to note that the attack is from the side. There is no way any riccochet bullets are getting under the vehicle the as the tracks would be in the way.

The bouncing bullets story usually claims it was a front or rear attack.

Also as you note there is no sign in the clip of that particular vehicle taking damage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That looks almost scarily like a Sherman, but no way to be sure.

stalkervision
09-04-2008, 05:27 AM
It may be this. They were deployed in Normandy.

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/35255marder3m/marder3m_1.jpg

a Marder series of tank destroyers with open top.

They were very lightly armored.

&gt;&gt;- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9HriWsQ2A

stalkervision
09-04-2008, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Hell there were few Tiger ever built PERIOD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"A few hundred, I've read about 600 and that may be Tiger I's." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The total number of Tiger I tanks built was 1,346. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were primarily sent to the Eastern Front. Much less were deployed agains't the allies. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

also there were 30,000 Shermans produced...

panther3485
09-04-2008, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"However weren't the rockets, at least some used by the US and British, shaped-charge or HESH?
Not thet those had the power to flip tanks in the air cause they didn't but to kill tanks
surely?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the rockets could be very destructive and were perfectly capable of KOing any German tank, including Tigers I and II. The problem was actually hitting the tank with them, which was very difficult to say the least.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
"All I'm saying is that planes did kill tanks at least enough of the time to warrant missions
despite reports to the contrary." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The missions were not purely to knock out the tanks, although obviously these would be regarded as the 'premium' targets; the ones that the pilots would doubtless get the greatest satisfaction, pride and kudos for destroying. (Just one reason for them wanting to believe they had destroyed a tank, especially a Tiger or Panther when more often than not it was some other type of vehicle).

But even in and accompanying a Panzer unit, there were usually considerably larger numbers of all kinds of assorted military vehicles; softskin, lightly armoured or armoured with open tops - that also made extremely worthwhile targets. Most of these were much more vulnerable to MG & cannon fire and destroying them could have as decisive an effect on an armoured unit's combat effectiveness as anything else. (I already alluded to this in a previous post, if you recall). Yes, a few German tanks were directly destroyed by air attack but I stress, only a few. Nevertheless, the Germans took the threat to all vehicle types, including the tanks, seriously enough to take whatever countermeasures they could. These included heavy camouflage; taking cover - if it was available and if they could be alerted to approaching aircraft in time; personnel on constant alert for air attack; moving by night rather than day whenever possible and - if available - mobile flak guns; in other words, whatever they could do to protect their valuable vehicle assets. And as another member mentioned, if they were caught there was always the option of temporarily abandoning the vehicles until the attack was over - an option that would have been taken often enough I think. The nett effect on the Germans, aside from lost vehicles and supplies, was to considerably disrupt their movement and deployment.

Bottom line: Even though only a few German tanks themselves were actually directly destroyed by tac air in NW Europe, the overall destructive and disruptive effects of Allied air power were very significant indeed and without question, contributed greatly to Allied success in the campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
09-04-2008, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
The total number of Tiger I tanks built was 1,346. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, was it Tiger II's then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total number of Tiger II tanks built: 492
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Main sources for my 'hard' info on Tigers so far:

(1) Germany's Tiger Tanks - D.W. to Tiger I: Design, Production & Modifications
(2) Germany's Tiger Tanks - VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications
(3) Germany's Tiger Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics

Thomas Jentz & Hilary Doyle, Schiffer Military History.

panther3485
09-04-2008, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
It may be this. They were deployed in Normandy.

http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/35255marder3m/marder3m_1.jpg

a Marder series of tank destroyers with open top.

They were very lightly armored.

&gt;&gt;- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk9HriWsQ2A </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed. There were large numbers and numerous variants of tracked, gun-carrying AFVs - including Marders like this - which at a passing glance could quite easily be mistaken for tanks. In most cases they were relatively lightly armoured and a substantial proportion of them did had open tops as well.

Xiolablu3
09-04-2008, 11:45 AM
Edited just incase it offended anyone.

That clip is from 'Battlefield' isnt it? I really enjoyed that series.Bob CAruthers does some awesome stuff. I really enjoyed 'Tanks!' series too by him.

stalkervision
09-04-2008, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Edited just incase it offended anyone.

That clip is from 'Battlefield' isnt it? I really enjoyed that series.Bob CAruthers does some awesome stuff. I really enjoyed 'Tanks!' series too by him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup Buddy. Isn't that a great series? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

luftluuver
09-05-2008, 08:01 AM
More proof that the thread starter was trolling.

CWoS board, JoeA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Good one Rugg.

The Zoo is so predictable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Two points, I am pretty sure and larger tank or SPG would not be knocked out by 50s, an open topped Marder or something yea.

However, as Dawg's story (if it's 100% true) shows that putting a tank out of action doesn't mean you have to blow it to pieces, I'm sure a lot of tanks "knocked out" by airpower simply had tracks knocked off or stuff like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

SeaFireLIV
09-05-2008, 08:09 AM
Just one of the those forum guys who will refuse to admit he`s wrong because he doesn`t have to,no matter what logical argument is put to them. I have little respect for them.

joeap
09-05-2008, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
More proof that the thread starter was trolling.

CWoS board, JoeA

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Good one Rugg.

The Zoo is so predictable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Two points, I am pretty sure and larger tank or SPG would not be knocked out by 50s, an open topped Marder or something yea.

However, as Dawg's story (if it's 100% true) shows that putting a tank out of action doesn't mean you have to blow it to pieces, I'm sure a lot of tanks "knocked out" by airpower simply had tracks knocked off or stuff like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Get a life dude. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As if it wasn't obvious this was a fishing trip from the beginning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

joeap
09-05-2008, 01:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Just one of the those forum guys who will refuse to admit he`s wrong because he doesn`t have to,no matter what logical argument is put to them. I have little respect for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as our roving reporter told us, he won't admit he was wrong cause he never thought he was right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

VF-17_Jolly
09-05-2008, 02:03 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/50cals.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/50cals2.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
09-05-2008, 02:19 PM
They apparently used the same thickness and type of metal tiger tanks were made of.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I heard the "Yamato" was done in with these even! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
09-05-2008, 03:36 PM
UBI IL2 forum wouldnt be the same without a 50 cal thread here, and a Fw190 view is porked thread there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(

steiner562
09-05-2008, 03:46 PM
Just waiting for the 50cal sank carriers thread.

stalkervision
09-05-2008, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by steiner562:
Just waiting for the 50cal sank carriers thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

SeaFireLIV
09-05-2008, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Just one of the those forum guys who will refuse to admit he`s wrong because he doesn`t have to,no matter what logical argument is put to them. I have little respect for them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as our roving reporter told us, he won't admit he was wrong cause he never thought he was right. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Y`know, when he first popped up, I was going to do a new cartoon of a even more decayed zombie back from the dead terrifying the residents, but for some reason decided to humour him. Shoulda know when he kept spouting off about his military experince and post count rather than anything substantial that the guy was just a trolling wet blanket.

M_Gunz
09-05-2008, 05:28 PM
[edited for possible legal issues]

stalkervision
09-05-2008, 05:36 PM
[edited for possible legal issues]

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-05-2008, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by steiner562:
Just waiting for the 50cal sank carriers thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would be ridiculous and over the top.

stalkervision
09-05-2008, 08:41 PM
No, the fifty caliber browning can do anything! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bow down to the alter of JOHN Browning unworthy one. BOW NOW !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-06-2008, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Bow down to the alter of JOHN Browning unworthy one. BOW NOW !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
JMB was a god. Seriously.

M_Gunz
09-06-2008, 02:13 AM
Ahhh, the OTHER Big Green Elephant has struck!

I shoulda knowed not to post that....

Aaron_GT
09-06-2008, 03:10 AM
Sorry, M_Gunz - just erring on the safe side!

M_Gunz
09-07-2008, 09:11 AM
S'okay with me if it's okay with you!

Enforcer572005
09-07-2008, 09:33 AM
I agree that John Browning was some type of diety or at least a superior life form....I love my P-35 HP.

Anyway, I believe the Grumman add is an exaggerated account of an incident described in RG Miller's "Cactus Air Force", which I based a misn on in my CFS2 cmpn I made many yrs ago based on the book. Thanks for posting that btw.

There were three Japanese DDs chasing a pair of US minesweepers not far from Henderson, and F4Fs (and a P-400 or two) straffed them repeatedly. One veered off but two kept shooting at the minesweepers a while longer before they to reversed course. They were seen to be smoking as they left, but from what I remember, they were not seen sinking. I had that in the misn I made...just made the DDs turn around after a while. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the incident that inspired that.

Kocur_
09-07-2008, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Enforcer572005:
I agree that John Browning was some type of diety or at least a superior life form....I love my P-35 HP.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would't hadn't Dieudonne Saive changed a few things http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Anyway John Moses Browning is the greatest smallarms designer of all times by far. Judging by the looks of pistol market, his greatest accomplishment is idea of locking/unlocking short recoil operated pistols by moving barrel in 2 DOF (back plus in vertical or back and rotating it) with no other parts than barrel and bolt necessary. Browning's domination is nearly absolute here, as in recent years even HK and Beretta dropped their own ideas and reconciled with John Moses in HK USP and Beretta Px4 Storm and Cougar.

Daiichidoku
09-07-2008, 12:12 PM
"[edited for possible legal issues]

This message has been edited."



-3.14159 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

R_Target
09-07-2008, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by steiner562:
Just waiting for the 50cal sank carriers thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need, Just destroy all the planes and it might as well have been sunk. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Vinnie_Gumbat
09-07-2008, 01:04 PM
Trivia

How many guns did John Browning actually build?

To the nearest million will do.

Vinnie

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-07-2008, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Trivia

How many guns did John Browning actually build?

To the nearest million will do.

Vinnie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have close to a dozen of them.

polak5
09-08-2008, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by general_kalle:
you guys not paying attention to the narration??
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, listen to it again. He said they'd get ricochets that would penetrate the bottom armor. I'm sure that wasn't just made up. &gt;Maybe&lt; when taking a look at a destroyed tank they found .50 cal rounds on the bottom side. It only makes sense that's where it came from.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sooo...
http://www.relentlessevilsnowflake.com/blog/whereb.jpg

stalkervision
09-08-2008, 03:05 PM
Anyone find any tiger tanks with 50 caliber bullet holes through the bottom armor you let us know will you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

stalkervision
09-08-2008, 03:12 PM
"Oh John Browing was a man. Made his 50 caliber gun shoot through the Bolder dam. Many said that was just a prank. Until they heard of the Japanese battleships it sank.

Will they stop ever building that gun. Not to soon. Not when It can blow a hole in the moon." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Blood_Splat
09-08-2008, 03:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc
Remember this video?

stalkervision
09-08-2008, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blood_Splat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc
Remember this video? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we're not doing that anymore.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

DKoor
09-08-2008, 04:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vinnie_Gumbat:
Trivia

How many guns did John Browning actually build?

To the nearest million will do.

Vinnie </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have close to a dozen of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WTE_Galway
09-08-2008, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
They apparently used the same thickness and type of metal tiger tanks were made of.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I heard the "Yamato" was done in with these even! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese were short of metal. The destroyers in question had bottoms made of plywood and painted to look like metal. Simply bouncing 0.50 cal off the water as the ship crested a wave so it hit the underside of a destroyer was sufficient to make it explode.

polak5
09-09-2008, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Anyone find any tiger tanks with 50 caliber bullet holes through the bottom armor you let us know will you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that to much to ask http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LOL

M_Gunz
09-09-2008, 05:13 AM
If wooden decks then 50 cal go through wooden decks including incendiaries and tracers.

How big a ship before armored decks and steel-wall quarters?

luftluuver
09-09-2008, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If wooden decks then 50 cal go through wooden decks including incendiaries and tracers.

How big a ship before armored decks and steel-wall quarters? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL Galway, you caught a fish. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

M_Gunz
09-09-2008, 07:04 AM
I have read of damage to ships down through the decks and which were armored and not.

I ain't buying wooden hulled destroyers though! Patrol boats yes.

Yippee.
09-09-2008, 08:06 AM
http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

Hawgdog
09-09-2008, 01:36 PM
I have nothing to add

SeaFireLIV
09-09-2008, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:


I ain't buying wooden hulled destroyers though! Patrol boats yes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kinda sad that a thread exists where this actually needs to be said. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

stalkervision
09-09-2008, 02:31 PM
Of course there are wooden destroyers you big dummies and I am fairly certain a 50 caliber round will take one out in one shot! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.maritimemodelworks.com/images/large/MBDFCT_l.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Yippee.
09-09-2008, 02:57 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

luftluuver
09-10-2008, 06:00 AM
The 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal, will go through only .43".

from "USN Report of Joint Fighter Conference NAS Patuxent River". (October 1944) .

BadA1m
09-10-2008, 07:43 AM
I don't have the energy to read this entire thread, but did anyone point out the fact that less than 2000 tigers of both varieties were built, and that most of them went to the eastern front?

There were only a few Heavy batallions posted to Normandy and for the most part were facing the Brits.

The simple fact of the matter is the pilot speaking in the video probably never saw a Tiger outside of photographs.

This is not to take away from the achivements or the valour of these men, but every German tank was a "Tiger" to them. To quote a P47 pilot I spoke to personally, on asking a technical question (not about the plane, he knew all about that) "We were just kids, we didn't know a thing"

I don't usually even bother with these threads, (actually I don't bother with this forum much any more) but c'mon, guy's aint this one a little stale?

panther3485
09-10-2008, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadA1m:
I don't have the energy to read this entire thread, but did anyone point out the fact that less than 2000 tigers of both varieties were built, and that most of them went to the eastern front?

There were only a few Heavy batallions posted to Normandy and for the most part were facing the Brits.

The simple fact of the matter is the pilot speaking in the video probably never saw a Tiger outside of photographs.

This is not to take away from the achivements or the valour of these men, but every German tank was a "Tiger" to them. To quote a P47 pilot I spoke to personally, on asking a technical question (not about the plane, he knew all about that) "We were just kids, we didn't know a thing"

I don't usually even bother with these threads, (actually I don't bother with this forum much any more) but c'mon, guy's aint this one a little stale? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The relative rarity of Tigers has been dealt with, as have the other points you raised.

Yes, it's as stale as a ten-year-old loaf but for some reason keeps coming back. Despite indications that the person who dug it up again might just be trolling, from my POV there's always a risk that some gullible or ignorant soul (however genuine in their intent) might actually believe this nonsense. If one knows better, very difficult to remain totally silent and watch it go unchallenged. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Besides, there are always new folk around who may not have heard of this before. Don't want anyone being led astray, now do we guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

barfo1982
09-10-2008, 01:50 PM
Hello All,

The bottom armor of a Tiger I is 90mm thick. Thick armor on the bottom of tanks is typical to protect againt mines.
As others have already pointed out, a Browning 50 cal would not be able to penetrate 90mm of armor at point blank range fired at a perfect 90 degrees.

stalkervision
09-10-2008, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello All,

The bottom armor of a Tiger I is 90mm thick. Thick armor on the bottom of tanks is typical to protect againt mines.
As others have already pointed out, a Browning 50 cal would not be able to penetrate 90mm of armor at point blank range fired at a perfect 90 degrees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in the back bottom underbelly it is only 40 mm.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you know how much tnt is in a land mine ment to take tanks out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It will destroy an Abrams ! Throw it right in the air in fact!

luftluuver
09-10-2008, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello All,

The bottom armor of a Tiger I is 90mm thick. Thick armor on the bottom of tanks is typical to protect againt mines.
As others have already pointed out, a Browning 50 cal would not be able to penetrate 90mm of armor at point blank range fired at a perfect 90 degrees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in the back bottom underbelly it is only 40 mm.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you know how much tnt is in a land mine ment to take tanks out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It will destroy an Abrams ! Throw it right in the air in fact! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agh, the Tiger had a constant belly thickness was 25mm.

The Panther had two thicknesses.

stalkervision
09-10-2008, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello All,

The bottom armor of a Tiger I is 90mm thick. Thick armor on the bottom of tanks is typical to protect againt mines.
As others have already pointed out, a Browning 50 cal would not be able to penetrate 90mm of armor at point blank range fired at a perfect 90 degrees. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually in the back bottom underbelly it is only 40 mm.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Do you know how much tnt is in a land mine ment to take tanks out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It will destroy an Abrams ! Throw it right in the air in fact! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agh, the Tiger had a constant belly thickness was 25mm.

The Panther had two thicknesses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I saw two thicknesses quoted... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hmm.. it was an american army manual. Maybe they did mean the Panther? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

barfo1982
09-10-2008, 02:56 PM
Hello again,

You are correct. According to Jentz, Thomas L., and Hilary L. Doyle. Germany's Tiger Tanks: D.W. to Tiger I. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 2000:

Bottom armor was two thickness: 90 mm and 40 mm

But again, no .50 Browning will penetrate it even under ideal conditions.

And I'd venture a guess that any Tiger with bullet holes of any caliber through its floor would have been a photgrapher's magnet, but no photos exist, right?

barfo1982
09-10-2008, 03:09 PM
That site was for Tiger I. Sorry I didn't make that clear

barfo1982
09-10-2008, 06:09 PM
Hello again.

I'm not sure if that fellow was joking around when he said an anti-tank mine would throw an Abrams in the air. The largest ones have a charge of around 20 lbs but most anti-tank mines have a charge of around 10 lbs. A large IED might throw an Abrams in the air, but not an anti-tank mine. But I guess 'throw in the air' might be relative. But Tigers, Abrams' and other tanks were also designed to roll over anti-personal mines as well and needed armored bottoms to do it

JSG72
09-10-2008, 07:26 PM
Gorden Bennet!

Have any of you guys. Ever flew a Tiger?

I have. And Be sure. Them .05 cals are just plinkin'.

Sure! They could blow up my towed Auxy tank?

But I am safe in my armoured cocoon, with that 88/36 to serve me.

Even when drunk. I know. I am safe.

When will this darned War end?

I am so sick of this Rat-a-tat-tat.

SeaFireLIV
09-10-2008, 07:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BadA1m:


This is not to take away from the achivements or the valour of these men, but every German tank was a "Tiger" to them. To quote a P47 pilot I spoke to personally, on asking a technical question (not about the plane, he knew all about that) "We were just kids, we didn't know a thing"

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sums it up. While we greatly respect these men, they were just young lads (most of them), who probably liked and loved and hated the same kind of things we do. They were not super-human beings and I`ll bet that most of us in the same situation would have done our bit in WW2 and seen it as a grind and rather uncomfortable job of killing and trying not to die.

They made mistakes - lots.

So anyone saying `You dare criticise what a WW2 pilot says` is really not thinking logically. a healthy does of `Are you certain that was a Tiger?` is good.

But this pony (get it?) is kicked to death, buried, dug up and kicked to death again. It`s a zombie that now needs holy water to stay down. Hopefully this thread will be it!

Freiwillige
09-10-2008, 08:14 PM
I have a WWII magazine not sure of the date but its circa 2005/2006. It has an interview with a panther tank commander who escaped the falais pocket. He was constantly harrased by p-47's straffing his Panther. The anti personel launcher on the roof of his tank was blown off leaving a 5" diameter hole that he stuffed a blanket up into. He was repeatedly attacked and his blanket kept getting knocked down and a radio he recovered from another caught fire on his back deck. Despite being straffed by p-47's repeatedly he made it out of the pocket.

panther3485
09-11-2008, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello All,

The bottom armor of a Tiger I is 90mm thick. Thick armor on the bottom of tanks is typical to protect againt mines.
... &lt;snip&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are so totally clueless about the Tiger tank, please refrain from spouting such nonsense.

Plates of the following nominal thicknesses were used for the armour on Tiger Tanks (Tiger I):

25mm, 40mm, 60mm, 80mm and 100mm.

These were used as follows:

25mm: Hull floor (belly), superstructure decking and turret roof (early-mid production)
40mm: Turret roof (late production)
60mm: Hull sides (lower hull)
80mm: Superstructure sides (upper hull), hull rear, turret sides & rear
100mm: Turret front, superstructure front, hull front

The mantlet was a shaped casting that varied in thickness, depending on the spot, from a minimum of 85mm up to about 200mm.

Notice, NOWHERE were 90mm plates used on the Tiger, least of all on the belly!

panther3485
09-11-2008, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
Actually in the back bottom underbelly it is only 40 mm.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are obviously equally clueless as there was no part of the belly of a Tiger I that was 40mm thick. There was a single, continuous thickness of 25mm from front to rear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Do you know how much tnt is in a land mine ment to take tanks out! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

It will destroy an Abrams ! Throw it right in the air in fact! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not so, at least not with standard AT mines. These will blow off roadwheels, damage swingarms, break tracks and sometimes buckle belly plates (blow them in on a light tank, APC or other such light AFV - such vehicles may well even be written off) but an MBT such as Abrams will not be 'thrown right in the air'.

panther3485
09-11-2008, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
"Agh, the Tiger had a constant belly thickness was 25mm.

The Panther had two thicknesses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You appear to have at least some idea, luftluuver. Correct on both counts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

panther3485
09-11-2008, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello again,

You are correct. According to Jentz, Thomas L., and Hilary L. Doyle. Germany's Tiger Tanks: D.W. to Tiger I. Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., 2000:

Bottom armor was two thickness: 90 mm and 40 mm &lt;snip&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there's one thing that's worse than cluelessly spouting false data, it's deliberate lying or misrepresentation about sources. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

The book you cited says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE KIND regarding Tiger I.
I have that book, among many others, in my personal home library. Indeed, it has been one of the main sources for the info I have posted on this thread.

panther3485
09-11-2008, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by barfo1982:
Hello again.

I'm not sure if that fellow was joking around when he said an anti-tank mine would throw an Abrams in the air. The largest ones have a charge of around 20 lbs but most anti-tank mines have a charge of around 10 lbs. A large IED might throw an Abrams in the air, but not an anti-tank mine. But I guess 'throw in the air' might be relative. But Tigers, Abrams' and other tanks were also designed to roll over anti-personal mines as well and needed armored bottoms to do it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now you're starting to make some sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
"Agh, the Tiger had a constant belly thickness was 25mm.

The Panther had two thicknesses. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You appear to have at least some idea, luftluuver. Correct on both counts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Tiger is 60mm/25mm/60mm on the bottom. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

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

panther3485
09-11-2008, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The Tiger is 60mm/25mm/60mm on the bottom. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You, however, are making no sense at all which is obviously intentional. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

SeaFireLIV
09-11-2008, 07:01 AM
This is one of the reasons why I believe in very little said on a forum. It`s so easy to spout rubbish. Let me demonstrate:

`Oh yea, the Tiger tank had 50" thickness of duralloy reflective armoured steel on it`s underside, which actually blew back 0.50 bullets fired at it, causing much distressed to our own pilots. The first anti-weapon armour of it`s kind which p51 pilots found extremely difficult to deal with due to the blowback facter,` Fl Lt Bossboy, who flew for the 291th Squadron in late 1944, quoted his discovery in `My fight against the super Tiger` produced in 1954. "

Panther3485 is the only person I take seriously so far. Every one else is either guessing or lying.

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The Tiger is 60mm/25mm/60mm on the bottom. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You, however, are making no sense at all which is obviously intentional. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I make absolute perfect sense. Look at the illustration on the site I posted of the Tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I would have posted the illustration I am talking about but the site blocks that function. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is one of the reasons why I believe in very little said on a forum. It`s so easy to spout rubbish. Let me demonstrate:

`Oh yea, the Tiger tank had 50" thickness of duralloy reflective armoured steel on it`s underside, which actually blew back 0.50 bullets fired at it, causing much distressed to our own pilots. The first anti-weapon armour of it`s kind which p51 pilots found extremely difficult to deal with due to the blowback facter,` Fl Lt Bossboy, who flew for the 291th Squadron in late 1944, quoted his discovery in `My fight against the super Tiger` produced in 1954. "

Panther3485 is the only person I take seriously so far. Every one else is either guessing or lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny stuff! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may want to actually look at this webpage too and the illustration of the tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Unless you believe they are guessing or lying too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

panther3485
09-11-2008, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I make absolute perfect sense. Look at the illustration on the site I posted of the Tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm already familiar with the site and I have no need to look at it again. I was reciting tank armour thicknesses and other technical details in my sleep 30 years ago, long before there were any such websites. The only way you could make any sense with 60/25/60 is transversely, down one side of the hull, across the belly and up the other side. That includes the lower sides of the tank as well as the belly, which is not what's being discussed here and well you know it. Stop trying to be a smart@rse, you are not impressing at all!

panther3485
09-11-2008, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
This is one of the reasons why I believe in very little said on a forum. It`s so easy to spout rubbish. Let me demonstrate:

`Oh yea, the Tiger tank had 50" thickness of duralloy reflective armoured steel on it`s underside, which actually blew back 0.50 bullets fired at it, causing much distressed to our own pilots. The first anti-weapon armour of it`s kind which p51 pilots found extremely difficult to deal with due to the blowback facter,` Fl Lt Bossboy, who flew for the 291th Squadron in late 1944, quoted his discovery in `My fight against the super Tiger` produced in 1954. "

Panther3485 is the only person I take seriously so far. Every one else is either guessing or lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny stuff! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You may want to actually look at this webpage too and the illustration of the tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Unless you believe they are guessing or lying too? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ability to find an appropriate website over the course of these last few posts, and link to it, does not impress either. Neither does it do anything but simply reinforce the fact that the belly of the Tiger was a nominal 25mm throughout, which is what has been said by the few who knew this all along. Having said that, the site itself is actually quite good, btw. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I make absolute perfect sense. Look at the illustration on the site I posted of the Tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm already familiar with the site and I have no need to look at it again. I was reciting tank armour thicknesses and other technical details in my sleep 30 years ago, long before there were any such websites. The only way you could make any sense with 60/25/60 is transversely, down one side of the hull, across the belly and up the other side. That includes the lower sides of the tank as well as the belly, which is not what's being discussed here and well you know it. Stop trying to be a smart@rse, you are not impressing at all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are the one being a &*#@# panther and not I buddy.

I am not totally unaware of these figures either.

The figures I am quoting are the front BOTTOM Glasias ...60mm at 27%

The flat bottom at 25 mm/ and 0 %

and the back lower angled rear 60mm at 40 degrees


Why have you got a problem with these figures? I am not making them up.

These are all the lower surface armor thicknesses on the Tiger.

panther3485
09-11-2008, 07:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I make absolute perfect sense. Look at the illustration on the site I posted of the Tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm already familiar with the site and I have no need to look at it again. I was reciting tank armour thicknesses and other technical details in my sleep 30 years ago, long before there were any such websites. The only way you could make any sense with 60/25/60 is transversely, down one side of the hull, across the belly and up the other side. That includes the lower sides of the tank as well as the belly, which is not what's being discussed here and well you know it. Stop trying to be a smart@rse, you are not impressing at all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are the one being a &*#@# panther and not I buddy.

I am not totally unaware of these figures either.

The figures I am quoting are the front BOTTOM Glasias ...60mm at 27%

The flat bottom at 25 mm/ and 0 %

and the back lower angled rear 60mm at 40 degrees


Why have you got a problem with these figures? I am not making them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you're not 'totally unaware', you recently looked it up, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Yes, you can do it that way too and I have no problem with the figures per se, but those parts, as far down the tank as they certainly are, are NOT the belly of the tank, which is what we have been talking about all along!!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I make absolute perfect sense. Look at the illustration on the site I posted of the Tiger's armor thickness. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm already familiar with the site and I have no need to look at it again. I was reciting tank armour thicknesses and other technical details in my sleep 30 years ago, long before there were any such websites. The only way you could make any sense with 60/25/60 is transversely, down one side of the hull, across the belly and up the other side. That includes the lower sides of the tank as well as the belly, which is not what's being discussed here and well you know it. Stop trying to be a smart@rse, you are not impressing at all! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are the one being a &*#@# panther and not I buddy.

I am not totally unaware of these figures either.

The figures I am quoting are the front BOTTOM Glasias ...60mm at 27%

The flat bottom at 25 mm/ and 0 %

and the back lower angled rear 60mm at 40 degrees


Why have you got a problem with these figures? I am not making them up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you can do it that way too but those parts are NOT the belly of the tank, which is what we have been talking about all along, so wake up to yourself!!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well these are the lower surfaces aren't they? The absolute / "belly" / no. They really don't have to be either. All these surfaces would receive 50 caliber recochets off a road surface. Your being more then a bit pedantic aren't you in your definition?

Not an uncommon tactic i have noticed for someone to try to win an argument here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know it is a pride thing with you that you want to prove everyone is wrong but yourself.

The definition of "Belly armor" I am sure was used very loosely by the pilots that did this strafing. Hell we don't even know if they were shooting at real tiger tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:55 AM
The whole phrase "belly armor" you have to realise is a rather lose definition to begin with isn't it?

especially for these pilots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The whole phrase "belly armor" you have to realise is a rather lose definition to begin with isn't it?

especially for these pilots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it is not. The belly is the lowest part of the tank's hull.

panther3485
09-11-2008, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
"Well these are the lower surfaces aren't they? The absolute "belly" no." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they are certainly lower surfaces but they are not part of the belly plate of the tank and it was the belly plate I was talking about. I thought that was clear. There was at least one other poster here (and I suspect perhaps more than one) who appears to have been talking about the same thing. Obviously, you wanted to include other lower plates. No problem, now you've clarified that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "They really don't have to be either. All these surfaces would receive 50 caliber recochets off a road surface." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you are going to use that rationale, then the hull lower nose plate, the entire rear plate and all the vertical or near vertical surfaces (hull sides, superstruture front and sides, turrets sides & rear, even the mantlet) could receive .50 cal riccochets off the road surface and some of these plates would be even more likely to do so than the small angled plates you mentioned! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Your being more then a bit pedantic aren't you in your definition?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll freely admit to being pedantic about armour in general; a common thing with ardent enthusiasts of a subject. But in this case I was merely thinking of the belly plate only, not including other lower plates on the tank, when discussing the question of plate thicknesses with others here. As mentioned above, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was thinking of the belly plate only.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Not an uncommon tactic i have noticed for someone to try to win an argument here." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There was no 'tactic'; merely that I was talking about one thing and you about something that wasn't quite the same. It looks as if we've clarified that now.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "I know it is a pride thing with you that you want to prove everyone is wrong but yourself." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clearly not true, as I have complimented at least one other participant here on what he said. Yes, I do have pride in my knowledge of the subject but this is not an over-riding sentiment and I am more than willing to give the nod when others make a worthwhile contribution.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "The definition of "Belly armor" I am sure was used very loosely by the pilots that did this strafing." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure it was, especially since at least one of them appears to have believed that the belly of the Tiger wasn't armoured at all, if the audio accompanying that footage is any indication. But this has nothing to do with what I meant when I was talking about the Tiger's belly plate and I'm 99.999 percent certain that you knew that, also. Hence my calling you a smart@rse, because you must have known perfectly well what I meant. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "Hell we don't even know if they were shooting at real tiger tanks!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We can be reasonably certain that much of the time they were not shooting at tanks at all but other types of AFVs and mitary vehicles of all kinds; hardly ever at Tigers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
09-11-2008, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
The whole phrase "belly armor" you have to realise is a rather lose definition to begin with isn't it?

especially for these pilots! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, definitions are going to be loose for the pilots, most of whom couldn't even recognize a tank let alone discuss the parts of a tank with any clarity or accuracy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 10:42 AM
and where do they get these mysterious attached "fuel browsers" they keep lighting on fire to blow up these alleged Tiger Tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have yet to see a tiger tank with a "fuel browser"

I have seen "Hobart's Funnies" with Churchill tanks converted to flame throwing tanks and an attached fuel tank for the flame thrower. Hmmm..


You don't suppose the British were missing more then a few unaccounted for flame throwing churchills after the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"pss..Charle, didn't that "tiger tank" have a british flag on it?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-11-2008, 03:32 PM
How many of you have even seen a tank IRL?

HayateAce
09-11-2008, 03:40 PM
http://sporkinthedrawer.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/30/crawfish1.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
09-11-2008, 04:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
and where do they get these mysterious attached "fuel browsers" they keep lighting on fire to blow up these alleged Tiger Tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have yet to see a tiger tank with a "fuel browser"

I have seen "Hobart's Funnies" with Churchill tanks converted to flame throwing tanks and an attached fuel tank for the flame thrower. Hmmm..


You don't suppose the British were missing more then a few unaccounted for flame throwing churchills after the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"pss..Charle, didn't that "tiger tank" have a british flag on it?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am driven to cease lurking.

I really hate to do this to a buddy - but since you mentioned it, here is one possibility.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Fuel%20Trailer/trailer-1.jpg

But here is the far more likely candidate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Fuel%20Trailer/trailer-2.jpg

However, having pointed out that they did in fact exist. I think that the possibilities of such an attack being successful are extremely low, thought not strictly impossible. But low enough to be practically discounted and essentially useless.

Aaron_GT
09-11-2008, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been inside a few WW2 ones. Have you? I would say that they are not for the claustrophobic even before being filled with the whole crew and equipment.

WTE_Galway
09-11-2008, 04:48 PM
I think the only solution is to get the "Myth Busters" television show to shoot up a Tiger tank with a P47

SeaFireLIV
09-11-2008, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What does that question acieve? I saw two challnger tanks on a transport being ferried down our street once. I saw a Russian T-34 when I visted Berlin. Happy?

Pointless talk. What does that accomplish? I guess next you`ll say, "Well how many of you`ve seen a real Tiger tank?" Then it`ll be, "How many of you have actually got on the floor of the Tiger and tried measuring its thickness?"

The fishing continues.

WTE_Galway
09-11-2008, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What does that question acieve? I saw two challnger tanks on a transport being ferried down our street once. I saw a Russian T-34 when I visted Berlin. Happy?

Pointless talk. What does that accomplish? I guess next you`ll say, "Well how many of you`ve seen a real Tiger tank?" Then it`ll be, "How many of you have actually got on the floor of the Tiger and tried measuring its thickness?"

The fishing continues. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe yes well

Forum Debating Techniques 101 ...

- If they have lots of technical facts accuse them of not having real life experience.
- If they have real life experience acuse them of insufficient technical data.
- if they have both real life experience and technical facts accuse them of lying and or being a no-it-all and try start a flame war.

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I think the only solution is to get the "Myth Busters" television show to shoot up a Tiger tank with a P47 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already approached them with this.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

stalkervision
09-11-2008, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
and where do they get these mysterious attached "fuel browsers" they keep lighting on fire to blow up these alleged Tiger Tanks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I have yet to see a tiger tank with a "fuel browser"

I have seen "Hobart's Funnies" with Churchill tanks converted to flame throwing tanks and an attached fuel tank for the flame thrower. Hmmm..


You don't suppose the British were missing more then a few unaccounted for flame throwing churchills after the war.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"pss..Charle, didn't that "tiger tank" have a british flag on it?" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am driven to cease lurking.

I really hate to do this to a buddy - but since you mentioned it, here is one possibility.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Fuel%20Trailer/trailer-1.jpg

But here is the far more likely candidate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Fuel%20Trailer/trailer-2.jpg

However, having pointed out that they did in fact exist. I think that the possibilities of such an attack being successful are extremely low, thought not strictly impossible. But low enough to be practically discounted and essentially useless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. I always apperciate extra new researched info. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Never ever seen these before. Knowing how frequently the Tiger broke down when driven any extended distance whatsoever I doubt they were much used for them. I know they were extensively rail transported to each battle because of this problem.

But given the fact that american pilots and even many allied tankers considered every german tank a "tiger", this is a fact btw , I believe this may explain a bit of the puzzle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tab_Flettner
09-11-2008, 07:51 PM
""Advanced Weapons of the USAAF" Volume II (Bison Books 1978)...and 412 F.G. were known collectively as the "bullet bouncers" for just this reason. After the success of the so called 'bouncing bomb', Dr Barnes Wallis worked full time for the USAAF and turned his attentions to a smaller, more compact and in many ways more lethal version of the weapon.

Post war, it was found that not only were the 'bottom of German tanks near the engines' made from inferior armour, in some cases, due to shortages of strategic materials, tanks were completed with wooden floors.' A full description of this can be found in the book 'Unser Panzerkampfwagen hatte einen hölzernen Fußboden'- the collected memoirs of Joachim Peiper (Scribner 1946). This would account for the hundreds of Wermacht vehicles easily destroyed by bouncing USAAF ammunition. ""

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-11-2008, 09:09 PM
Wow, you people act like a bunch of kids. Getting your feelings hurt and such. I just asked if any of you have ever seen a tank in person? Aaron, I agree with you completely. I can't imagine having to freeze in the winter and stew in the summer, not to mention that many of the American tanks ran on gasoline! The thing that stuck most in my mind is that there are no soft or semi soft corners, panels or areas in the old tanks. If you're prone to bumping an elbow you wean yourself off of that behavior quickly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo, thanks for the "proof" that some of these experts here said never happened. The fact that there were fuel trailers gives the pilot in that narration a bit more credence, don't you think? Howbout the rest of you guys that WEREN'T there? Is the pilot still full of it?

Who knows, the fog of war and time often muddies recollections. But many of you have stated for an absolute fact many things in this thread and have been proven wrong by one picture. How about opening your minds a bit? Maybe learn something. Those of you who fancy you know it all will never learn the real truth, just the truth in your own little world. The little world that exists only in your minds..........

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 09:56 PM
Nice pic of a Panzer IV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif towing a trailer Waldo.

Fehler
09-11-2008, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Nice pic of a Panzer IV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif towing a trailer Waldo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dammit, you beat me to it!

luftluuver
09-11-2008, 10:05 PM
Has this been posted yet?
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

WTE_Galway
09-11-2008, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Has this been posted yet?
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mystery solved.

50% of losses in that report were attributed to anandonment by crew.

Clearly the 0.50 cal blew up the fuel trailer resulting in it eventually running out of fuel and being abandoned by the crew who hitch-hiked to the nearest town.

Waldo.Pepper
09-12-2008, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Nice pic of a Panzer IV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif towing a trailer Waldo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



I think it is quite likely that the Tigers were 'any old tank' that the Jug driver saw rumbling down the road.

Much the same way that the 'Spitfire' that downed you was just as likely a Hurricane. Or the plane with the meatball on it was a 'Zero'- when in fact it could have been an Orcar.

But surely you are not suggesting that it was beyond the technical limits of the Panzer crews to hitch whatever trailer they had to a legitimate Tiger are you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Didn't think so.

Von_Rat
09-12-2008, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Been inside a few WW2 ones. Have you? I would say that they are not for the claustrophobic even before being filled with the whole crew and equipment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


i dunno were you guys are from. but there are real tanks , incuding ww2 and later, in parks all over the usa.

must be a friggin armored divisions worth in illinois alone.


ive been inside a sherman. god are those seats uncomfortable.

panther3485
09-12-2008, 03:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since you ask:

Not only seen many times but also numerous different tank types. Climbed over them in many cases, climbed through, sat in etc in quite a few cases. Also, several occasions riding both on and in during my own military service (Centurion and Leopard 1A4). As an armour enthusiast and keen modeller, at every available opportunity, taking photos, measurements etc.

But little of this is actually directly relevant to the original question at hand here. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

R_Target
09-12-2008, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Nice pic of a Panzer IV http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif towing a trailer Waldo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not gas though, it's the unit's tactical beer reserve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron_GT
09-12-2008, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aaron, I agree with you completely. I can't imagine having to freeze in the winter and stew in the summer, not to mention that many of the American tanks ran on gasoline! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M4 I was in was one of the ones without a loader's hatch. I wouldn't rate the chances of the loader http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The M5 makes the M4 seem spacious. The commander's position of the Hetzer is so cramped I doubt you'd be able to get in it and wear a greatcoat. Rising claustrophobia stopped me getting any further.

Given the diffuculty in egress I can totally understand why, if strafed, you might temporarily abandon the tanks, no because the 50 cals might be dangerous, but you might reasonable assume rockets or bombs might be next and you wouldn't want to be caught in a tank on fire after a rocket attack. If the crew couldn't the rejoin it would be a functional knocking out of the tank, but bouncing bullets off roads would not be part of it.

In any case if you look at the angles of attack in the film there is incredibly little chance of any bullets bouncing off any road surface, and even if it did less chance of it getting underneath the tank.

panther3485
09-12-2008, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
But here is the far more likely candidate.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/Fuel%20Trailer/trailer-2.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Never ever seen these before..." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a well known image among tank nuts & mad tank modellers. (In fact, Dragon have just recently released a kit of this precise subject. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> "...given the fact that american pilots and even many allied tankers considered every german tank a "tiger", this is a fact btw , I believe this may explain a bit of the puzzle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right about other German tanks being taken for Tigers but unfortunately the above photo does not explain any part of the puzzle, at least not as it applied to the 1944-45 NW Europe campaign. I did touch on the subject of fuel trailers in a much earlier post, way back on page 2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by panther3485:

Even before you call in CSI, the problems here include:

(1) Footage does not show Tiger tanks.
(2) Statement that Tiger tank was not armoured underneath is completely false.
[b](3) Statement that Tiger

panther3485
09-12-2008, 04:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
I think the only solution is to get the "Myth Busters" television show to shoot up a Tiger tank with a P47 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The matter is not subject to question. The whole notion of Tiger tanks being destroyed by air strafed .50 cal MG fire (and in particular, rounds bouncing up off roads) is total $hite, and should be obviously so to anyone with any passable knowledge of the subject matter, combined with just a modicum of common sense. Therefore, no 'solution' is required.

panther3485
09-12-2008, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tab_Flettner:
""Advanced Weapons of the USAAF" Volume II (Bison Books 1978)...and 412 F.G. were known collectively as the "bullet bouncers" for just this reason. After the success of the so called 'bouncing bomb', Dr Barnes Wallis worked full time for the USAAF and turned his attentions to a smaller, more compact and in many ways more lethal version of the weapon.

Post war, it was found that not only were the 'bottom of German tanks near the engines' made from inferior armour, in some cases, due to shortages of strategic materials, tanks were completed with wooden floors.' A full description of this can be found in the book 'Unser Panzerkampfwagen hatte einen hölzernen Fußboden'- the collected memoirs of Joachim Peiper (Scribner 1946). This would account for the hundreds of Wermacht vehicles easily destroyed by bouncing USAAF ammunition. "" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No production, used in action Tiger I, Tiger II or Panther tank was ever completed with anything other than an armour steel belly plate. (I very much doubt if any PzKpfw IV was either. I'd not believe it without conclusive proof.) Vehicles being destroyed by bouncing .50 cal strafing from aircraft would not have included any of the heavier German tanks. Lighter, more thinly armoured or softskin vehicles, yes; those tanks, no.

panther3485
09-12-2008, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
"The fact that there were fuel trailers gives the pilot in that narration a bit more credence, don't you think?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Assuming the pilot in question is speaking of experiences in the ETO during 1944-45, no, unfortunately it makes no difference as German tanks did not tow fuel trailers during that campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Howbout the rest of you guys that WEREN'T there? Is the pilot still full of it?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No change to the verdict; the pilot is either mistaken or indulging in wishful thinking. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Who knows, the fog of war and time often muddies recollections. But many of you have stated for an absolute fact many things in this thread and have been proven wrong by one picture." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The picture proves only that fuel trailers were employed on certain tanks, at a certain time in the war and in a certain location. They were not used by German tanks during the time and in the theatre presumably under discussion (NW Europe, 1944-45). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"How about opening your minds a bit? Maybe learn something. Those of you who fancy you know it all will never learn the real truth, just the truth in your own little world. The little world that exists only in your minds" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Having an open mind is essential to any investigation. However, this should not mean that we accept myths or suggestions that cannot be substantiated and fly in the face of both known facts and common sense. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

panther3485
09-12-2008, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
"I think it is quite likely that the Tigers were 'any old tank' that the Jug driver saw rumbling down the road." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In many cases, probably not even a tank of any sort.

panther3485
09-12-2008, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"In any case if you look at the angles of attack in the film there is incredibly little chance of any bullets bouncing off any road surface, and even if it did less chance of it getting underneath the tank." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...and even less chance of it doing any worthwhile damage if it did; zero chance in the case of a Tiger tank. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Odirroh
09-12-2008, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
How many of you have even seen a tank IRL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually have seen a couple of WW2 tanks and have been in a tiger tank
at Lenino-Snegiri Museum (Russia) not too far from Moscow.

http://tanksinmoscow.com/index-eng.htm

Please, scroll down to "24.07.2006". There you will find photos of the mentioned tank.
If someone might explain how to post photos, I´ll post those I´ve taken by myself.

Odirroh

Blutarski2004
09-12-2008, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"In any case if you look at the angles of attack in the film there is incredibly little chance of any bullets bouncing off any road surface, and even if it did less chance of it getting underneath the tank." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...and even less chance of it doing any worthwhile damage if it did; zero chance in the case of a Tiger tank. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


.....Quite agree. Barring some unimaginable miracle, no 50cal round of any sort ever penetrated the armor of a tank as heavily protected as a Tiger. However, I wonder whether the intent was perhaps to get incendiary [API] rounds to strike the belly area of the tank beneath the engine, where accumulated grease, and/or leaking oil or fuel might be ignited.

steiner562
09-12-2008, 06:10 AM
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html

Nothing to do with 50 cals but if not anything else an intresting read,although I have no idea how accurate the info is.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/ttt_tiger_vulnerability.jpg

panther3485
09-12-2008, 07:23 AM
The information as presented is actually reasonably accurate if taken as a general guide only. It does highlight a good number of the weak points on the tank.

M_Gunz
09-12-2008, 10:06 AM
This is as likely as 50 cal off the road killing Tiger tank. (http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html)

JSG72
09-12-2008, 03:54 PM
OK! Have been lurking on this one.

Have watched the video and listened to the commentary.
I also have an interest in German armour and appreciate panther3485s passions.

Through 30 odd yrs of reading about the subject including:
"The Tiger Tank" by Tim Gudgin.
"Tiger and King TigerTanks" By Speilberger.
"Steel Rain" Waffen SS. Panzer battles 1944-45 by Tim Ripley.
"The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves.

As well as a plethora of more affordable. Vanguard/Osprey/Men at arms publications. And Having been to Bovington Armour Museum.
I have never read or heard of Tiger Tanks being "Taken out" by .05 cals.

The video. Is just stock footage. with an overlaid commentary. It does not demonstrate "Tiger killing"
The mention of trailers. Well The retreating German Army would hitch up any type of trailer to any vehicle that could tow it. Be it fuel/ Food stocks or the Christmas mail.
The fact that the "Tanks are being caught on open roads (In the video) Arouses my suspicion . As does the fact that they look Very green.(I.E. the same colour as Allied tanks) When German armour was preddominantly Yellow ochre! with Rot and Green application being applied.

The heavy Tank battalions were an entity to themselves. And did not travel with the normal Army formations.

The fact that the commentator makes it sound as if this was Normal practice to take out Tiger Tanks is beyond credibility.
The Tigers/King Tigers/Jagd tigers/Panthers/Jagdpanthers. Mainly took out themselves. Being left behind. Due to lack of fuel or mechanical breakdowns and recovery teams being unavailable.

Many a posed shot of destroyed German armour. Have been taken after an abandoned tank was used for "Target practice" IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tanks. Like the Tiger were destroyed by point blank shots from 17lbers/Bombs/ Naval gunfire or on occasion rockets . Or? Surrounded by lesser Cal tanks and beaten to submission.

.05cals Sounds like an After War scam. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

panther3485
09-12-2008, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
OK! Have been lurking on this one.

Have watched the video and listened to the commentary.
I also have an interest in German armour and appreciate panther3485s passions.

Through 30 odd yrs of reading about the subject including:
"The Tiger Tank" by Tim Gudgin.
"Tiger and King TigerTanks" By Speilberger.
"Steel Rain" Waffen SS. Panzer battles 1944-45 by Tim Ripley.
"The Germans in Normandy" by Richard Hargreaves.

As well as a plethora of more affordable. Vanguard/Osprey/Men at arms publications. And Having been to Bovington Armour Museum.
I have never read or heard of Tiger Tanks being "Taken out" by .05 cals.

The video. Is just stock footage. with an overlaid commentary. It does not demonstrate "Tiger killing"
The mention of trailers. Well The retreating German Army would hitch up any type of trailer to any vehicle that could tow it. Be it fuel/ Food stocks or the Christmas mail.
The fact that the "Tanks are being caught on open roads (In the video) Arouses my suspicion . As does the fact that they look Very green.(I.E. the same colour as Allied tanks) When German armour was preddominantly Yellow ochre! with Rot and Green application being applied.

The heavy Tank battalions were an entity to themselves. And did not travel with the normal Army formations.

The fact that the commentator makes it sound as if this was Normal practice to take out Tiger Tanks is beyond credibility.
The Tigers/King Tigers/Jagd tigers/Panthers/Jagdpanthers. Mainly took out themselves. Being left behind. Due to lack of fuel or mechanical breakdowns and recovery teams being unavailable.

Many a posed shot of destroyed German armour. Have been taken after an abandoned tank was used for "Target practice" IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Tanks. Like the Tiger were destroyed by point blank shots from 17lbers/Bombs/ Naval gunfire or on occasion rockets . Or? Surrounded by lesser Cal tanks and beaten to submission.

.05cals Sounds like an After War scam. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another person who makes more sense than nonsense. Good post, mate! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regarding the colour of German tanks, there was a relatively brief period, late war, when olive green was used as the base colour but in most cases, patterns of red-brown and/or dark yellow were used over the top (there was a very small number of vehicles during this period that stayed plain green). On a few occasions, camo patterns were even applied straight over the basic red oxide primer.

Nevertheless, as you said, one would still have to be suspicious about a column of vehicles where they all appear to be plain green! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JSG72
09-12-2008, 04:24 PM
Regarding the colour of German tanks, there was a relatively brief period, late war, when olive green was used as the base colour but in most cases, patterns of red-brown and/or dark yellow were used over the top (there was a very small number of vehicles during this period that stayed plain green). On a few occasions, camo patterns were even applied straight over the basic red oxide primer.

The Tiger at bovington is just such an example of Red primer. Although I beleive that this was more in the earlier times I.E Tunisia.(From.where it came from) Many Very late Tiger 1s were in fact drawn up from recovered stocks/Training schools and had been painted in Panzer Grau with the Pastes applied piecemeal. Resulting in Steel wheeled tanks with early pattern coupolas. With or without "Zimmeritt" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I ain't "Sucking Eggs" on this one

WTE_Galway
09-12-2008, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Regarding the colour of German tanks, there was a relatively brief period, late war, when olive green was used as the base colour but in most cases, patterns of red-brown and/or dark yellow were used over the top (there was a very small number of vehicles during this period that stayed plain green). On a few occasions, camo patterns were even applied straight over the basic red oxide primer.

The Tiger at bovington is just such an example of Red primer. Although I beleive that this was more in the earlier times I.E Tunisia.(From.where it came from) Many Very late Tiger 1s were in fact drawn up from recovered stocks/Training schools and had been painted in Panzer Grau with the Pastes applied piecemeal. Resulting in Steel wheeled tanks with early pattern coupolas. With or without "Zimmeritt" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I ain't "Sucking Eggs" on this one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My impression, admittedly mainly gained from playing "Flames of War", was that early war panzers were Panzer Grey base coat but a lot of eastern front panzers, especially in the period just prior to Kursk, were delivered base coated in Dunkel Braun.

Is that correct ?

panther3485
09-12-2008, 09:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
"The Tiger at bovington is just such an example of Red primer. Although I beleive that this was more in the earlier times I.E Tunisia.(From.where it came from)" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bearing in mind that the red oxide primer was applied initially in all cases, the main difference was whether or not there was a base paint coat applied overall before adding extra coats for camo, if any. From my recollections of reading over the years, red oxide with camo straight over the top was a not uncommon late war practise, at least for a limited time, partly brought about by paint shortages. In many late war cases also, substantial parts of tank interiors were left in the red oxide primer that had previously been painted ivory ('elfenbein') or sometimes grey. I seem to recall that the Tigers sent to Tunisia received an overall 'sandy brown' exterior colour (see my next post below) but I can't remember if this was before or after they arrived there. Also, I do not recall ever seeing any photos or references suggesting they had other colours applied, only the plain sandy brown overall. Only a small number of Tigers went to Tunisia, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Many Very late Tiger 1s were in fact drawn up from recovered stocks/Training schools and had been painted in Panzer Grau with the Pastes applied piecemeal. Resulting in Steel wheeled tanks with early pattern coupolas. With or without "Zimmeritt" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The application of zimmerit was discontinued on German tanks generally from September 1944 (order dated 9 Sep). This was followed by an order dated 7 October directing troops not to apply zimmerit to tanks they received without the coating. Of course, production of Tiger I had ceased just prior to these events, in August 1944. One might therefore reasonably expect very nearly all, if not all, late production Tiger I to have been given the coating. In my references, I have found a number of Tigers (the last 54 produced) to have been rebuilds of old hulls sent back to the factory from the front. They were fitted with 32 'recycled' turrets and 22 new ones. The recycled turrets were upgraded to the new standard with 40mm roof plate, new cast cupola and new loader's hatch. Presumably, these final 54 should have also all been given a coat of zimmerit? (Unless perhaps some of them were not actually finished before the order to cease using zimmerit came through?)

Pages 77-82, 'Germany's Tiger Tanks - D.W. to Tiger I: Design, Production & Modifications', Thomas Jentz & Hilary Doyle, Schiffer.

I don't think late war Tigers with the old cupola and steel wheels would have been anything more than a rare exception, if they appeared at all. Certainly, I don't recall having seen any photographic evidence of such a combination and it would certainly stick in my mind if I had. Could it be that some earlier production Tigers were simply retro-fitted with the steel rims? If you could post or link to such a photo I would be very grateful. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
09-12-2008, 09:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
My impression, admittedly mainly gained from playing "Flames of War", was that early war panzers were Panzer Grey base coat but a lot of eastern front panzers, especially in the period just prior to Kursk, were delivered base coated in Dunkel Braun.

Is that correct ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
More or less, roughly speaking, yes (and it was 'dark yellow' rather than 'dark brown'). Except for some vehicles in the very early part of the war (mostly Poland 1939), the 'standard' dark grey colour was almost universally applied up until some time into 1943, following order HM1943, No. 181, dated Feb 18 1943. This specified a three-colour system using red brown and olive green over a base colour of dark yellow. Of course, this would not have been implemented overnight everywhere at once so some tanks would likely have 'soldiered on' in the grey for a while afterwards. One could reasonably expect that certainly by the time of the battle of Kursk, nearly all if not all tanks would be using some variation of this new scheme.

Special measures were taken prior to this, for vehicles serving in N. Africa. Order HM1941, No. 281, dated March 17 1941, directed that in place of dark grey, vehicles were to be painted in a base colour of yellow-brown (RAL 8000 - sort of 'similar' to but not the same as the dark yellow mentioned above). Allowance was made for grey-green (RAL 7008) to be used for mottling and camouflage patterns if required. Not 100 percent sure without checking my other refs but IIRC some earlier vehicles may have deployed in theatre finished in the basic panzer grey, and were subsequently over-painted.)

Pages 39-52, 'Panzer Colors - Camouflage of the German Panzer Forces 1939-45', Bruce Culver, Bill Murphy & Don Greer, Squadron/Signal

Yippee.
09-12-2008, 11:45 PM
Well, this whole worthless thread can be converted over into an entire discussion of German armor. When it comes to that, almost anything is possible, especially late war.

All kinds of odd color schemes and mixes of parts. The P47 pilot may well have spotted a Tiger towing a trailer with a drum or two of fuel (I think not). His error was to extrapolate this sighting to include other German tanks.

Regarding what these pilots were seeing, remember that they were right there in the cockpit, and not looking at the incident through a 60+ year old piece of vibrating wing camera film.

Quentin Aanenson (http://pages.prodigy.com/fighterpilot/) spoke of several instances of ground strafing missions, where he could actually pick out single soldiers running across his field of fire. "A touch of the rudder," he said, "and they were gone."

This tells me the pilots could easily see what they had in the way of targets. Still, even soldiers in forward areas called Panzer IVs Tigers. Just because these men had to fight against these things doesn't make them AFV experts.

Choctaw111
09-13-2008, 12:29 AM
I've been away for a while.
I noticed that Seafire's got a new avatar, and there's a new 12 page thread on the 50 cal killing Tiger Tanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Things will never change around here. Maybe that's why I like it so much. I can always count on coming in here for a good laugh or two.
Why don't we just say the the Jug pilots shot at the Tigers with the 50 cals. We can even say that they bounced the bullets up underneath the Tigers. We can even say that they shot at the fuel trailer they were pulling to set it on fire (I didn't have to watch the video again, I've already seen it countless times...years ago).
Show me ONE documentary where a Tiger Tank crew, or soldiers from a German infantry company attached to the tanks, were interviewed that said the Tiger Tank was disabled by 50 cal fire from American fighter planes. At one time I thought it may have been possible, but after years of thinking about it, I am not entirely sure.

panther3485
09-13-2008, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yippee.:
"Regarding what these pilots were seeing, remember that they were right there in the cockpit, and not looking at the incident through a 60+ year old piece of vibrating wing camera film.

Quentin Aanenson (http://pages.prodigy.com/fighterpilot/) spoke of several instances of ground strafing missions, where he could actually pick out single soldiers running across his field of fire. "A touch of the rudder," he said, "and they were gone."

This tells me the pilots could easily see what they had in the way of targets. Still, even soldiers in forward areas called Panzer IVs Tigers. Just because these men had to fight against these things doesn't make them AFV experts." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure we must all realize that seeing something in real life is going to be more clear than a bit of fuzzy old gun camera footage.

However, seeing is one thing and identifying (in this case, accurate ID of an AFV type) is quite another. Without accurate specific knowledge and/or recognition skills, an individual could have a much better look at these vehicles than the strafing pilots got and still very easily get them wrong.

That really is the crux of the whole matter with the veteran's testimony. He may well have been totally sincere in his belief but what specific exact types of vehicles was he actually seeing? Was he seeing Tiger tanks? Highly unlikely. Was he seeing any kind of German tanks (that is, tanks proper; not SPs or TDs or other gunned AFVs) at all? Very much open to question, given popular notions about such things.

As for the technical side of it in relation to the Tiger tank in particular: The effects of various types of weapons and what they would or would not be likely to do to it, over most parts of its surfaces, under what conditions have been quite well researched and detailed. Some key elements of that body of knowledge which address the title subject of this thread have been offered up for those who might wish to be enlightened. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
09-13-2008, 02:42 AM
Sherman tanks could be taken out with rifle sized projectiles. Even with stones, teeth or bare hands if necessary, but for that a fighter would have to land nearby.

Of course, this doesn't apply to all models of the Sherman, but for the one below it is definitely true.
http://www.psywarrior.com/dummyShermanTank.jpg

Ogie76
09-13-2008, 02:47 AM
Inflatable decoy ftw?

Blutarski2004
09-13-2008, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by panther3485:
Special measures were taken prior to this, for vehicles serving in N. Africa. Order HM1941, No. 281, dated March 17 1941, directed that in place of dark grey, vehicles were to be painted in a base colour of yellow-brown (RAL 8000 - sort of 'similar' to but not the same as the dark yellow mentioned above). Allowance was made for grey-green (RAL 7008) to be used for mottling and camouflage patterns if required. Not 100 percent sure without checking my other refs but IIRC some earlier vehicles may have deployed in theatre finished in the basic panzer grey, and were subsequently over-painted.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Based on the photo evidence I've seen, I think that all of the DAK vehicles initially landed in N Africa were still in their original panzer grey livery. I suspect a paint shortage. The Germans were initially using appliques of mud and ersatz sand-based paint (IIRC) for camouflage. It does seem that the paint situation was sorted out by the time of Gazala.

panther3485
09-13-2008, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by panther3485:
Special measures were taken prior to this, for vehicles serving in N. Africa. Order HM1941, No. 281, dated March 17 1941, directed that in place of dark grey, vehicles were to be painted in a base colour of yellow-brown (RAL 8000 - sort of 'similar' to but not the same as the dark yellow mentioned above). Allowance was made for grey-green (RAL 7008) to be used for mottling and camouflage patterns if required. Not 100 percent sure without checking my other refs but IIRC some earlier vehicles may have deployed in theatre finished in the basic panzer grey, and were subsequently over-painted.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Based on the photo evidence I've seen, I think that all of the DAK vehicles initially landed in N Africa were still in their original panzer grey livery. I suspect a paint shortage. The Germans were initially using appliques of mud and ersatz sand-based paint (IIRC) for camouflage. It does seem that the paint situation was sorted out by the time of Gazala. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed. I did a little more reading to refresh my memory following that post (a few pages further on in the same book, had I but taken the trouble at the time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif) and all the initial shipments were finished in grey. Supplies of the yellow-brown paint took a while to catch up because other more vital stores got priority, so the earlier battles were fought using whatever the crews could improvise. Also, the conditions were usually very dusty and vehicles soon became coated in this dust, considerably toning down the grey even without paint (or 'ersatz' paint).

BSR_RuGGBuTT
09-13-2008, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How's he _know_ again, oh bugupthebutt expert? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Typical response from one of the kiddies. You call me a name because I started a thread you don't particularly agree with. Grow up, son. Do you talk that kind of smack to someone in the real world? How far does that get you? Lame Lamerson.

Von_Rat
09-13-2008, 02:53 PM
all you ww2 armor lovers should really try ww2online.

its the best tank game ive found. even if you don't care for it, you'll love the forums. lots of arguing about armor thickness, gun pentration, etc etc.

M_Gunz
09-13-2008, 05:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSR_RuGGBuTT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
How's he _know_ again, oh bugupthebutt expert? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Typical response from one of the kiddies. You call me a name because I started a thread you don't particularly agree with. Grow up, son. Do you talk that kind of smack to someone in the real world? How far does that get you? Lame Lamerson. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm 52. How are you, boy?

blairgowrie
09-13-2008, 05:44 PM
I'd like to see the rhetoric come down a couple of notches. Just ain't worth it to start throwing personal insults. It is not an age thing that matters but tolerance and wisdom.

panther3485
09-13-2008, 08:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
all you ww2 armor lovers should really try ww2online.

its the best tank game ive found. even if you don't care for it, you'll love the forums. lots of arguing about armor thickness, gun pentration, etc etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Being an 'offline only' player, I'm still waiting for a good WW2 tank combat sim to follow on from Panzer Elite. I think there is a new one still under development, entitled 'T-34 vs Tiger' or something like that.

Regarding forums, I spend quite a lot of time on various others - especially Armchair Generals - discussing armour. We 'tank nuts' go 'deep and detailed' just like some of you 'plane nuts' do here and elsewhere. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
09-13-2008, 08:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panther3485:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
all you ww2 armor lovers should really try ww2online.

its the best tank game ive found. even if you don't care for it, you'll love the forums. lots of arguing about armor thickness, gun pentration, etc etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being an 'offline only' player, I'm still waiting for a good WW2 tank combat sim to follow on from Panzer Elite. I think there is a new one still under development, entitled 'T-34 vs Tiger' or something like that.

Regarding forums, I spend quite a lot of time on various others - especially Armchair Generals - discussing armour. We 'tank nuts' go 'deep and detailed' just like some of you 'plane nuts' do here and elsewhere. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh Panzer Elite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Hmmm.. old or newer, much worse version? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

with better but essentaily pointless graphical eye candy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

panther3485
09-13-2008, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
I'd like to see the rhetoric come down a couple of notches. Just ain't worth it to start throwing personal insults. It is not an age thing that matters but tolerance and wisdom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed there, mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I'm well into my 50's but most of the more important attributes need not be a function of age. We should all be courteous and tolerant towards one another; makes for a much more pleasant forum environment, I reckon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stalkervision
09-13-2008, 08:10 PM
This one by chance? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8072/stst005zj1.jpg