Armor Penetration - 20mm vs. .50 cal.

[DAVIDICUS]

Are you sure they had a full inch of top armor?

 

[Anonymous]

They were not "totally useless", but they were of limited use.

No they were pretty much "Totally" useless.... German Pz's usually had 25mm of top armor, wich leaves the .50's a zero chance of doing any damage.

And without their covering armor and their supply trucks the Pz's were nearly useless. Just because the .50's could not destroy the tanks themselves did not make them useless against German armor.

German 20mm were useless against a Sherman -- so what's your point?

RG the German MG151/20 was ment for Fighter vs Fighter or Fighter vs Bomber attacks, never was it intended for AFV's. The MG151 was good at ground attacks though, and the 30mm Mk103 was excellent at it.

No, the MG151/20 was mostly meant for attacks against bombers. Against fighters, the MG151/15 was the better weapon. Against ground targets the MG151/20 range was too short to be particularly effective.

The MK103 was a weapon for multi-engine attack planes, it was too large and had too much recoil for single engine aircraft. It was a special purpose gun and it is not appropriate to compare it to the .50 BMG, but if you wish to do so then it is appropriate to compare its installations of 1-2 guns in German ground attack planes vs. US dedicated ground attack planes with up to 20 forward firing .50's plus HVARS and bombs.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Forget my previous post. For some reason, I thought you were referring to an armored personnel carrier.

 

[Soren]

And without their covering armor and their supply trucks the Pz's were nearly useless. Just because the .50's could not destroy the tanks themselves did not make them useless against German armor.

It made them useless in an attack against German armor, and German armored collums also had "Wirbelwind's"(AA AFV) wich werent destroyed by .50's either, but packed x4 20mm Flak guns on a rotating turret.

No, the MG151/20 was mostly meant for attacks against bombers.

No it was also ment for fighters, and it was also normally the weapon wich finished Allied Fighters for good in a Dogfight.

Against fighters, the MG151/15 was the better weapon.
Against ground targets the MG151/20 range was too short to be particularly effective.

This is true.

The MK103 was a weapon for multi-engine attack planes, it was too large and had too much recoil for single engine aircraft.

Yes it was never used on Single engined aircraft, but on German gound attack planes.

It was a special purpose gun and it is not appropriate to compare it to the .50 BMG, but if you wish to do so then it is appropriate to compare its installations of 1-2 guns in German ground attack planes vs. US dedicated ground attack planes with up to 20 forward firing .50's plus HVARS and bombs.

Sure, too bad only the very inaccurate HVAR's would do any damage to a Panzer, while the Mk103 would totally wreck one.

 

[Anonymous]

And without their covering armor and their supply trucks the Pz's were nearly useless. Just because the .50's could not destroy the tanks themselves did not make them useless against German armor.

It made them useless in an attack against German armor, and German armored collums also had "Wirbelwind's"(AA AFV) wich werent destroyed by .50's either, but packed x4 20mm Flak guns on a rotating turret.

The Wirbelwinds were open on top. The guns fired from very small magazines. These were a threat, but not so serious as they appear on paper. They were more effective aganst infrantry and light vehicles.

No, the MG151/20 was mostly meant for attacks against bombers.

No it was also ment for fighters, and it was also normally the weapon wich finished Allied Fighters for good in a Dogfight.

Yes, but the /20 was really not a good dogfighting gun. German pilots seem to have felt it was necessary to get within 50 meters before they had much chance to land one.

Against fighters, the MG151/15 was the better weapon.
Against ground targets the MG151/20 range was too short to be particularly effective.

This is true.

The MK103 was a weapon for multi-engine attack planes, it was too large and had too much recoil for single engine aircraft.

Yes it was never used on Single engined aircraft, but on German gound attack planes.

It was a special purpose gun and it is not appropriate to compare it to the .50 BMG, but if you wish to do so then it is appropriate to compare its installations of 1-2 guns in German ground attack planes vs. US dedicated ground attack planes with up to 20 forward firing .50's plus HVARS and bombs.

Sure, too bad only the very inaccurate HVAR's would do any damage to a Panzer, while the Mk103 would totally wreck one.

HVAR's were actually not that inaccurate, but pilots generally had little or no training in using them. A few pilots learned to be very accurate with them. To a lesser degree, the same thing can be said of the heavy guns used by the German anti-tank attack aircraft - a few pilots got good with them, most were not very effective.

Ummm.. An MK103 would probably fail to penetrate a Tiger from most angles, and would have a tough time on a Panther from many angles.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

The Wirbelwinds were open on top.

Oh yeah thats right, the P-51's and P-47's attacked like Stuka's, straight down !

The guns fired from very small magazines.

Have you got any idea how fast they were reloaded ??!! One man on either side would stan ready to put in a new one as soon as one was used up, and it was real quick and easy to pop those Mag's in and out !

These were a threat, but not so serious as they appear on paper.

Yeah, but you've said that about every German invention haven't you ?

They were more effective aganst infrantry and light vehicles.

NO !!!! They were never used in that role at all, only by accident if ever ! They were highly effective as an AA defense.

Yes, but the /20 was really not a good dogfighting gun. German pilots seem to have felt it was necessary to get within 50 meters before they had much chance to land one.

And who gave you that idea ? The /20 could easely be used out to 200y, but the slow velocity ment there had to be a good amount correction in fire. The .50's were better at long ranges, no argueing with that, but at 50-100y the velocity is still high enough for the /20's rounds to take only 0.4 sec reach is target, in wich time the Enemy fighter can't react at all.

HVAR's were actually not that inaccurate, but pilots generally had little or no training in using them. A few pilots learned to be very accurate with them.

RG with all due respect, saying that the HVAR's were as accurate as the Germans' "One shot, one kill guns" is way out there !

The German aerial tankbusters were highly accurate with their guns, and for example Stuka's very often hit home on the eastern front, as aircover was sufficient and pilots didnt have to worry about enemy Fighters that much.

Ummm.. An MK103 would probably fail to penetrate a Tiger from most angles, and would have a tough time on a Panther from many angles.

The Tiger E had 25mm of top armor, the Panther anywhere from 16-30 or even 40mm in some places, so yes it would easely penetrate those aswell, except some places on the Panther. But it would have a hard time against the Tiger B's 40mm of top armour though, but who wouldnt.

 

[Anonymous]

The Wirbelwinds were open on top.

Oh yeah thats right, the P-51's and P-47's attacked like Stuka's, straight down !

I could not find a good perspective for a real photo, but this one of a model shows pretty clearly that it would not take much of an angle to land a few .50's in the turret of the Wirblewind. Once in there, it will bounce around and shred the gun crew. And the exposed ammo is also highly vulnerable.

The guns fired from very small magazines.

Have you got any idea how fast they were reloaded ??!! One man on either side would stan ready to put in a new one as soon as one was used up, and it was real quick and easy to pop those Mag's in and out !

Do you have any idea how hard that is to do in a fast spinning turret, with the gun evevation changing constantly? And after the first few reloads, the reloaders become tired and the ammo more and more difficult to reach. And any delay in the ability to fire when the gunner wants to is very signficant.

These were a threat, but not so serious as they appear on paper.

Yeah, but you've said that about every German invention haven't you ?

Many times it is true. But there were German weapons that were quite effective. The 88mm Flak gun for instance (especially vs. armor), the MG34, and the radar aimed 20mm AAA are three such examples.

But you are making the FlakPanzer out to have been a significant weapon, it was not. Look at the production figures for German Flakpanzers:

German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II

              1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945
Möbelwagen       -     -     -     -     -   205    35
Wirbelwind       -     -     -     -     -   100     6
Ostwind          -     -     -     -     -    15    28

The whole production of Flakpanzer's of all three types amounts to less than 400 vehicles produced, all entering service late in the war. And the most significant model, the Möbelwagen left the crew totally exposed and its single 20mm was almost totally ineffective.

Furthermore, all the Flakpanzer's used manual turret rotation and elevation. While it was possible to rotate the turret quickly using manual traverse, it was not easy and accurate aiming was greatly effected. And again, loading the guns was not so easy as you claim. Watch the German propoganda film at the end of this post - this was the best the Germans could do for a propaganda film showing how effective their field AA was.

By comparison, the USA produced 1103 M13's (2 x .50's), 1604 M14's (2 x .50's), 3614 M16's (4 x .50's), 1662 M16A1's (4 x .50's), 1000 M17's (4 x .50's), 110 T10E1's (2 x 20mm). And all of these had electric traverse of 60 degrees per second (75 degrees per second burst), and were belt fed from huge magazines eliminating the need to pause for reloads.

Plus 600 M15's + 1652 M15A1's (1 x 37mm + 2 x .50's - but manual traverse), 300 M19's (twin 40mm Bofors - hydrolic travers, manual elevation), which I personally don't consider worthwhile for AA use because of the manual traverse.

So forgetting about the M15's and M19's, thats a total of 9093 AA halftracks - that is significant.

Furthermore, all US tanks carried a .50 on an AA mount (manual of course). German tanks carried a 7.92 mm on a mount that could not be used effectively against aircraft.

They were more effective aganst infrantry and light vehicles.

NO !!!! They were never used in that role at all, only by accident if ever !

I've read several accounts from US infantry that disupte that.

They were highly effective as an AA defense.

No, they were insignificant.

Yes, but the /20 was really not a good dogfighting gun. German pilots seem to have felt it was necessary to get within 50 meters before they had much chance to land one.

And who gave you that idea ? The /20 could easely be used out to 200y, but the slow velocity ment there had to be a good amount correction in fire. The .50's were better at long ranges, no argueing with that, but at 50-100y the velocity is still high enough for the /20's rounds to take only 0.4 sec reach is target, in wich time the Enemy fighter can't react at all.

Well, I agree with you, 200 yards would have been a resonable range. For the FW190, which sported 250 rpg in it's wing root cannon, I'm sure the pilots fired at longer ranges. But for the 109, with only 150 rounds in it's single nose cannon, the pilots were told to get within 50 meters of a fighter target to be effective.

HVAR's were actually not that inaccurate, but pilots generally had little or no training in using them. A few pilots learned to be very accurate with them.

RG with all due respect, saying that the HVAR's were as accurate as the Germans' "One shot, one kill guns" is way out there !

The German cannon were not that accurate. And I never said the HVAR's were as accurate as the cannon, just that a good pilot could be accurate with them. In a post war contest, the winner (flying a P-51) put 10 out of 10 HVAR's in a 10 foot radius circle, the 2nd place finisher put 9 out of ten in the circle.

The German aerial tankbusters were highly accurate with their guns, and for example Stuka's very often hit home on the eastern front, as aircover was sufficient and pilots didnt have to worry about enemy Fighters that much.

Still, I would bet that less than one in 25 rounds fired resulted in a tank kill.

Ummm.. An MK103 would probably fail to penetrate a Tiger from most angles, and would have a tough time on a Panther from many angles.

The Tiger E had 25mm of top armor, the Panther anywhere from 16-30 or even 40mm in some places, so yes it would easely penetrate those aswell, except some places on the Panther. But it would have a hard time against the Tiger B's 40mm of top armour though, but who wouldnt.

No, the angle of attack against the top plates would be quite shallow, so it would be hard to penetrate even 25mm with an MK103. The more realistic plates to consider are on the rear or sides.

Besides, as I've already established, the weapon of choise against tanks was NAPALM!

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I could not find a good perspective for a real photo, but this one of a model shows pretty clearly that it would not take much of an angle to land a few .50's in the turret of the Wirblewind. Once in there, it will bounce around and shred the gun crew. And the exposed ammo is also highly vulnerable.

How about those M13-14-16's wich gave no cover at all, leaving the crew very mortal even to rifle rounds.

Do you have any idea how hard that is to do in a fast spinning turret, with the gun evevation changing constantly? And after the first few reloads, the reloaders become tired and the ammo more and more difficult to reach. And any delay in the ability to fire when the gunner wants to is very signficant.

When ones life is on the line, you'll be amazed how much energy you get !

Many times it is true.

Many times this is particularly true for the Allies.

But there were German weapons that were quite effective. The 88mm Flak gun for instance (especially vs. armor), the MG34, and the radar aimed 20mm AAA are three such examples.

Oh there were many many many many more !! The German tanks made mince meat of U.S. and British tanks !

But you are making the FlakPanzer out to have been a significant weapon, it was not. Look at the production figures for German Flakpanzers:

By 44 there was enough to cover almost every daylight collum moving.

Furthermore, all the Flakpanzer's used manual turret rotation and elevation. While it was possible to rotate the turret quickly using manual traverse, it was not easy and accurate aiming was greatly effected. And again, loading the guns was not so easy as you claim. Watch the German propoganda film at the end of this post - this was the best the Germans could do for a propaganda film showing how effective their field AA was.

I can't see the film

By comparison, the USA produced 1103 M13's (2 x .50's), 1604 M14's (2 x .50's), 3614 M16's (4 x .50's), 1662 M16A1's (4 x .50's), 1000 M17's (4 x .50's), 110 T10E1's (2 x 20mm). And all of these had electric traverse of 60 degrees per second (75 degrees per second burst), and were belt fed from huge magazines eliminating the need to pause for reloads.

However these were all very badly armored, and two 7.9mm guns would easely take one out of action.

Plus 600 M15's + 1652 M15A1's (1 x 37mm + 2 x .50's - but manual traverse), 300 M19's (twin 40mm Bofors - hydrolic travers, manual elevation), which I personally don't consider worthwhile for AA use because of the manual traverse.

So forgetting about the M15's and M19's, thats a total of 9093 AA halftracks - that is significant.

Yes that is indeed significant.

I've read several accounts from US infantry that disupte that.

Of a Wirblewind firing at U.S. AFV's ?

No, they were insignificant.

Yes in numbers, but they actually a very effective AA battery.

Well, I agree with you, 200 yards would have been a resonable range. For the FW190, which sported 250 rpg in it's wing root cannon, I'm sure the pilots fired at longer ranges. But for the 109, with only 150 rounds in it's single nose cannon, the pilots were told to get within 50 meters of a fighter target to be effective.

Many 109 pilots fired at the 200y range though, and succesfully.

The German cannon were not that accurate.

Depends on wich were talking about. The Mk103 and MG151 were very accurate. And German tankguns were the most accurate in the world. (FACT)

Still, I would bet that less than one in 25 rounds fired resulted in a tank kill.

Well then you bet on that, but you are very likely to lose that bet.

No, the angle of attack against the top plates would be quite shallow, so it would be hard to penetrate even 25mm with an MK103. The more realistic plates to consider are on the rear or sides.

Shallow ? And Allied fighters wouldnt have shallow angle of attacks maby ?

The Mk103 would easely pierce 25mm of top armor.

 

[Anonymous]

I could not find a good perspective for a real photo, but this one of a model shows pretty clearly that it would not take much of an angle to land a few .50's in the turret of the Wirblewind. Once in there, it will bounce around and shred the gun crew. And the exposed ammo is also highly vulnerable.

How about those M13-14-16's wich gave no cover at all, leaving the crew very mortal even to rifle rounds.

Actually he's fairly well protected from the front against small arms.

Do you have any idea how hard that is to do in a fast spinning turret, with the gun evevation changing constantly? And after the first few reloads, the reloaders become tired and the ammo more and more difficult to reach. And any delay in the ability to fire when the gunner wants to is very signficant.

When ones life is on the line, you'll be amazed how much energy you get !

That's always true in combat, so it washes out. The fact is the RoF of these guns measured over minutes was not very good.

But there were German weapons that were quite effective. The 88mm Flak gun for instance (especially vs. armor), the MG34, and the radar aimed 20mm AAA are three such examples.

Oh there were many many many many more !! The German tanks made mince meat of U.S. and British tanks !

Yes the German tanks were better. But in the end, they were destroyed. The complexity and difficulty of producing the late model German tanks cost them in terms of quantity and the ability to support them in the field. Germany would have been better off building 4 x more Panzer IV's than venturing into the Panzer V and VI.

But you are making the FlakPanzer out to have been a significant weapon, it was not. Look at the production figures for German Flakpanzers:

By 44 there was enough to cover almost every daylight collum moving.

You mean to be present I think. 2/3rds were the highly ineffective Möbelwagen, leaving a little over 100 Wirbelwinds to "cover" all German columns... I think not!

Furthermore, all the Flakpanzer's used manual turret rotation and elevation. While it was possible to rotate the turret quickly using manual traverse, it was not easy and accurate aiming was greatly effected. And again, loading the guns was not so easy as you claim. Watch the German propoganda film at the end of this post - this was the best the Germans could do for a propaganda film showing how effective their field AA was.

I can't see the film

Maybe you don't have Quicktime movie player installed?

Or maybe it requires the DivX codec: http://www.divx.com/divx/?src=toptab_divx_from_/index.php

By comparison, the USA produced 1103 M13's (2 x .50's), 1604 M14's (2 x .50's), 3614 M16's (4 x .50's), 1662 M16A1's (4 x .50's), 1000 M17's (4 x .50's), 110 T10E1's (2 x 20mm). And all of these had electric traverse of 60 degrees per second (75 degrees per second burst), and were belt fed from huge magazines eliminating the need to pause for reloads.

However these were all very badly armored, and two 7.9mm guns would easely take one out of action.

Armor protecting the gunner from the direction he was facing could stop 7.9mm's. And usually the halftracks were dug in and not easy targets to start with. Certainly you will agree that 100 M16's provided better AA defense than two Möbelwagen's and one Wirbelwind?

I've read several accounts from US infantry that disupte that.

Of a Wirblewind firing at U.S. AFV's ?

No, of Wirbelwind's firing at infantry and halftracks/trucks/jeeps.

No, they were insignificant.

Yes in numbers, but they actually a very effective AA battery.

I really don't think so. The combination of manual traverse combine with manual loading of small magazines made them questionable. Get setup to watch the film and see. Those Tempests are having their way with the German's through most of the film, and it's a German propoganda film that cheers at the end when a single Tempest is hit (not sure if it is the plane they show crash though, looks spliced to me).

Well, I agree with you, 200 yards would have been a resonable range. For the FW190, which sported 250 rpg in it's wing root cannon, I'm sure the pilots fired at longer ranges. But for the 109, with only 150 rounds in it's single nose cannon, the pilots were told to get within 50 meters of a fighter target to be effective.

Many 109 pilots fired at the 200y range though, and succesfully.

Some did. I have an account of a P-47 pilot scoring at 800 yards, but I don't point at that as the norm.

The German cannon were not that accurate.

Depends on wich were talking about. The Mk103 and MG151 were very accurate. And German tankguns were the most accurate in the world. (FACT)

We're not talking about tank guns. As for he MK103, it had so much recoil that only a heavy plane could use it with any accuracy. And as for the MG151/20, it has poor ballistics no matter how you look at it.

No, the angle of attack against the top plates would be quite shallow, so it would be hard to penetrate even 25mm with an MK103. The more realistic plates to consider are on the rear or sides.

Shallow ? And Allied fighters wouldnt have shallow angle of attacks maby ?

Typical fighter strafing runs were made at around 20-30 degrees down angle. However, to be successful using a big gun vs. tanks, they usually had to get very low to the ground. The higher the angle, the harder it was to hit the target, and the further you have to pull off the target.

The Mk103 would easely pierce 25mm of top armor.

Well, I doubt that the MK103 would "easily peirce 25 mm of top armor" at an angle of over 60 degrees to the perpendicular.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[CharlesBronson]

The 2 cm Flak 38, shoot at 480 rpm and was very deadly against air and ground targets.

This earlier version of this gun the 2 cm flak 30 was also used in aircraft, even briefly, This was named MG / c-30, it shoot the same 20x138B rounds at 310 rpm. It was installed in some german seaplanes and used for ship strafing, also was used in the HE-112 V6 wich was send to Spain in 1938.
This craft was employed in a experimental fighting group named Jadgruppe 88, and was very destructive against the republican armor, including T-26 tanks, armoured trains and cars.

Good video too.

Here is another of Oerlikon 20 mm shooting.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe the Wirbelwind was particularly effective against fast flying aerial targets - it simply didn't have the kind of traverse control to allow accurate aiming. You cannot be turning a crank to adjust the aim of the turret quickly enough and smoothly enough to give much of a chance of success.

In their radar aimed fixed position turrets, the German 20mm AAA was indeed quite deadly.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Soren]

I don't believe the Wirbelwind was particularly effective against fast flying aerial targets - it simply didn't have the kind of traverse control to allow accurate aiming. You cannot be turning a crank to adjust the aim of the turret quickly enough and smoothly enough to give much of a chance of success.

RG that is untrue ! The Wirbelwind and most other Crank driven AA guns were very accurate, and aiming was just as accurate as the electrically driven ones. The only difference was that it took more energy to man a Crank driven AA gun.

The velocity of the traverse was quicker with an electrically driven one though.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe the Wirbelwind was particularly effective against fast flying aerial targets - it simply didn't have the kind of traverse control to allow accurate aiming. You cannot be turning a crank to adjust the aim of the turret quickly enough and smoothly enough to give much of a chance of success.

RG that is untrue ! The Wirbelwind and most other Crank driven AA guns were very accurate, and aiming was just as accurate as the electrically driven ones. The only difference was that it took more energy to man a Crank driven AA gun.

The velocity of the traverse was quicker with an electrically driven one though.

I don't think so. The gunner himself had to operate one of the cranks (elvation I think) while aiming. He had to direct the one or two crankers as to which way to traverse. This is no where near as easy as simply twisting a handle. And maximum taverse speed on the Wirbelwind was 60 deg/sec, typical was lower, where on the M1x's, traverse was up to 75 deg/sec, 60 deg/sec sustained.

Think about it, on the Wirbelwind, you had the shooter cranking, one or two crew cranking, and two crew loading, all in a confined space. On the M1x's, you had the shooter aiming and shooting. Huge difference.

Where have you found anything to indicate the Wirbelwind was actually effective against aircraft? Even the fixed 20mm field positions were not particularly effective. What was effective were the fixed long-term positions with power traverse and radar assisted tracking.

Besides, with only 106 units produced, fewer actually deployed, the Wirbelwind was so insignificant it might as well not have existed at all.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i think they're a waste of half a tank that would be of much more use as an actual tank, i mean what's wrong with putting an AA turret on a halftrack??

 

[Anonymous]

i think they're a waste of half a tank that would be of much more use as an actual tank, i mean what's wrong with putting an AA turret on a halftrack??

I think most of the Wirbelwind's and other German AA tanks were built on recovered chassis, pehaps they were deemed not suitable for up front combat anymore?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well that would make more sence but i bet towards the end the germans were wishing they had even a broken tank!! it's better than no tank!!

 

[Anonymous]

I think that what the Germans wished was that the Nazi leadership had never wasted the resources on the Panther or Tiger, and instead had focused on how to mass produce the Panzer IV with the 75mm gun. If they'd have focused on this tank, they could have had perhaps 20,000 more tanks than they had in 1944 and 1945. Also, by focusing on one design they could have developed proper support for it. A working Panzer IV is much better than a broke down Panther or Tiger!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

that's very true............

 

[Soren]

I think that what the Germans wished was that the Nazi leadership had never wasted the resources on the Panther or Tiger, and instead had focused on how to mass produce the Panzer IV with the 75mm gun. If they'd have focused on this tank, they could have had perhaps 20,000 more tanks than they had in 1944 and 1945. Also, by focusing on one design they could have developed proper support for it. A working Panzer IV is much better than a broke down Panther or Tiger!

Except that by 44-45 the Panther and Tiger hardly ever broke down anymore, and their reliability had become very good !

Fuel shortage was the problem, not the relibility of the tank.

don't think so. The gunner himself had to operate one of the cranks (elvation I think) while aiming. He had to direct the one or two crankers as to which way to traverse.

RG is this one of your jokes again ?

Do you think that the gunner first blind-folds the two crankers and then tells them where to aim ?!

Don't you think the crankers can see the plane themselves ? Don't you think that they have an independant sighting-system themselves ?

RG, in WW2, crank driven AA guns were just as accurate as electrically driven ones, the crank driven ones were just a tiny bit slower thats all.

 

[Anonymous]

I think that what the Germans wished was that the Nazi leadership had never wasted the resources on the Panther or Tiger, and instead had focused on how to mass produce the Panzer IV with the 75mm gun. If they'd have focused on this tank, they could have had perhaps 20,000 more tanks than they had in 1944 and 1945. Also, by focusing on one design they could have developed proper support for it. A working Panzer IV is much better than a broke down Panther or Tiger!

Except that by 44-45 the Panther and Tiger hardly ever broke down anymore, and their reliability had become very good !

That is obviously untrue. Just last night I was watching a interview with a Tiger tank commander, he said his tank and others broke down frequently, and that they waited for repairs "until the end of the war". He was talking about late in the defense of Normandy.

All tanks broke down frequently. As I recall, the MTBF of the Sherman in typical operation was about 1300 miles, for the Panther, it was about 400 miles, and for the Tiger I, about 100 miles. Failure being defined as any repair that could not be made by the crew in half an hour - i.e., a track link replacement was not counted.

don't think so. The gunner himself had to operate one of the cranks (elvation I think) while aiming. He had to direct the one or two crankers as to which way to traverse.

RG is this one of your jokes again ?

Do you think that the gunner first blind-folds the two crankers and then tells them where to aim ?!

Don't you think the crankers can see the plane themselves ? Don't you think that they have an independant sighting-system themselves ?

I think the crankers were not in a great position to see and properly aim the gun

Seriously, do you think 2-3 men can aim the gun effectively?

RG, in WW2, crank driven AA guns were just as accurate as electrically driven ones, the crank driven ones were just a tiny bit slower thats all.

For a main gun on a tank that is probably true, but for AA guns I don't believe it one bit. There is just no way a gun can be aimed as effectively by commitee as by one gunner.

Again, watch the movie - it is pretty darn clear the German small field AA was damn ineffective. So much so that the Tempests virtually ignore it.

=S=

Lunatic