wuzak
Captain
In Saving Private Ryan, P-51s were "tank busters" and could destroy tanks using only their 0.50" HMGs.
Must be true!
Must be true!
P-47 vs IL-2 vs SU-2 vs Typhoon
- Thread starter VA5124
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I meant to say, that with slower firing cannons, I would assume that you ought to take good aim and ideally fly slowly, which is of course a bad idea with AAA around. With MGs instead, spray-and-pray, faster RoF increasing the likelihood of an idea. Just an assumption on my part.
Regarding CAS vs tanks, if the aircraft couldn't destroy the tanks, could they at least damage them? Especially getting a mobility kill?
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Blowing up the fuel truck, by any means, is a mobility kill.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Even if the attacking aircraft is not capable of penetrating the hull, it's damaging the ancillary equipment on the exterior, while at the same time, un-nerving the crew inside.
If the tank is moving with support vehicles, you can be sure the fuel and ammunition supply vehicles will be destroyed.
If the tank(s) are being supported by infantry or armored infantry (panzergrenadiers), they will either be killed or dispersed.
So while the tank itself may not be disabled directly, the attack has had a direct effect on the tank's function.
It was a legend in the role and was in production until after the Korean War as a ground pounder.
It only took one AP round either denting the gun tube or punching a hole through just one side to put a tank out of action.
A hole in the gun-barrel surely reduces accuracy, but I am not so sure if the tank is defanged. As for the denting, not sure how that will stop the tank or even make it less effective, unless the crew got hurt by spalling.
The Tiger Tank in Bovington museum was disabled by a shell hitting between the turret and tank body and sticking there meaning the turret couldnt move. Result one captured tank with almost no damage at all but useless on the battlefield.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
A hole in the barrel will almost certainly reduce muzzle-velocity, and probably make the inner barrel too rough for safe shooting, I'd think. Even if you can shoot safely the accuracy is probably going to suffer badly from either issue.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
That looks like a bad day at the office there.
Glider
Captain
I'm pretty sure that the tank was defanged. A shell going through a gun barrel has really small tolerances. It would only take a very small burr on the inside of the barrel which almost certainly happened to make it impossible to fire the gun. The shell would probably explode in the barrel
Shortround6
Major General
What is very true gentlemen.
But the Russian tank in the photo looks more like a 50mm hit (if not larger) than a 12.7mm to 20mm hit.
The Russian tank had a 76mm gun after all.
Yes, miracle shots do happen but artillery tubes are pretty tough items. The recoil cylinders make much better targets.
Just from memory the British 2pdr AT gun has just under the 8 times the force of a 20mm shell and the German 50mm long AT round has over 13 times the force.
Depending on 12.7mm MG rounds to take out 25 ton or larger tanks seems like poor strategy.
AT rifles didn't last that long as viable weapons of war.
BTW the US .50 machine gun was classified as an anti-tank machine in 1939-40 but that nonsense went away before any US troops went into combat.
But the Russian tank in the photo looks more like a 50mm hit (if not larger) than a 12.7mm to 20mm hit.
The Russian tank had a 76mm gun after all.
Yes, miracle shots do happen but artillery tubes are pretty tough items. The recoil cylinders make much better targets.
Just from memory the British 2pdr AT gun has just under the 8 times the force of a 20mm shell and the German 50mm long AT round has over 13 times the force.
Depending on 12.7mm MG rounds to take out 25 ton or larger tanks seems like poor strategy.
AT rifles didn't last that long as viable weapons of war.
BTW the US .50 machine gun was classified as an anti-tank machine in 1939-40 but that nonsense went away before any US troops went into combat.
That was supposed to happen but the engine allocation went to I think the Lavochkin series.
Go shoot a rifle with a hole through the barrel or dent the barrel so it becomes obstructed and tell us how you go.
A 6 pounder shell hit the gun mantle then wedged into the turret ring stopping the tank from being a tank. Tiger Tank 131 at the Tank Museum Bovington
The 30mm cannon on the A 10 cannot destroy a modern tank and is not supposed to, it's there to mobility or mission kill it's target, the Hispano AP can defeat 1'' of face hardened plate @ 400 yards, gun tubes aren't 1'' thick and aren't face hardened nor are vision slits, periscopes, gun sights, external fuel tanks, exhaust systems, hell even shooting the hatch handles off is going to cause angst.
Shortround6
Major General
You are confusing several different things.
The A-10 can fire at 4200 rpm.
Four 20 Hispanos fire at about 2400rpm.
The A-10 has a much, much sophisticated aiming system.
The A-10 uses discarded fin stabilized sabot rounds with much, much better penetration than any WW II
30mm auto cannon.
The A-10 ammo is pyrophoric.
Target aspect/angle.
I have brought it up before.
A simplified chart.
Impact at 90 degrees (perpendicular to the armor) starts to the right.
The specified 20 angle for the Hispano ammo is read as 70 degrees near the right of chart.
When the angle gets to 30 degrees on the chart the projectile is at a 60 degree angle to the plate
Your airplane is diving at 30 degrees.
If you are diving at 15 degrees your 20mm Hispano ammo is going to be lucky to go through 8mm of armor against the top plate/s.
Gun tubes varied quite a bit. They also tapered, gun designers weren't stupid, they designed the thinner parts where there was less stress.
Artillery tubes were also NOT designed from bar stock. You could make small arms barrel that way but artillery barrels need a bit more sophistication.
BTW face hardened steel like armor plate would fail in pretty short order as an artillery tube. Autofrettage was the most way of making the tube and most common AT guns used replaceable rifled liners.
Not as quite as hard as armor but pretty tuff stuff. 40-50,000psi pressure in the barrel behind the chamber does call for some qualities that armor doesn't have.
Your 20mm Hispano might wreck small guns but the bigger the gun barrel gets the harder it is to take out.
The gun barrel is supposed to be OK. the round/s that skipped off the bottom of the barrel damaged the traverse mechanism.
Yes tanks were hit in the barrels but it almost was never done on purpose and even trying to get several hundred rounds into by a tank size target by an aircraft instead if a gun shooting from the ground is going to give a very low probability of a hit on a barrel that actually affects the gun.
Let's face it, The Russian, British, US, Germans all tried to develop rockets as anti tank aircraft weapons during WW II instead of guns. NATO also developed a bunch of different rocket AT tank warheads in the 1950s through the 70s. Shaped charges, multiple munition's for each rocket (with multiple 19 round launchers) multiple war heads with kinetic energy darts and not aren't even going to go into the guided stuff.
WW II aircraft with heavy machine guns or 20mm guns were pretty down on the ways to actually shoot up tanks.
The A-10 can fire at 4200 rpm.
Four 20 Hispanos fire at about 2400rpm.
The A-10 has a much, much sophisticated aiming system.
The A-10 uses discarded fin stabilized sabot rounds with much, much better penetration than any WW II
30mm auto cannon.
The A-10 ammo is pyrophoric.
Target aspect/angle.
I have brought it up before.
A simplified chart.
Impact at 90 degrees (perpendicular to the armor) starts to the right.
The specified 20 angle for the Hispano ammo is read as 70 degrees near the right of chart.
When the angle gets to 30 degrees on the chart the projectile is at a 60 degree angle to the plate
Your airplane is diving at 30 degrees.
If you are diving at 15 degrees your 20mm Hispano ammo is going to be lucky to go through 8mm of armor against the top plate/s.
Gun tubes varied quite a bit. They also tapered, gun designers weren't stupid, they designed the thinner parts where there was less stress.
Artillery tubes were also NOT designed from bar stock. You could make small arms barrel that way but artillery barrels need a bit more sophistication.
BTW face hardened steel like armor plate would fail in pretty short order as an artillery tube. Autofrettage was the most way of making the tube and most common AT guns used replaceable rifled liners.
Not as quite as hard as armor but pretty tuff stuff. 40-50,000psi pressure in the barrel behind the chamber does call for some qualities that armor doesn't have.
Your 20mm Hispano might wreck small guns but the bigger the gun barrel gets the harder it is to take out.
The gun barrel is supposed to be OK. the round/s that skipped off the bottom of the barrel damaged the traverse mechanism.
Yes tanks were hit in the barrels but it almost was never done on purpose and even trying to get several hundred rounds into by a tank size target by an aircraft instead if a gun shooting from the ground is going to give a very low probability of a hit on a barrel that actually affects the gun.
Let's face it, The Russian, British, US, Germans all tried to develop rockets as anti tank aircraft weapons during WW II instead of guns. NATO also developed a bunch of different rocket AT tank warheads in the 1950s through the 70s. Shaped charges, multiple munition's for each rocket (with multiple 19 round launchers) multiple war heads with kinetic energy darts and not aren't even going to go into the guided stuff.
WW II aircraft with heavy machine guns or 20mm guns were pretty down on the ways to actually shoot up tanks.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
