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!
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.Why would an MG be especially useful in the presence of AAA but not with it? I must be missing something. Not trying to argue; trying to clarify only.
Cheers.
Blowing up the fuel truck, by any means, is a mobility kill.Regarding CAS vs tanks, if the aircraft couldn't destroy the tanks, could they at least damage them? Especially getting a mobility kill?
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.Regarding CAS vs tanks, if the aircraft couldn't destroy the tanks, could they at least damage them? Especially getting a mobility kill?
Corsair had the same engine as the P-47 but not the turbosupercharger, right? How did it perform in the ground attack role?
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.The engine grates are nowhere near the easy target's most people believe them to be.
On a Panther for example the engine radiators are in-between the grates and not only are the grates several inches deep there are baffles between intake boxes and the actual radiators.
They learned a lot about stopping things like Molotov cocktails in the 1930s. Likewise taking fire from higher elevations (buildings or bluffs and hills).
Yes the bulkheads were not tight, even in new tanks. The Germans did fit extra armor, sometimes just 5mm plates over the grates.
It be done, yes. But took a fair amount of hits to get anywhere.
Panthers, like a lot of German kit in 1944/45 showed a large variations in details.
View attachment 652336
Some grates had larger openings. But on this example you need a pretty steep angle elevation to get a machine gun bullet (or 20mm shell) down inside the grate or you bullets are trying to plow through several thickness before they get to the bottom of the grate. And like I said early they are baffles and bulkheads.
The Germans had some of top 2-3 suites of AA guns to help protect them from low level aircraft (it varied and it varied from year to year).
operating your planes at low altitude was key to surviving air to ground missions. Flying at several thousand feet trying to line up steep attack lines to try to get machine gun bullets into small grates wasn't a good plan.
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.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. View attachment 652387
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.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.
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.
Does anyone have pictures of tanks that have been strafed (WW2)?
I couldn't find any Biff.
But I did find what rocket-armed Thunderbolts could do...
View attachment 652461
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 barrelA 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.
That was supposed to happen but the engine allocation went to I think the Lavochkin series.I will never understand why the IL-2 didn't use any of the really great radials the russians had (1800hp+ on their low octane gas, good reliability, produced up to the 60s by the chinese, so most radial warbirds that aren't western use chinese radials).
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 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.
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 BovingtonThe 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.
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.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.