Saving Private Ryan - Tank Busters

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
plan_D,

the belly of the Tiger was 25mm thick. A richoche would make the 25mm 3 to 4 times that thick.

Step back and look very carefully at what you are saying. The 20mm would be spread all over the place after richocheing off the ground. Don't forget about convergence from the wing mounted cannons.

If what you say is true, then why give pilots 1/2" back armour?

This is worth reading, http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
 
Like they say, seeing is believing. I would like to see that footage myself. Nothing anyone says here is going to convince me given what I know (however little that may be) on the subject.

For most effective penetration, a projectile must impact at the angle that projects the most energy onto the smallest area. A round, any round, after striking the ground will have lost much of its velocity. Then on the upward strike on the belly of the tank, the round, now deformed from the impact with the ground and knocked off its axis, would strike in such a way as to concentrate the remaining energy across a much larger surface area and at an angle.

It would be helpful, at least to me, if someone could post some gun camera footage showing the success of this technique.
 
lesofprimus said:
Sorry to report disagreeable information, but it is what I recall readin previously...
Click to expand...

Occasionally attacks on German combat units in the battle zone are emphasized. Often the attacks on German tanks by allied fighter-bombers that are put forward as examples on the great effectiveness of allied air power. This is actually quite strange, since weapons carried by aircraft were unsuitable for attacking tanks. The image of allied fighter-bombers as effective tank killers is probably the result of claims by the pilots themselves. However, it is hard to conceive a less reliable source for information on the effectiveness of the attacks. Such claims are notoriously exaggerated.

Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons.

Actually it seems that very few German tank were lost due to hits from weapons carried by aircraft. Probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire campaign. Rather it seems that air attacks on tank formation protected by AA units were more dangerous to the aircraft than to the tanks. Allied losses of aircraft were considerable, the 2nd TAF (including elements of Air Defence of Britain that took part in the Normandy campaign) lost 829 aircraft, while US 9th Air Force lost 897.

from the link
 
One thing worth remembering is that VERY often Allied pilots mistaked PzIV's as being Tiger's(Like U.S. tankcrews aswell), and claimed them as Tigers aswell.

Infact IIRC, a total of only 9-10 Tiger's fell victim to Allied airstrikes, under the intire war ! (Not much )
 
Maybe too big in size or dimensions... Ive had that problem before...

Guys, I will not rule out that there could be indentification problems... That happened.... Not always, but it did... And sometimes, armor plating that was defective and not up to manufactures specifications was installed into new and battle damaged repairs...

Sometimes there were flaws in the armor plating... Imperfections... A carbide deposit where there shouldnt be one... Maybe even alittle espionage took place in Bracktoven, or wherever... Maybe a workers sister was rpaed by the regimental commandant and he was getting his revenge by weaking the armor consistency......

Maybe some guys were smart enough to try and skip 20mm shells under the bellies of Tigers hoping that these special few tanks had some of these flaws........

We'll never know for sure, but some pilots believe that they did destroy a Tiger by using this method....
 
A ricocheted round is extremely unpredictable, it could have bounced up at a 0 degree angle. Everyone knows when a round ricochets you cannot predict which direction it is going to reflect at.

If the rounds are landing just behind the tank though the law of physics are obvious enough to say that it will bounce forward or up, if landing just below the tank (possible because the aircraft is shooting down at the tank), the rounds will bounce up into the confines of the space under the tank. The small area made by the surrounding tracks and low ground clearance of the tank (I'm not talking actually low but you get what I mean) would mean that the rounds would be hitting in basically the same place when hitting the tank. They were be diverted by the small area into the tank.

This barrage would make the tanks armour collapse after the armour has been weakened enough.

Now, I will not try and deny that Pz.IVs were often mistaken for Tigers. Allied air and tank crews would rather state they destroyed a Tiger than a Pz.IV along with honest misidentification (from a distance they do look mildly alike). I am not talking just Tigers though, I am refering to Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Jagdpanzers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers as well.

It was well known that rounds could be bounced up underneath enemy armour and cause considerable damage.

I would like to see the source of that, only 9 - 10 Tigers lost to Allied air power? First the source and also, is it talking about Western Allied only or the Soviets included in that too?
 

Yup, just get the ol' Ma Duece out and hammer away at the late war German tanks. No need for heavy calibre AT rounds since the multiple hits from those .50" would soon punch a hole through the armour. Better yet, use the H-S. Should be easier to get multiple hits in one small area from a ground mount than from an a/c, and at a better impact angle.
 
I'll respond to the rest of your post later Plan_D.

I would like to see the source of that, only 9 - 10 Tigers lost to Allied air power? First the source and also, is it talking about Western Allied only or the Soviets included in that too?
Click to expand...

Sure, however I havent found anything yet mentioning the "Tiger-I's" losses alone due to allied air attacks, although I clearly remember reading it.

Thomas L. Jentz. describes that the Total amount of Tigers (both types) known to have been lost due to Allied air attack is 30. (USSR included)

I'll try and see if I can find the losses for the Tiger-I alone, but it is sure to be around the 9-10 maby 13 at the most. TigerII losses to air attacks were a little higher because of some only just making it out of the German assembly-lines before being pounded by allied bombers. (1945 was a cruel period for the Germans !)
 
KK, we are referring to 20mm cannon damage, not .50 cal, so no need to get snotty......

One minute its 9-10 kills, then it's 30...... Maybe some claims that destroyed a Panther or Panzer were actually Tiger Tanks that were falsely identified......

The door swings both ways u know....... Mistaken identification happened all the time....
 
lesofprimus said:
KK, we are referring to 20mm cannon damage, not .50 cal, so no need to get snotty......
Click to expand...

H-S = 20mm Hispano cannon.

So why did the army not use 20mm automatic AT guns if it was so easy to punch through the armour of the Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, etc.....?
 
KK the front armour of Tiger Ausf E was 100mm, the side armour was 80mm. That is why the Army wasn't using automatic 20mm cannons to destroy them. If you can find a cannon that can depress enough to bounce rounds off the floor and, while it's at it shock the crew enough not to shoot back then fine.

The aircraft doesn't have to worry about the Tiger shooting back, ground troops do.
 
Plan_D

get your protractor and ruler out, draw some lines 25mm apart and tell me how thick that belly armour is now for different impact angles. You will find that that belly armour is as thick as that side and front armour which you're claiming a 20mm auto AT cannon could not penetrate.
 
KK, use your brain.

Ricochet rounds can bounce straight up into the belly. A richochet is unpredictable, this isn't light we're talking about. It doesn't bounce out at the same angle it goes in.
 
plan_D said:
KK, use your brain.

Ricochet rounds can bounce straight up into the belly. A richochet is unpredictable, this isn't light we're talking about. It doesn't bounce out at the same angle it goes in.
Click to expand...

Sure a round that hits the ground at a 30* angle is going to bounce straight up to hit the belly perpendicular, never mind that it could be deflected to either side as well. Not enough times, if ever, will this happen to do what you're claiming a 20mm will do to a tank's belly armour.

Yup, richochets are so predicatable that they will hit in that very small area enough times so that "this barrage would make the tanks armour collapse after the armour has been weakened enough.".

Not me that needs to use their brain!
 
I think it is you.

A ricochet round is unpredictable, it is not light. The rounds will not be going in at 30 degrees and coming out at 30 degrees. If you had any clue about guns you would know that a ricochet is unpredictable.

The under-side of a tank is a small area. The tracks on either side of the area I am refering to make sure that all rounds will hit the tank in some place.

Who ever stated that the round would always be hitting the ground at 30 degrees anyway. It depends on the angle the aircraft is coming in at and also that he is spraying as he goes down and pulls up.
I never stated that it would happen in one single pass, armour doesn't heal itself. On the field of battle any damage sustained will be there until the end.

Now, calm that red face down, straighten your ponytail and push up your glasses and use your grey matter.
 
lesofprimus said:
One minute its 9-10 kills, then it's 30....
Click to expand...

As I said I clearly remember reading it, however I havent found the reference for the Tiger-I alone just yet. What I have found though, is that only 30 Tigers of both types (Wich means the TigerII included), have been destroyed by Allied air-attacks.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Plan_D what your suggesting is impossible, simple as that.

A 20mm H-S AP round hitting hard pavement and bouncing off would need atleast a 40-45 degree impact angle, or it will just dig itself in. Now considdering this, the projectile would hit the belly of the tank as a bullet hitting sloped armor, a whole 25mm of it, wich means in the case of the 20mm H-S that a penetration is impossible.

Also take into considderation that after hitting the hard pavement, atleast 80% of the rounds KE has been used up, plus the fact that the shape of the projectile is now badly mangled= almost flat. (An AP round needs atleast some shape to be effective, and as we know, a 'flat' projectile wont do much good against armor )

Even with a 'direct' hit against 0 degree armor at 200y, the H-S AP round will only penetrate 27mm of armor ! Now what do think its chances of penetration would be after bouncing off hard pavement and hitting 25mm of sloped armor is ? (Now do you see how far out your claim is ?)

 
First off, 25mm isn't a lot of armour. The T-34 had 40mm angled at 60 degrees to make it equal to 75mm flat.

Secondly, it doesn't lose 80% of it's energy. At most it loses around 50 - 60% of it's energy.

Thirdly, depending on the angle the round has it, it wouldn't always be flat.

Fourthly, both of you are basing your penertration values off one hit. You're both failing to realise that armour weakens with every hit. The RoF of a Hispano Mk.II is 600 rounds per minute. One pass would allow the plane to squeeze off around 20-30 rounds, hitting behind the tank would confine the rounds to bounce up and, no matter what, hit the tank.

At 880 m/s with a 50% decrease in energy it would be around 400 m/s when hitting the tank. With around ten rounds weighing 130 grams a piece. By the third or fourth pass, with continuous damage in that small area the tanks belly armour, which isn't thick, is going to be sheared and dented. The structure of the armour is weakened, like a dented can, it would then start to fail.

You both, obviously, believe that 25mm is thick. Even at an angle it's not very strong because it needs structure. You dent anything it weakens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Privateer info, anyone?
Replies
0
Views
2K
glennasher
G
A
Belly Drop Tanks I saw 4 sale on craigslist
Replies
1
Views
19K
ssnider
S
S
.......What is a tank???
10 11 12
Replies
238
Views
41K
HealzDevo
H
L
  • Locked
Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I
43 44 45
Replies
887
Views
110K
DerAdlerIstGelandet
C
Best tank killer aircraft of WW2
24 25 26
Replies
506
Views
150K
Zyzygie
Z
Menu
Log in
Register