- Thread starter
-
- #61
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
DAVIDICUS said:I can see why there is such a misconception regarding this issue. Plan_D said, "At 880 m/s with a 50% decrease in energy it would be around 400 m/s when hitting the tank."
Nothing could be further from the truth. Lets go back to Ballistics 101.
If a round loses 50% of it's energy, that is not equivalent to losing 50% of its velocity. Remember this rule of thumb. Double the mass, double the energy. Double the velocity, quadruple the energy. A loss of 50% velocity is thus a much, much greater than 50% loss of energy.
As for the actual velocity of a round that has ricocheted up onto the surface of the belly of a tank, consider this:
The round will lose velocity as it travels en route to the ground. It will then lose an enormous amount more after striking the ground. The greater the angle upwards, the more velocity that will be lost. The round then, whether or not rendered completly flat will be deformed and no longer be flying true along its concentric axis.
This same round, now slowed down quite a bit, and which is flattened to some degree will strike "sideways" to some degree. Thus, it's remaining energy will be transmitted over a much larger area than had it just struck the tank outright.
No, several slow rounds striking at different locations at different angles in various states deformity and in various states of "sideways" flight will not penetrate 25mm of hardened armor plate.
plan_D said: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:All ur graphs and stats and theorms and equations mean jack shiit to me... A pilots opinion/belief/action report means more to me than 30 of those damn graphs...
lesofprimus said:Ive read 7 of em that dispute that...
lesofprimus said:And BTW, that one above is the gayest thing ive seen in a long long time.... 45 degree angle of attack is a dive... Most of these guys werent diving into the tank.... Gliding was the attack profile more readily used....
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:You are correct the only aircraft that would dive down on the target were dive bombers. The rest of them would sort of glide to the target. For instance a Fw-190 would come in and then climb just ever so slightly then glide down over the target and then fly away. It was more like a straf then a dive. I just got this from my book Die Grosse Deutsche Luftschlachten des Zweiten Weltkriegs which covers the aircraft and tactics used in ground attack and dog fighting for the Luftwaffe in the 2nd World War.
plan_D said:Spitfire Mk.IXs are not Typhoons.
Your dad isn't just hitting the plate though, is he? He also isn't hitting it at a high velocity. Again, you seem to thick that deflected rounds come off at the exact same angle as they hit.
Want to go shoot a round at some concrete and see how it ricochets, I can assure you it'll never go the same way twice.