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.
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 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.
 
The accounts I've read mention the rounds going into the intake and cooling systems. This was to cause fire/overheating resulting in the evacuation of the crew and allowing them to be shot at. Armor was never claimed to be penetrated.

wmaxt
 
No one round would. Go back to basics of engineering, you lose the structure, you lose your strength. Those lumps of lead will be denting the tank with every hit. The dents weaken the structure of the armour. Many dents across the whole under-side of the tank, when another aircraft comes by and does the same it happens again, the armour weakens, another aircraft passes over the same tank and does it again, the armour weakens. So on and so forth, eventually the armour is going to collapse.

You could do it simple with a sheet of metal and get a screw driver, hold it loosely in your hand and bash the point against it. Eventually after many hits against the repeatedly dented metal will crunch.

Also, what are we considering penertration? In Soviet reports 75% of splinters would determine penertration, in German it was 50%...I don't know what Allied was.

Anyway, it's weakened....weakened....weakened....and eventually a hole appears...that hole has severely weakened the structure which will collapse after several more hits. I'm not saying this happened often, I imagine against one of Germanys Animal Tanks it would take a hell of a lot but it could happen.
 
I assume that by "Anyway, it's weakened....weakened....weakened...." you are referring to your argument as this thread progresses.
 
Secondly, it doesn't lose 80% of it's energy. At most it loses around 50 - 60% of it's energy.

Plan_D I repeat myself; The energy lost upon striking the hard pavement is atleast around 80%. Note that the projectiles path is totally disturbed by striking the pavement, resulting in a massive energy loss.

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

Trust me, it will be virtually "flat" in shape ! Think about it, the round smashes into hard pavement with a force of around 50,000 joules ! (If that doesn't leave a round mostly blunt, then what will ? )


DAVIDICUS, while your repeating my point, you are absolutely right !
 

The only one that is doing what you describe is you p_D.

My dad has a steel plate ~8" square x 1" thick that has been pounded on for at least 40 years. Guess what? There is not one hole in it and not even any spalling. Lots of very small indentations though.

The underside of a Tiger is NOT a small area being ~91sqft.

If you had a clue, it was an example of an impact angle on the tank's belly.
 
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...

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....

And lets say for arguments sake that the shell did not bounce off the road, but off the inside of the track mechanism.... At a 12 degree angle.......

Blah Blah Blah u guys just beat a topic to death.....
 
Well, I happen to know Jack Shiit and he most certainly was not mean to you.
 
I know Jack Shiit because he sleeps with my wife. I sleep in his bedroom.
 
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...

Go read that report I link to earlier. So much for pilots opinion/belief/action reports.
 
lesofprimus said:
Ive read 7 of em that dispute that...

Got any links? Or are they more pilot reports of what they thought they seen flying by at 300 plus mph while dodging the flak.
 
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....

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.
 

Attachments

  • tankbusting_116.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 606

Spit IXs with the 2cdTAF would dive at angles up to 60 degrees.
 
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.
 

Spit were dropping bombs on the tanks.

You are the one claiming multiple hits in a small area does damage. The 1000s of accumalative hits from a 1lb ball pean.......

I do?

Thats correct and you want us to believe that the rounds would hit in a small area.
 
the tank's underside will not have a huge ground clearance, as such, even though all the rounds will not all go at the same angle and hit the same spot, due to this low cleance, the rounds will not have much of a chance to spread over anything larger than what could be described as a small area.............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread