Tank Busting Armaments... Whats The Best Setup???

Anonymous · Feb 18, 2005

CharlesBronson said:
Expend tugsten core amunition on aircraft is a very expensive bussines.

But even in 15 mm there was a version of the Hartkermunition. Is the H panzergranate from Mauser Heavy machinegun ( not cannon ) Mg-151/15.
15x96mm.

Sure it was developed. It was even deployed a little. But my point is I don't think it was commonly used - it was just too expensive for aircraft guns where most of the rounds would miss the target anyway. Something around 10% or less of aircraft ammo actually hit a target - that's a lot of wasted tungston which was essential to many industrial tools.

The USA had M8 API rounds with tungsten penetrators but switched to a moly-steel penetrator because it was deemed a waste of precious tungsten. And the USA had a lot more avialable tungston than Germany, especially later in the war.

=S=

Lunatic

CharlesBronson · Feb 22, 2005

No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.

There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.

Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.

Anonymous · Feb 22, 2005

CharlesBronson said:
No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.

There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.

Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.

Hmmm, I thought the 8000 series steels were all stainless (at least to a degree). Doesn't substantial chromium and Nickle define stainless????

I cannot view the file - it requires some codec that is not part of Windows Media player.

=S=

Lunatic

CharlesBronson · Feb 22, 2005

Yes it does, but you need more than 17 % of cromium and-or more than 15% nickel in the alloy for make it stainless. The 8620 have much less of that.

You need codec Divx. Can be downloaded from:

http://www.divx.com/divx/drdivx/download/

Anonymous · Feb 23, 2005

CharlesBronson said:
No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.

There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.

Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.

I think that's some kind of self propelled howitzer. The turret sits far back on the hull. We cannot see the gun length because the gun is pointed twoard the attacker.

BTW: nice film!

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · Feb 25, 2005

If it is cheep and works, use it. I think that volume of fire can help to make up some difference.

BountyHunter15 · Feb 26, 2005

If you ask me, I think the P-51D Mustang with two 20mm cannons would stop tanks dead in their tracks.

MP-Willow · Feb 26, 2005

Would that be for tanks or for aircraft ?)

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

I never even knew 'Stangs were equipped with 20mm's...

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 26, 2005

2x20mm wont "stop tanks dead in their tracks", 4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets, and there are far better ground attack platforms than the P-51, principly the tiffy, with 4x20mm funnily enough........

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

Also the Hs-129, with 1x BK 7,5 cannon

MP-Willow · Feb 26, 2005

P-51s did have 20mm mostlyused by the RAF. The USAAC used 8x0.50s

We have talked about shells and rockets, but the most common way to kill a tank a 100lb bomb!
Or mybe a good artillery volley.

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

cheddar cheese said:
I never even knew 'Stangs were equipped with 20mm's...

The P-51A1 had 2 x Hispano II's. Most were delivered to the British who used them with 20mm installed. Most, but not all, of those kept by the USAAF after the US entered the war had the 20mm replaced with .50s.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 26, 2005

USAAF P-51s had 6x.50cal, not 8, and i can't speak for the US, but the RAF didn't use 100lb bombs, do you mean 1,000lbs??

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
2x20mm wont "stop tanks dead in their tracks", 4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets, and there are far better ground attack platforms than the P-51, principly the tiffy, with 4x20mm funnily enough........

20mm Hispano's won't kill a tank except for maybe Italian tanks and some very early German tanks. Armored car's and halftracks yes, tanks no!

As an example, the British took a captured Panzer III and set it in a prime location and attacked it repeatedly with Hurc-IIc's. After several thousands of hits something like only 1 was deemed to maybe have killed the tank and two more had disabled it.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · Feb 26, 2005

oh i'm sorry, when did i say 4x20mm would take out a tank?? oh i'm sorry, I DIDN'T!! i said "4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets", if you want a true british tankbuster take a hurricane Mk.IID..............

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

I was agreeing with you there Lanc

cheddar cheese · Feb 26, 2005

Yes I thought that...I dont know how he could read it otherwise

KraziKanuK · Feb 26, 2005

Americans have claimed that they can knock out Tigers with their 8x .50s fired from the P-47. Bounced them off the road surface into the belly, they did.

Don't know how they can claim doing so since the Tiger had a 1" steel belly.

Anonymous · Feb 26, 2005

KraziKanuK said:
Americans have claimed that they can knock out Tigers with their 8x .50s fired from the P-47. Bounced them off the road surface into the belly, they did.

Don't know how they can claim doing so since the Tiger had a 1" steel belly.

I'm rather dubious of this claim as well. It is well known that Tigers were regularly taken out by shooting the fuel trailer they often towed until they were on the front lines, but otherwise I think the chances are slim.

There are two ways the Tiger could be destroyed by such an attack. The first is that a hatch was left open underneath the tank (I'm not sure these were easily opened I think they were for emergency exit only). The other would be if a round bounced up and went up the downward facing exhaust pipe or into one of those downward facing louvers. Once inside under the armor in the engine compartment, it would bounce all over the place spewing 4000+ deg. F incendiary metal and the odds of a fuel fire/explosion would be quite good. I personally think this probably happened once or twice but it really is a fluke.

Another possibility is they just caught the tank unwares and the turret or drivers hatches were open and a round got inside.

Yet another possibility is that it was not really a Tiger. Some of the earlier German tanks (some of which were still in service) and especially armored cars had rather thin armor and could be destroyed by lots of .50 hits. Mis-identification of the type of tank was very common.

=S=

Lunatic

Tank Busting Armaments... Whats The Best Setup???

Anonymous

Guest

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

Anonymous

Guest

Senior Master Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Staff Sergeant

Airman

Attachments

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Major General

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Attachments

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Banned

Anonymous

Guest

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads