P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,reality

In article , Tony
Williams writes
Alan Minyard wrote in message news:e2r6lv03q966itpnh24
...

The reference was to .303 tracer rounds. The .50 cal AP would, in all
probability, not penetrate after a ricochet, however if you can put
50-60 rounds under the belly there is a fairly good chance the one or
two will.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself (the problem with long threads!)
you need to bear the following in mind:

1. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

2. The penetration of a .50 AP round at 300 yards and 30 degrees is
just 5mm (official figures) - and that's without bouncing off the road
first).
and hitting the belly armour sideways on much of the time...

3. The belly armour of any 1944 tank is at least double that, to the
best of my knowledge.

Well, I just did the obvious and Googled for Tiger belly armour and the
rear belly plate was 25mm horizontal. Forward belly plate was 40mm.

4. In order for the bullets to bounce off the road but penetrate the
armour, the road would have to be harder than the armour plate.

At the 30 + angle required I would agree - I have seen bullets skip off
hard clay and carry on at hardly reduced velocity - but that was a graze
of just a few degrees; turning through 60 is not a serious proposition.

(That's a tip - if you ever have to build a bullet stopper, hard clay is
a beaut...)

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

I just get the feeling that after hundreds of rounds were expended at
the fuel trailer and the tank that there was so much flame and muck
flying around that any pilot might be excused for thinking that he had
unzipped the floor plates.

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Dave Eadsforth
Date: 9/2/03 11:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article , Tony
Williams writes
Alan Minyard wrote in message
news:e2r6lv03q966itpnh24
...

The reference was to .303 tracer rounds. The .50 cal AP would, in all
probability, not penetrate after a ricochet, however if you can put
50-60 rounds under the belly there is a fairly good chance the one or
two will.

Well, at the risk of repeating myself (the problem with long threads!)
you need to bear the following in mind:

1. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
(that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).

2. The penetration of a .50 AP round at 300 yards and 30 degrees is
just 5mm (official figures) - and that's without bouncing off the road
first).
and hitting the belly armour sideways on much of the time...

3. The belly armour of any 1944 tank is at least double that, to the
best of my knowledge.

Well, I just did the obvious and Googled for Tiger belly armour and the
rear belly plate was 25mm horizontal. Forward belly plate was 40mm.

4. In order for the bullets to bounce off the road but penetrate the
armour, the road would have to be harder than the armour plate.

At the 30 + angle required I would agree - I have seen bullets skip off
hard clay and carry on at hardly reduced velocity - but that was a graze
of just a few degrees; turning through 60 is not a serious proposition.

(That's a tip - if you ever have to build a bullet stopper, hard clay is
a beaut...)

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

I just get the feeling that after hundreds of rounds were expended at
the fuel trailer and the tank that there was so much flame and muck
flying around that any pilot might be excused for thinking that he had
unzipped the floor plates.

Cheers,

Dave

--

On the other hand he may well have destroyed the tank.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote:

On the other hand he may well have destroyed the tank.


Arthur Kramer

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 2:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 2:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat
plane travelling at 300+ mph. This is from 'Air Power at the
Battlefront':

"There was also the problem of accurate target identification by
pilots hurtling at low level over a mass of vehicles obscured by smoke
and flames. Under such conditions all types of armoured vehicles, and
perhaps even some soft-skinned vehicles, could be mistaken for tanks.
In the snows of the Ardennes it was found that even small buildings
such as huts which stood out against the white background coud be
mistaken by pilots for tanks and vehicles. Moreover, what constituted
a tank was often loosely defined by pilots, a former American
fighter-bomber pilot admitting that assault guns, armoured artillery
and tank destroyers were all identified by pilots as 'tanks'."

When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

(Tony Williams) wrote:


When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Sure sounds "Reasonable" to me... despite Kramer's very confidant
assertion to the contrary.

...but then...I wasn't there and have never done that.,,so...

--

-Gord.

On 2 Sep 2003 23:31:51 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 9/2/03 2:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Doesn't seem reasonable though does it Art?

Surely you can see that?.

--

-Gord.

"Reasonable" is not fact. Or evidence. Or anything. Especially in light of
eyewitnesses who say otherwise.

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat
plane travelling at 300+ mph. This is from 'Air Power at the
Battlefront':

"There was also the problem of accurate target identification by
pilots hurtling at low level over a mass of vehicles obscured by smoke
and flames. Under such conditions all types of armoured vehicles, and
perhaps even some soft-skinned vehicles, could be mistaken for tanks.
In the snows of the Ardennes it was found that even small buildings
such as huts which stood out against the white background coud be
mistaken by pilots for tanks and vehicles. Moreover, what constituted
a tank was often loosely defined by pilots, a former American
fighter-bomber pilot admitting that assault guns, armoured artillery
and tank destroyers were all identified by pilots as 'tanks'."

When it comes to evidence, the most convincing to me is the
after-battle examinations of knocked out German tanks by Operational
Research Units, who were specifically trying to find out what caused
the damage. They reported on hundreds of tanks (hardly any of which
were knocked out from the air) and I have never read of a single case
of a tank being knocked out by this tactic.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

Are the ORU reports available on line? That would be some very
interesting reading :-)

Al Minyard

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: (Tony Williams)
Date: 9/2/03 11:31 PM P

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat

So I guess that anything Ed, or Bfdrvr or Gordon (RCAF) writes is rejected out
of hand. And of course Adolph Galland's First and the Last is never to be
considered as worth anything. So the bottom line is that anyone who was there
knows nothing and those were not there know everything. Right?
Tell me what did it feel like when you were coming home from a mission on
single engine losing 500 ft/min and all alone easy pickings for any fighter
around. And what did it feel like when you stood beside the gravesite of a
friend while the Padre intoned last rights. Tell me about that. I want to know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Art Kramer wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:

Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially under the
stress of combat and from the confined cockpit of a vibrating combat

So I guess that anything Ed, or Bfdrvr or Gordon (RCAF) writes is rejected out
of hand.

You forgot to mention Walt BJ who, for those of us whom have
been following this thread knows, has supported your argument
as well. FWIW, I've believed your testamony the "ricochet"
technique to destroy tanks all along.

Someone even posted an mpeg video recently in which the
commentator in the video (a P-47 pilot!) backs up what you're saying.
What more do they ****ing want!?? Do they think the voice in the
video is not the voice of a P-47 pilot and is just some imposter?

(As if somebody has that much time on their hands and would
go through all the trouble to make up video for no other reason
than to win a useless argument on RAM). GMAFB!

In any event, I've been following this thread since its inception
after it spun off a question I asked about the relative killing power
of the P-51's .50 calibers versus the A-1's 20mm cannons. It doesn't
surprise me at all that these know-it-all naysayers refuse to give
you the benefit of the doubt on this one and the mere fact that this
thread is still going on (and on, and on) is simply par for the
course.

Most lay people can only think in 2-dimensions (which is one reason
why NASCAR racing has such a huge following) so the concept of a
murderous hail of .50 caliber shells ricocheting around beneath an
armored tank thereby rendering it useless is a phenomena that is
beyond their frame of reference and 2-dimensional life experiences.
Thus, they refuse to believe it, or they're simply incapable of
believing it.

-Mike ("don't bother me with the facts ma'am..." syndrome) Marron

ArtKramr wrote:


Tell me what did it feel like when you were coming home from a mission on
single engine losing 500 ft/min and all alone easy pickings for any fighter
around. And what did it feel like when you stood beside the gravesite of a
friend while the Padre intoned last rights. Tell me about that. I want to know.



Well that didn't last long!

("And whether you were there or not is a matter of indifference to me.
And of no relevence to the subject at hand.")