A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old August 6th 03, 08:47 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened.


These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,
but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
rebounds from the target area.

It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
accurate. All that is pretty understandable considering the
circumstances (ground fire, 400 mph, low altitude, smoke).


But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.


The film attests that this is prett much spot on.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #13  
Old August 7th 03, 12:28 AM
Corey C. Jordan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:29:07 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

I don't doubt this too much, I've seen lots of tracer
ricocheting from the sea surface. We used to fire Browning .303's
from Lancaster nose turrets and likely 10 percent of our tracer
would bounce. Hell, we used to see bits and pieces of jacket
sticking into the rubber strip around the windscreens
occasionally.
--

-Gord.


I've fired countless thousands of rounds through M2HB BMGs and
richocets do occur even on seemingly soft ground (there are rocks and stones in
most topsoil layers).

However, the problem of geometry can't be overlooked. Any decent billiard
player understands the angles problems involved. So, I find it extremely
unlikely that rounds fired would:
A) Recochet at the correct angle.
B) The utter lack of energy retention due to bullet deformity.

Oh, and the tanker's terror associated with hearing and seeing Jugs in one's
immediate area is most likely the realization that those P-47s may be hauling
a pair of 1,000 pound bombs and a wing full of HVARs.

Sounds like wishful thinking at best.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com
  #14  
Old August 7th 03, 12:32 AM
ArtKramr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: (John S. Shinal)
Date: 8/6/03 12:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Bill Shatzer wrote:

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened.


These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,


It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.


but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
rebounds from the target area.

It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
accurate.


The again there were many pilots who were deadly accurate



But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.


Not true,

The film attests that this is prett much spot on.


Spot on my ass. Look at more films.




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

  #17  
Old August 7th 03, 05:02 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


I think we might say that you are "assuming" that the pilots telling these
stories" assumed" this technique worked. right?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:


I don't assume anything. That's what the people have been saying so far.
  #19  
Old August 7th 03, 06:17 AM
Tony Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
From: Bill Shatzer

Date: 8/5/03 10:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

Dave Holford


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?


Anti-tank mines were principally intended to immobilize a tank by blowing
off a tread or detaching a bogie wheel, not by actually penetrating the
armor.

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened. But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.


Cheers and all,



Too bad we have no actual P-47 pilots in this NG to give us actual experience
in this matter. It would save us a lot of conjecture. But I did meet some
German tankers in various Munich bierstubes after the war and they said they
dirtied their pants when they heard the distinctive sound (R-2800's) of P-47's
overhead.


There is no doubt that the P-47 pilots made such attacks, and that
they believed that they worked. They weren't necessarily correct in
that belief, however; as has been pointed out, the claims from RAF and
USAAF fighter-bomber units were about ten times greater than the
actual number of tanks destroyed. Some of the possible reasons for
this are included in 'Flying Guns: World War II':

"Given these unpromising circumstances, why did the fighter-bomber
pilots believe that they were achieving such success against tanks?
There can be no doubt that they genuinely thought that they were
destroying them in large numbers. There appear to be several reasons
for that. First, problems with identification. Flying a vibrating
aircraft, with restricted visibility, at low level and high speed and
under the stress of combat, are hardly ideal circumstances for
accurate observation. Add to that the natural tendency for the size
and strength of the opposition to appear magnified, and it becomes
less surprising that any vaguely tank-sized object was classified as a
tank – and usually a Tiger tank! Many of the "tanks" claimed destroyed
were actually armoured cars, troop carriers, armoured recovery
vehicles and soft-skinned transport.

The second problem was the difficulty in observing the effect of
attacks. The cannon shells and HMG bullets fired in strafing attacks
generally carried incendiary or explosive chemicals and caused flames
and smoke to erupt wherever they hit. A tank revving up its engine to
get out of the way can also generate a lot of smoke. Tanks apparently
covered in flames and smoke were confidently reported as "flamers" or
"smokers" and claimed as destroyed, whereas in most cases they would
not have suffered serious damage. The blast effect of rockets and
bombs threw up enough dust and smoke to obscure the entire area, and
pilots frequently believed that it would have been impossible for
anything to survive. They were usually wrong. Large bombs could
disable tanks with a near-miss, but RPs required a direct hit.

Finally, there was the problem of duplicated claims. A disabled tank
seen from the air may not appear damaged, and multiple air attacks
were therefore sometimes launched against tanks which had already been
knocked out."

It is certainly true, however, that many German tankers suffered from
a fear of the fighter bombers and some baled out of their vehicles
when they arrived, even if, logically, a buttoned-up tank was the
safest place to be.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
  #20  
Old August 7th 03, 07:13 AM
Bill Shatzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

-snips-

It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.


The rocks I selected for stone skipping on lakes were shaped rather
differently than .50 cal MG rounds. And, were imparted a rather different
rotation.

I never tried to skip an elongated rock with a rotation at right
angles to, rather than parallel to, the water surface but I can't believe
that would work at all well.

Certainly not sufficiently well to penetrate tank armor, even the
relatively thin undersurface armor.

But, you could probably scare the hell out of the folks inside.

Cheers and all,



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.