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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, reality or fiction?
Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole
lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western allies attack planes? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction? From: Ed Rasimus Date: 8/5/03 8:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: What's really at play here is the fact that even today, tanks and armored vehicles are hard on the sides and soft on the top/bottom. Their most likely threat is from other armor or anti-armor ground forces. When a compromise needs to be made for overall gross weight reduction it takes place on the top and underside. For this reason, strafing armor at high angles (dive angles, not lead angles) the aircraft can be effective against tanks even though the armor of a tank is usually characterized as being capable of resisting that caliber of weapon. Since I never attacked a tank in a fighter I am giving you hearsay from fighter pilots who did. They described the attack this way. They would appproach the tank and their first aim point is behind the tank. They then walk their fire to the main body of the tank. The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin. It worked better if the tank was on a hard surface rather than earth At least that is the way the story was told back then. But as I say, I have never attacked a tank in a fighter. I am just giving what pilots who did had to say at the time. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote: The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin. Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true? Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality From: Dave Holford Date: 8/5/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: ArtKramr wrote: The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin. Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true? Dave .. As I said I never flew those missions. I am just quoting P-47 pilots who did, as they told their stories to me. .. Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I was taught by WW2/Korean War fighter pilots to attack a tank in two
ways - one was to strafe the side and try to knock a track pin loose, disconnecting the track and disabling the tank. A P80 pilot told me it worked. The second method was to aim at the rear deck of the tank in about a 30 degree dive and try to shoot through the cooling air grilles. They warned me that some tanks would turn the turret 180 degrees so the planes would waste ammo shooting at the thick armor glacis on the front of the tank. But if you get low enough you can tell front from rear. I did just this in an F4E and blew up a T54 tank south of the DMZ in 1972. Didn't have a gun camera but it looked just like the films from WW2, except in color. A hard yank got us over the fireball and debris. Apparently the bulkhead between the engine compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that bulkhead, too. Too bad for them. (G) Walt BJ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that bulkhead, too. Too bad for them. Displayed at Nellis, there is a disabled T-62 that is a bit gruesome when one looks inside. It took a kill through the armour on the side; looked like a single shot. The tank interior was described like a convective oven for its killing effect. VL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction? From: "Emmanuel Gustin" Date: 8/5/03 3:16 PM Pacific Apparently more tanks were abandoned undamaged than were actually destroyed by the fighter-bombers. So the main effect appears to have been a moral one. The strafing and bombing scared the tank crews so much that they drove the tanks into cover and often jumped out and hid in the nearest ditch. And perhaps did not survive the attack. I'd call that a pretty effective attack. Wouldn't you? (grin) Arthur Kramer Visit my WW II B-26 website at: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction? From: ) Therefore the conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only assumed that this technique worked. I 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: http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|