P-51 would be devastating weapon of war in this game.

[Sternjaeger]

Come on, Stern. If some concentrated machine gun fire was sufficient to knock out a tank - even only temporarily - why would any infantryman be afraid of a tank? They'd just add some blokes with machine guns in their platoon and the tanks would be grilled. In particular since aiming and hitting the allegedly machine gun sensitive parts is much easier from a static position than from a fast moving shooting platform cruising at several hundred mph ...

 

It simply does not make any sense this theory.

 

guys, you keep on comparing the combined firepower of aircraft mounted, high rate of fire machine guns with the ones used by ground troops. Do you realise that the .50 cal mounted on a halftrack has NOTHING to do with the aircraft ones?! 

I think this is where the confusion is generating. The shower of AP rounds and incendiaries that a P-47 or a P-51 can pour over targets is DEVASTATING. Even if the AP round can't penetrate its full 19mm because of angle of impact, you're still looking at at least 10mm of steel penetration, which is A LOT. 

I really think you don't fully comprehend the ballistics involved here.. 

 

It might have been hard to accurately place your rounds on the desired spot, but if it did, it would make a lot of damage. 

 

 

 

 

As for the Mustang finish, the wartime ones had primed and painted wings (zync yellow primer and silver paint) because of the wings were bondoed smooth to ensure a consistent laminar flow. The fuselage was left bare metal, the only factory painting there was on the control surfaces and the anti-glare painting on the cowling. 

 

By 1944 it was decided that the advantage given by camouflage was not worth the weight of the paint applied to it, so they brought the aircraft back to its factory finishes, keeping only squadron IDs, roundels and basic identification colours. 

 

Modern operators prefer to give the P-51s a silver paint coat to preserve the aluminium better, but there are some who prefer to keep the bare metal finish (which needs A LOT more care). 

 

In both cases though, wings are normally still painted silver anyway, even if there are a few that had the unfinished bare metal wing surfaces as well. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[VO101_MMaister]

There are two important factors when you shoot at a tank from an aircraft with MGs.

Angle of attack

and distance

 

The tanks has the thinnest armor at the top. But to shoot at this, you need to approach with a very high AOA. But with high AoA you cant shoot from close distance, otherwise you will dig a hole into mother Earth.

Flying 500km/h+, almost vertical. What is the min safe distance before you must pull up? 5-700m? or even more?

Kinetic energy get lost pretty quickly by distance. + from this distance you will have a spray of bullets instead of a focused fire.

 

You can approach in a shallower dive and decrease the distance, but then the top armor will be hit in a shallow angle. The bullets will ricochet instead of hitting thru. Or you will hit the frontal or side armor. Pretty hopeless to hit through by MGs.

If tracks could have been destroyed by MGs, than the ground troops would have used the method. But it can`t!

[FS-HerraTohtori]

I think you mean dive angle (or pitch angle) rather than angle of attack.

[Rama]

guys, you keep on comparing the combined firepower of aircraft mounted, high rate of fire machine guns with the ones used by ground troops. Do you realise that the .50 cal mounted on a halftrack has NOTHING to do with the aircraft ones?! 

Apart from the rate of fire, what's the difference?

Ok, they could deliver more in less time.... but since they had actually much less time of effective shooting than ground or Hlaftrack mount, it for exemple compared to a M45 Meatchopper mount being able to fire much longer on the target, I'm not sure the comparison favors the P51. At least in total mass of ammo delivered to the target.

[Sternjaeger]

the ground M2s loaded mainly ball and tracers, aircraft M2s delivered APs and Incendiaries. Imagine a P-47 diving down on a target, so you'll have to add the kinetic force of the diving aircraft, which will make the bullet travel even slightly faster, and imagine eight 800 rounds-per-minute machine guns opening up and converging on the ground, with a good part of that ammo being AP capable to penetrate at least 10mm of steel and the rest being incendiaries and tracers.. 

[sturmkraehe]

Stern, the duration when a reasonable density of bullet impacts is achieved in an airplane shooting at a static target is ridiculously short, in particular for planes with wing mounted guns like the P51 or the P47. Remember convergence?

 

If the rounds made such a huge difference I wonder why neither side employed ground vehicles with these rounds as tank killers if it was that effective. They didn't because it was just a waste of ammo and material.

 

I understand that for you the P51 is something dear to you as an American. I understand that you are proud of this fine aircraft and you want to hold up the image of the legend you grew up with. That's a bit like the Spit for a Brit or the 109 for a German or the La7 for a Russian. But even if the P51 proves to not be the Hulk of fighter planes it does not make it less a piece of brilliant engineering. So it's ok if it could not blast Tiger tanks away like what perhaps you have read somewhere on the net. It was still a great aircraft and one of the best of ww2.

Edited March 5, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[Rama]

imagine eight 800 rounds-per-minute machine guns opening up and converging on the ground, 

Yes, that would be just 4x time more than a meatchopper, and during a much smaller time. And the added energy caused by the plane speed is marginal.

 

 

Stern, the duration when a reasonable density of bullet impacts is achieved in an airplane shooting at a static target is ridiculously short, in particular for planes with wing mounted guns like the P51 or the P47. Remember convergence?

Correct. And if you add that a meatchopper has a system to adjust the convergence while firing, you get a system that potentialy deliver much more on target than the P47.

[Sternjaeger]

Stern, the duration when a reasonable density of bullet impacts is achieved in an airplane shooting at a static target is ridiculously short, in particular for planes with wing mounted guns like the P51 or the P47. Remember convergence?

 

If the rounds made such a huge difference I wonder why neither side employed ground vehicles with these rounds as tank killers if it was that effective. They didn't because it was just a waste of ammo and material.

 

I understand that for you the P51 is something dear to you as an American. I understand that you are proud of this fine aircraft and you want to hold up the image of the legend you grew up with. That's a bit like the Spit for a Brit or the 109 for a German or the La7 for a Russian. But even if the P51 proves to not be the Hulk of fighter planes it does not make it less a piece of brilliant engineering. So it's ok if it could not blast Tiger tanks away like what perhaps you have read somewhere on the net. It was still a great aircraft and one of the best of ww2.

 

LOL that's quite an assumption you made there! Mate, I'm not American, and my favourite aircraft is surely not the P-51. It's a wonderful machine, but it's not what I was talking about, I was referring to the use of .50 cals and their effectiveness. I really wonder what do you guys think it happens when a steel part is hit by AP rounds: do you think that because they don't pierce all the way through they magically ricochet and leave the surface unscathed?

 

For the record, here is a hole made on a 3/4" (~19mm) steel plate by a conventional AP round: it isn't just a prick on the steel, you can stick a thumb in it!

 

[Bladderburst]

Fired by what at what range and what angle? What is the thickness of the plate?

[Sternjaeger]

This was shot by a Barrett at 500 yards at a range. You can tell by the hole that the bullet hit the 19mm plate at a 90 degrees angle. 

 

Another thing you don't understand is the psychological factor involved with tanks: you're inside a steel box with very limited field of vision, if you hear or know there are aircraft in the area and your tank starts being hosed with AP rounds, you'll FEEL the hammering in your bones, it's not like throwing rocks at a tank. Next thing you'll think is that the enemy might have rockets or bombs, and that's why often tank crews baled out.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

8

guys, you keep on comparing the combined firepower of aircraft mounted, high rate of fire machine guns with the ones used by ground troops. Do you realise that the .50 cal mounted on a halftrack has NOTHING to do with the aircraft ones?! 

I think this is where the confusion is generating. The shower of AP rounds and incendiaries that a P-47 or a P-51 can pour over targets is DEVASTATING.

 

The aeroplane version, the AN/M2 had  a rate of fire of around 800 rpm, while the old infantry thud-thud-thud do around 550 rpm. The difference between the two is just a tad below 150%. The rounds are otherwise the same. The shower of rounds from e.g. a Mustang (6 guns) would equal 9 infantry guns, i.e, two quad mounts and a spare guy with an extra M2, provided the Mustang hit at convergence. I think it would be more correct to state that the shower from a Mustang could be devastating. Actually, I'd rather have a pilot take a shot at me than two quads firing at me.

[Rama]

Another thing you don't understand is the psychological factor involved with tanks: you're inside a steel box with very limited field of vision, if you hear or know there are aircraft in the area and your tank starts being hosed with AP rounds, you'll FEEL the hammering in your bones, it's not like throwing rocks at a tank. Next thing you'll think is that the enemy might have rockets or bombs, and that's why often tank crews baled out.

Well, nobody can of course prove that a tank crew bailing out because under MG fire never hapenned... but if it ever hapenned, it was marginal at best.

 

Let's take some example with the british analyses of the casualties causes with 110 panzers (all types) captured between 1944/6/6 and 144/6/7:

53 destroyed by ground gun AP shot

8 destroyed by HEAT (PIAT or similar)

9 destroyed by grounf gun HE shot

1 destroyed by mines

7 destroyed by aircraft rocket

3 destroyed by aircraft cannon

7 demolished by crew

4 abandoned by crew

18 destroyed by unknown cause

 

So the casualties eventually ressorting to tank crew bailing out because scared by MG fire are in the 4 "abandoned" (I don't see a crew scared by MG fire taking the time to demolish the tank)... but since they could also having be abandonned for other reasons (fuel shortage, mechanical failure, etc....), how many among the 4 could have been  abandonned because the crew was scared by MG fire?.... if any?

 

Sorry, but the P51 or P47 scaring a closed turret tank crew (a hornisse crew could of course seriously be scared, he has no protection against air attack), and causing him to abandon the tank.... I really have difficulties to buy it.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Well, nobody can of course prove that a tank crew bailing out because under MG fire never hapenned... but if it ever hapenned, it was marginal at best.

 

Let's take some example with the british analyses of the casualties causes with 110 panzers (all types) captured between 1944/6/6 and 144/6/7:

53 destroyed by ground gun AP shot

8 destroyed by HEAT (PIAT or similar)

9 destroyed by grounf gun HE shot

1 destroyed by mines

7 destroyed by aircraft rocket

3 destroyed by aircraft cannon

7 demolished by crew

4 abandoned by crew

18 destroyed by unknown cause

 

So the casualties eventually ressorting to tank crew bailing out because scared by MG fire are in the 4 "abandoned" (I don't see a crew scared by MG fire taking the time to demolish the tank)... but since they could also having be abandonned for other reasons (fuel shortage, mechanical failure, etc....), how many among the 4 could have been  abandonned because the crew was scared by MG fire?.... if any?

 

Sorry, but the P51 or P47 scaring a closed turret tank crew (a hornisse crew could of course seriously be scared, he has no protection against air attack), and causing him to abandon the tank.... I really have difficulties to buy it.

 

That's including AFV and self propelled guns as well isn't it?

[Sternjaeger]

Well, nobody can of course prove that a tank crew bailing out because under MG fire never hapenned... but if it ever hapenned, it was marginal at best.

 

Let's take some example with the british analyses of the casualties causes with 110 panzers (all types) captured between 1944/6/6 and 144/6/7:

53 destroyed by ground gun AP shot

8 destroyed by HEAT (PIAT or similar)

9 destroyed by grounf gun HE shot

1 destroyed by mines

7 destroyed by aircraft rocket

3 destroyed by aircraft cannon

7 demolished by crew

4 abandoned by crew

18 destroyed by unknown cause

 

So the casualties eventually ressorting to tank crew bailing out because scared by MG fire are in the 4 "abandoned" (I don't see a crew scared by MG fire taking the time to demolish the tank)... but since they could also having be abandonned for other reasons (fuel shortage, mechanical failure, etc....), how many among the 4 could have been  abandonned because the crew was scared by MG fire?.... if any?

 

Sorry, but the P51 or P47 scaring a closed turret tank crew (a hornisse crew could of course seriously be scared, he has no protection against air attack), and causing him to abandon the tank.... I really have difficulties to buy it.

 

how can you base your conclusion on a one-day report? And again, what you seem to forget is that a tank crew had a relatively limited situation awareness of what's happening around them, especially in a fluid, fast moving battlefield. 

Edited March 5, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Bladderburst]

This was shot by a Barrett at 500 yards at a range. You can tell by the hole that the bullet hit the 19mm plate at a 90 degrees angle. 

 

Another thing you don't understand is the psychological factor involved with tanks: you're inside a steel box with very limited field of vision, if you hear or know there are aircraft in the area and your tank starts being hosed with AP rounds, you'll FEEL the hammering in your bones, it's not like throwing rocks at a tank. Next thing you'll think is that the enemy might have rockets or bombs, and that's why often tank crews baled out.

 

That's what I thought. I don't think that the conditions and the weapon are the same however.

 

I don't know why is this still going on. I'd like to see a knocked out tank by mg or mk fire.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Boussourir

[Sternjaeger]

That's what I thought. I don't think that the conditions and the weapon are the same however.

 

I don't know why is this still going on. I'd like to see a knocked out tank by mg or mk fire.

 

I think you're just reading what you want to read frankly.. 

[VO101_MMaister]

Stern, so when the crews heard that there is metal shower outside, they opened the hatch and climbed out to dodge bullets???))

[6./ZG26_Emil]

how can you base your conclusion on a one-day report? And again, what you seem to forget is that a tank crew had a relatively limited situation awareness of what's happening around them, especially in a fluid, fast moving battlefield. 

 

Yet you have zero evidence to carry on this argument.

[Bladderburst]

Sternjaeger, you're not wrong on this... but you're just not that right. You can damage a tank with that caliber. It won't be written off after however.

[MiloMorai]

The tank crews knew the safest place to be when being machine gunned was buttoned up inside their tank.

[Sternjaeger]

Sternjaeger, you're not wrong on this... but you're just not that right. You can damage a tank with that caliber. It won't be written off after however.

 

That's what I've been saying all along man. It would be really difficult to destroy a tank, but you can disable it temporarily, and a stuck tank is a sitting duck. 

[Bladderburst]

Let's shake on this.

[JtD]

Well, nobody can of course prove that a tank crew bailing out because under MG fire never hapenned... but if it ever hapenned, it was marginal at best.

 

Let's take some example with the british analyses of the casualties causes with 110 panzers (all types) captured between 1944/6/6 and 144/6/7:...

Got a couple of other figures for Panther tanks, sum from three studies, first one seems to be the same time frame as yours, though going into August. On the bottom line you have 3 Panther losses caused by aircraft cannon out of 223 lost. 11 were lost to other aircraft weapons. For Tiger and Panzer IV I don't know the cannon figure, but 1 out of 40 Tigers was lost to aircraft weapons as were 9 out of 121 Panzer IV. We therefore have about 6% lost to aircraft, and of that maybe 1 out of 5 lost to cannons.

 

The cannons in question here are 20 mm Hispanos. Which also had special AP munitions (not the standard AP), but I doubt they were used in that time frame.

 

If you look at armour quality and AP capability of heavy MG rounds you'll find that these where theoretically capable of penetrating, but at angles and velocities basically impossible to achieve by aircraft in the field under normal circumstances. For instance, as has been said, a perpendicular short distance shot at the tanks top armour would penetrate, but only be possible if the tank itself is steeply inclined, maybe while moving through heavy terrain. It would not be possible to set up a good firing solution with the tank level on the ground. So even as little as a 15 mm top plate would easily be enough to stop a 12.7mm round - 99 out of 100 times.

[Rama]

how can you base your conclusion on a one-day report? 

I give you an example, and I can't fill this forum with all reports of the British evaluation (and it would be too long to type anyway). But this part is representative, you can either believe me, or check yourself.

The numbers were found in "Operational Research in Northwest Europe: The Work of No. 2 Operational Research Section with 21 Army Group June 1944-July 1945". If I remember well, there's also a sumary of it by Waddington, but I can't find the reference.

 

And again, what you seem to forget is that a tank crew .../...

 

I don't forget anything, I'm just trying to give what report call "facts".

 

That's including AFV and self propelled guns as well isn't it?

Yes.

[Sternjaeger]

fellas, you can produce all the reports you wish, provided it's done in a reliable and objective way.

 

I think we all agree that ballistically an AP .50 cal has quite a surprising penetration ability, and that the concentrated firepower of 6-8 aircraft AN/M2s can surely cause damage to tracks on heavier tanks or even penetrate light armoured vehicles, right? 

 

[FS-HerraTohtori]

If the armour plate is thicker than penetration depth, doesn't the impact mark end up being much more shallow and superficial than it would be with a plate equal or thinner than penetration depth?

 

I would expect that if you take a bullet with 20mm penetration RHA, and shoot it at 20mm sheet and a 200 mm sheet, it'll make a hole in the 20mm sheet (in optimal conditions anyway) but it won't penetrate nearly that deep into the 200mm thick plate.

[Rama]

 the concentrated firepower of 6-8 aircraft AN/M2s can surely cause damage to tracks on heavier tanks

I wouldn't say "surely", I would say "maybe"... as everything is possible... and it's impossible to prove something is not possible.

Today, I don't know any anecdote or record of a case it actually happened... I would be surprised and learn something if someone give me a reference of such an anecdote or report.

 

Now I would just say it's possible like I could win the next lottery, still I wouldn't waste my money in it....

[6S.Manu]

fellas, you can produce all the reports you wish, provided it's done in a reliable and objective way.

 

I think we all agree that ballistically an AP .50 cal has quite a surprising penetration ability, and that the concentrated firepower of 6-8 aircraft AN/M2s can surely cause damage to tracks on heavier tanks or even penetrate light armoured vehicles, right? 

 

Light armored vehicles? Sure.

 

Tanks? I actually think it's possible, yet highly improbable (like spotting a He111 at +20km, am I right Rama?  ).

 

To prove it one should at least find out:

- the weak spots of the tank calculating their overall exposed area.

- the probability of damage for every weak spot (even if the shell can reach the engine, can it do some damage?).

- the number of shells that a fighter can put on the tank in one attack (according to number of weapons and their position on the plane; wing-mounted weapons are not going to be so effective as they have a short range of effectiveness)

 

I'm not doing the calculations... 

Edited March 6, 2014 by 6S.Manu

[MiloMorai]

I would like to see some documentation of the .50" AP causing damage to the tracks of heavy tanks.

[Sternjaeger]

I would like to see some documentation of the .50" AP causing damage to the tracks of heavy tanks.

 

[Kurfurst]

I think we all agree that ballistically an AP .50 cal has quite a surprising penetration ability, and that the concentrated firepower of 6-8 aircraft AN/M2s can surely cause damage to tracks on heavier tanks or even penetrate light armoured vehicles, right? 

 

Its not so much surprising, given that the .50 was originally meant for exactly that - for ground use against lightly armored targets (such as early tanks), pillboxes and the like. The round itself was largely inspired by the WW1 German 13 mm Tankgewehr round, which, as the name implies, was an early anti tank rifle, basically an enlarged Mauser rifle firing an enlarged Mauser round.

[MiloMorai]

So you don't have any.

[Sternjaeger]

dude, the fact that I can't find documentation on it doesn't mean it's impossible. It's not that something happened only if it's been documented by someone at some point. 

 

Do we agree on the ballistic properties of an AP .50 cal? Do we accept that if one single round can go past ~19mm of steel when hitting it at 90 degrees, then there's a fair chance you'll see the round tearing through much thinner steel, especially if it's a multitude of them? 

 

If you accept these FACTS, then you can appreciate that you need no documentation to prove that, if hit correctly, a burst of .50 cal coming from a multitude of machine guns converting on one point, with the added kinetic load of the flying aircraft, is likely to do substantial damage to a tank track?

 

Even if it just weakens it, it is likely to cause a breakage of the link, which in turn would mean that the tank would at least have to stop.

 

It will need some good aiming, but it's possible, that's all I've been saying all along, and I think that, since we have a much more sophisticated damage model for our tanks, this sort of stuff should be taken into account when working on hit boxes for the DM.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[MiloMorai]

Gee, there was no need for large caliber AT rounds as the .50: could take out tanks.

[Sternjaeger]

Gee, there was no need for large caliber AT rounds as the .50: could take out tanks.

 

..if i had to go by your signature, I should be inflexible towards you now...   

[Rama]

the fact that I can't find documentation on it doesn't mean it's impossible. 

Absolutly, that's what I answered....

Even if there's no documentation about, Martians or Venusians existing and having visited Earth is also not impossible... I just wouldn't bet on it...

[Sternjaeger]

lol that's borderline trolling mate 

[Rama]

Not really.... except if you can convince me that the odds of the former are bigger than the odds for the later... something which is probably impossible to do.

 

That's just what I try to explain. There are millions of theoritically (or not) "possible" things that either never happened, that saying that something is "possible" is like saying nothing. The known reality is made of observed facts, not of "possible" events.

[MiloMorai]

Based on Soviet WW2 tests tanks with beefier tracks (KV-1) were driveable after multiple 37mm AP hits on tracks.

[6S.Manu]

Don't know about tank's track, but:

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_tigervulnerability/index.html

 

"The turret is a particularly important and vulnerable target. Attack it with HE and armor-piercing shells of all calibers. When it is damaged, use AT grenades and incendiary bottles (Molotov cocktails).

 

"There is a 10-mm slit all around the base of the turret. AT gun and heavy machine-gun fire, effectively directed at this slit, will prevent the turret from revolving and thus seriously impair the tank's field of fire. Furthermore, hits by HE shell at the base of the turret may wreck the roof of the hull and put the tank out of action.

Edited March 6, 2014 by 6S.Manu