On the topic of Thunderbolts

[357th_Dog]

Well I stand corrected! 

[Legioneod]

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

As was bouncing fifty cals off of roads to penetrate the undersides of Tiger tanks!

Except one is actually possible.

[DD_Arthur]

52 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Except one is actually possible.

 

Or one is less unlikely than the other?

[BornToBattle]

Geeeeez...I gotta spend more time on this sim. I had no idea, but vid shows it all perfectly. Scraping the ground and having the delayed fuse seem to be the keys here. And bouncing .50 cals off the deck too? I always knew about the dam busting episodes of which we are all aware of but rather clueless once I read where they would fly seat of their pants on the deck and literally skip iron bombs along ground terrain to achieve desired results.

 

The Greatest Generation...chalk up one more for the kids pulling off feats like this. IRL, I’d be constantly afraid of clipping a wing going in at that height which, in essence, keeps one VERY aware of ones environment...which is why half the time it’s not ground fire that takes me out but oh, those damn trees! ? It’s just one more reason I notice I personally seem to prefer hanging out with my rig running WW2 era flying machines, as it requires me to “get all up in there” as opposed to locking on a target and having an armament “ride the beam” to its target at a substantially greater distance further out as opposed to getting “jiggy wit it” on the deck and pulling up at the last second.

[Gambit21]

17 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Or one is less unlikely than the other?

 

Here we go - pages of arguments because apparently all of the pilots and forward observers during the actual war that reported this are wrong.

 

We have the internet - we can post charts!

[BornToBattle]

"Besides their bomb and rocket payloads, the P-47 and the Typhoon both boasted powerful gun armaments. The Typhoon had four 20mm Hispano cannon. The P-47 carried eight .50 cal. machine guns with 400 rounds per gun, and it proved "particularly successful" against transports. The machine guns occasionally even caused casualties to tanks and tank crews. The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. This seemed surprising at first, given the typically heavy armor of German tanks. Yet Maj. Gen. J. Lawton "Lightning Joe" Collins, Commander of First Army's VII Corps, was impressed enough to mention to Quesada the success that P-47s had strafing tanks with .50 cal. machine gun fire."
Richard P. Hallion - Air Force Historian

[Diggun]

I mean, similar things were written (by pilots and historians) about the effectiveness of Typhoon rockets against armour, and that turned out to be err I think the current term is 'alternative facts'? 

[Lusekofte]

On 10/17/2018 at 9:37 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

Oil is a lubricant, not a coolant - surely if you lose more than a certain % of oil you will have major issues not limited to cooling?

 

You must keep in mind that these radials did return with major oil leak on B 17 B 24 and P 47 running several hours . Oil and Fuel contribute to the cooling together with air. 

You cannot look at a  radial engine the same way as a straight six or V 12 water cooled engine. There is a limit on how much oil and how many cylinders affected. Once oil fail to work and piston still moves in a damage cylinder , overheat and fuel make it  easily a fire hazard . I am not saying a radial engine with damaged cylinders and oil severe oil leaks return home every time. But they often did. Heavies with such damage shut the engines down and cut the fuel.

[LukeFF]

10 minutes ago, Diggun said:

I mean, similar things were written (by pilots and historians) about the effectiveness of Typhoon rockets against armour, and that turned out to be err I think the current term is 'alternative facts'? 

 

Yes, the post-battle assessment conducted after Mortain conclusively showed just how few armored vehicles were actually destroyed by airpower. 

[Bremspropeller]

The best way to kill armored vehicles is to kill logistics and supplies.

 

No gas, no tanks driving around.

No ammo to reload, and your Tiger turns into a useless 60t tuna-can.

[Garven]

Once a bullet strikes something and begins to tumble its penetrating ability is severely reduced.  AP rounds for the 50 and 30 caliber relied on a sharp hardened steel core to penetrate armor.  Ricocheting off the road would likely severely reduce the projectiles energy along with making the sharp point of the hardened steel core completely irrelevant.  Pretty much impossible for a 50 caliber bullet that is tumbling to penetrate 1 inch of belly armor.

[DD_Arthur]

' penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage.'

 

Fantastic!!    This is much better than richocheting fifties off the road.   

 

@Garven;  a long time ago, on a flight sim forum far, far away much fun was had with this sort of stuff...........

[7.GShAP/Silas]

2 hours ago, BornToBattle said:

"The .50 cal. armor-piercing bullets often penetrated the underside of vehicles after ricocheting off the road, or penetrated the exhaust system of the tanks, ricocheting around the interior of the armored hull, killing or wounding the crew and sometimes igniting the fuel supply or detonating ammunition storage. "
Richard P. Hallion - Air Force Historian

 

I never did like fantasy writing much.  I guess historians aren't good at detecting traditional military fish stories when they hear them.  Maybe General Collins wanted a job lobbying for GD.

Edited October 24, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[AndyJWest]

Re 'skipping bombs into railroad tunnels', see https://www.facebook.com/groups/7179373655/permalink/10154281508043656/https://www.facebook.com/groups/7179373655/permalink/10154281508043656/

 

As for tales of skipping .50 AP rounds off the road, what were they making the roads with, and why didn't they use that instead of armour plate? 

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

I never did like fantasy writing much.  I guess historians aren't good at detecting traditional military fish stories when they hear them.  Maybe General Collins wanted a job lobbying for GD.

 

The 9th Air Force pilots, as well as 5th armored, and 3rd armored forward observers on the ground were in fantasy land too it seems when reporting this.

Who woulda thought?

[7.GShAP/Silas]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The 9th Air Force pilots, as well as 5th armored, and 3rd armored forward observers on the ground were in fantasy land too it seems when reporting this.

Who woulda thought?

 

 

They're mostly telling fish stories or totally ignorant of what they're seeing because they aren't specialists or even professional soldiers, it's all the generations of dopes coming afterward who eat this stuff up who are living in fantasy land.

Edited October 24, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[AndyJWest]

How would a forward observer be able to tell whether an AP round had penetrated the underside of a tank?

[Ehret]

Bizarre events happen, rarely, but they do...

 

Germans had big problems with the alloy content - their steel was hard but prone to cracking. It's possible that the affected tank had a faulty armor. It's possible that something other than the plate itself failed like mounting welds.

 

The observer saw the P-47 strafing a heavy tank which just got destroyed but should not. Whatever the true cause was they made a most believable, to them at the time, explanation. Not unusual thing to do when full evidence isn't available.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Ehret

[Gambit21]

17 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

They're mostly telling fish stories or totally ignorant of what they're seeing because they aren't specialists or even professional soldiers, it's all the generations of dopes coming afterward who eat this stuff up who are living in fantasy land.

 

I think maybe people who don’t know that the forward controllers/observers were A. soldiers, and also B 9th Air Force - pilots imbedded with the tanks, observing results, directing attacks, and surveying the carnage afterwards should perhaps withhold comment.

 

Further that tactics going forward we’re based on observed (on the ground) results after previous missions.

 

“Burner this is Elwood Blue, on station - over”

 

”Elwood Blue this is Burner, roger. Straffing runs on tanks have been ineffectual, please drop your 500’s on the lead tanks north of that intersection, and proceed to straf the rest of the tanks anyway and waste your ammo”

 

“Roger Burner!”

 

Yes I’m sure it went just like that.

Makes sense.

 

 

 

“Ignorant of what they were seeing”

 

Totally - they needed us to come along 70 years later and fill them in on the experience that they actually had.

Good thing we all came along or the truth might be lost to history.

 

I’ll throw away all my pilot interviews now that I know they’re garbage.

 

Look - I claim no expertise in the matter of armor etc, and I KNOW that often experiences/memories get skewed for various reasons. What you say is not 100% without merit.

SOMETHING was happening that warranted the continued use of this tactic - even if it was only crews panicking and abandoning the tank.

 

I know what I don’t know.

 

I do know they were the ones who lived it, and it wasn’t just one pilot in one book who made this observation. 

 

So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RedKestrel]

29 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

The 9th Air Force pilots, as well as 5th armored, and 3rd armored forward observers on the ground were in fantasy land too it seems when reporting this.

Who woulda thought?

I wouldn't use the term 'fantasy land' but we all know the difficulties of making accurate damage assessments in combat conditions. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I think maybe people who don’t know that the forward controllers/observers were A. soldiers, and also B 9th Air Force - pilots imbedded with the tanks, observing results, directing attacks, and surveying the carnage afterwards should perhaps withhold comment.

 

Further that tactics going forward we’re based on observed (on the ground) results after previous missions.

 

“Burner this is Elwood Blue, on station - over”

 

”Elwood Blue this is Burner, roger. Straffing runs on tanks have been ineffectual, please drop your 500’s on the lead tanks north of that intersection, and proceed to straf the rest of the tanks anyway and waste your ammo”

 

“Roger Burner!”

 

Yes I’m sure it went just like that.

Makes sense.

 

 

 

“Ignorant of what they were seeing”

 

Totally - they needed us to come along 70 years later and fill them in on the experience that they actually had.

Good thing we all came along or the truth might be lost to history.

 

I’ll throw away all my pilot interviews now that I know they’re garbage.

 

Look - I claim no expertise in the matter of armor etc, and I KNOW that often experiences/memories get skewed for various reasons. What you say is not 100% without merit.

SOMETHING was happening that warranted the continued use of this tactic - even if it was only crews panicking and abandoning the tank.

 

I know what I don’t know.

 

I do know they were the ones who lived it, and it wasn’t just one pilot in one book who made this observation. 

 

So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What was likely happening was the ignition of externally carried fuel or ammo, destruction of towed vehicles, or the crew bailing out of the tank in fear of the air attack. Post battle assessments in the Falaise Pocket, for example, talk about the number of completely unharmed armored vehicles that were abandoned in the midst of unrelenting air attack that had little chance of actually harming tank or crew. The objective of calling in a strafing attack on a tank column, then, would be to disrupt their ability to move freely and concentrate on attacking, and put them in a panicky or defensive mindset. In that sense the strafing attack was extremely valuable on a tactical level even if it put not so much as a dent in an enemy tank. If you are taking fire from the air, good luck putting rounds on target, moving confidently or aggressively, or paying attention to enemy movements. Air attack is an attack on morale as much as materiel.

Killing the enemy is not necessary to win the war or the battle, it is only necessary to remove or restrict their ability to fight. this does not mean, however, that we should accept that tanks were being regularly destroyed by HMGs in air attacks when physics, geometry and materials science would make such a thing highly unlikely.

[Gambit21]

Reasonable and plausible Kestrel.

I think some things/mitigating factors (skimping on bottom armor due to dwindling resources? Pulling that out of arse, but who knows) are just lost to history as well.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Gambit21

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Kestrel beat me to it...................

 

Further, we don't have to doubt anyone's integrity to also believe they may be factually incorrect about their observations here.

Edited October 24, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Kestrel beat me to it...................

 

I’ve always taken these things into account. However I’m also careful not to completely dismiss the other scenario.

Might be bunk, might have been rare.

 

I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know. Back to the baby and bath water.

[EAF19_Marsh]

With no disrespect to the pilots but approaching logically, would it not be more likely:

- Tank in questionable position (lack of support, lack of supplies, falling back, lack of AAA)

- Tank straffed by multiple fighters with .5s / 20mms

- Logistical element / support in disarray

- Possible damage to tank soft elements (fuel tank, optics, radio)

- Maintenance difficult and combat performance at very low level, resupply very unlikely

- Tank crew decide to retreat on foot

 

Tanks were destroyed directly by air attack, but likely far more lost through the cumulative air attack damage to the wider unit. Tanks can and did operate in a degraded state, but at some point the commander has to decide it is no longer worth it and bail. This, most probably, is the very successful work of the Allied air forces.

[Rjel]

55 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

They're mostly telling fish stories or totally ignorant of what they're seeing because they aren't specialists or even professional soldiers, it's all the generations of dopes coming afterward who eat this stuff up who are living in fantasy land.

It does seem to be the standard to disavow any and all contributions made by American fliers in the ETO. I can't imagine walking up to a Hub Zemke or a Don Blakeslee or many of the other 10s of thousands of pilots and crew back in the day and telling them how unprofessional they were. I'm sure they would've straightened me out right quick on that misunderstanding.

[Gambit21]

No doubt Marsh.

The mitigating factor for the other scenario (even if a freak occurrence) was that after the Germans retreat, then tanks can be inspected up close at leisure. 

 

Of course this is also used to debunk the claim so WTFK.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Rjel said:

It does seem to be the standard to disavow any and all contributions made by American fliers in the ETO. I can't imagine walking up to a Hub Zemke or a Don Blakeslee or many of the other 10s of thousands of pilots and crew back in the day and telling them how unprofessional they were. I'm sure they would've straightened me out right quick on that misunderstanding.

 

You’d get an ear boxing and you’d deserve it.

 

 

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Ignorant of what they were seeing”

 

They saw what they saw, in good faith, but physics and logic suggests it is still highly improbable. Many Typhoon pilots ‘saw’ their rockets disabling tanks and reported it in good faith.

 

But there is no shame in adjusting those accounts. Strange and unlikely things did happen, but these remain a minority.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Re 'skipping bombs into railroad tunnels', see https://www.facebook.com/groups/7179373655/permalink/10154281508043656/https://www.facebook.com/groups/7179373655/permalink/10154281508043656/

 

Another great reason for a Mosquito collector plane

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

How would a forward observer be able to tell whether an AP round had penetrated the underside of a tank?

 

That's what you'd call an "embedded" observer.

48 minutes ago, Rjel said:

I can't imagine walking up to a Hub Zemke or a Don Blakeslee or many of the other 10s of thousands of pilots and crew back in the day and telling them how unprofessional they were. I'm sure they would've straightened me out right quick on that misunderstanding.

 

They can have their opinion on what they thought they saw.

The facts are different though.

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

They can have their opinion on what they thought they saw.

The facts can be different though.

 

FIxed it for you.

[LukeFF]

54 minutes ago, Rjel said:

It does seem to be the standard to disavow any and all contributions made by American fliers in the ETO.

 

No one's saying that, so there's no need to go there.

 

Oh, and concerning Mortain, from the book "Steel Inferno"

 

“RAF pilots claimed a total of eighty four tanks destroyed and twenty one damaged, plus a further 12 other vehicles destroyed and twenty-one damaged. The IXth US Tactical Air Command, which flew 441 sorties over the period of the 7th to 10th August, made claims of sixty nine tanks destroyed, eight probably destroyed and thirty-five damaged and 116 other vehicles destroyed or damaged. Confirmed results on the ground were somewhat different. Between the 12th and 20th August 1944, operational research teams from both the 21st Army Group and Second Tactical Air Force conducted separate investigations in the battle area and than compared and collated their results. They found thirty-four Panthers destroyed, ten MkIV’s, three SP guns, twenty-three armored personnel carriers, eight armored cars and forty-six other vehicles. Of the forty-six tanks they concluded that twenty had been destroyed by ground fire (sic. ATG’s, tank fire, etc), seven by air force rockets, two by bombs, four from multiple causes, and eleven by either abandoned or destroyed by their crews…seventeen additional Panthers were found in the area over which the LAH Panzer Division had operated, and of these six had been knocked out by Army ground fire, four by air force rockets and the remainder were destroyed or abandoned by their crews.”

 

That's some serious overclaiming there. Of 161 tanks claimed destroyed, only 13(!) were determined to be destroyed by rockets or bombs. Never mind that only around 56 tanks were found destroyed by all types of enemy action.

 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

“Ignorant of what they were seeing”

 

Totally - they needed us to come along 70 years later and fill them in on the experience that they actually had.

Good thing we all came along or the truth might be lost to history.

This is the problem with people today imo, they think they know better than the people who actually experienced it.

I'm not saying that killin a tank with .50s is possible but I'm not gonna say it's impossible either, I'll just leave it up to chance that maybe it actually happened.

 

That's being said, I think we should get away from this topic as it is going to lead absolutely nowhere.

[Rjel]

38 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

No one's saying that, so there's no need to go there.

 

I don't need you to lecture me. OK? It's my opinion and I'll stand by it. I do not post inflammatory comments. 

[MiloMorai]

 

What was the penetration capability of the .5"?

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

What was the penetration capability of the .5"?

 

In any case you won't find the answer posting a chart...see above.

[Poochnboo]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, the post-battle assessment conducted after Mortain conclusively showed just how few armored vehicles were actually destroyed by airpower. 

Guys, overclaiming was rampant by all of the air forces. Not out of deceit, but because during the heat of battle, through the smoke and the flames and the stinging sweat in their eyes, they actually believed what they saw. They were sure they blew up that tank, shot down that bomber, and even sunk that ship. But what they saw was an explosion right near the tank, and the bomber was shot up, but made it home, and the fires on the burning ship weren't really that bad and they were put out..and the ship docked back at it's home port. 

  How many times were you absolutely positive that you saw something...but you were wrong? Imagine that during the hell and fear of combat. It happened a lot. No sense in arguing about.  it. Could it have happened? Not impossible, I suppose. But probably not very often. 

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

 

What was the penetration capability of the .5"?

Theres alot more to it than just base penetration. What's the angle of the target, whats the range, whats it made out of, whats the quality of the material, etc.

When it comes to ballistics there are a  ton of things to consider, and just when you think you've figure it out, something crazy happens that you think is impossible.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Legioneod

[LukeFF]

 

5 hours ago, Poochnboo said:

Guys, overclaiming was rampant by all of the air forces. Not out of deceit, but because during the heat of battle, through the smoke and the flames and the stinging sweat in their eyes, they actually believed what they saw. They were sure they blew up that tank, shot down that bomber, and even sunk that ship. But what they saw was an explosion right near the tank, and the bomber was shot up, but made it home, and the fires on the burning ship weren't really that bad and they were put out..and the ship docked back at it's home port. 

  How many times were you absolutely positive that you saw something...but you were wrong? Imagine that during the hell and fear of combat. It happened a lot. No sense in arguing about.  it. Could it have happened? Not impossible, I suppose. But probably not very often. 

 

Well, that's exactly what I was getting at - we see what we want to see.

Edited October 25, 2018 by LukeFF

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Theres alot more to it than just base penetration. What's the angle of the target, whats the range, whats it made out of, whats the quality of the material, etc.

When it comes to ballistics there are a  ton of things to consider, and just when you think you've figure it out, something crazy happens that you think is impossible.

Correct.

 

So answer the question.

[Legioneod]

4 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Correct.

 

So answer the question.

Straight up if the conditions are perfect than yes the .50 can pen certain parts of the Tigers armor.