german 20mm not able to destroy small tanks intentional

[MiloMorai]

It could potentially do that, though it would be hard to keep the fire going once pressure and temperature falls again a moment later.

 

I have no numbers on this, but I'll bet that a good number of Soviet tanks claimed destroyed by pilots, propably just had one of their auxilluary tanks blown away. I've read accounts of Soviet tank crews having one of the diesel drums on the outside of the armour shot away. They would then simply stop the tank, wait 'till the attack was over, get out to put out any fire there might be and carry on.

 

So how do those crude oil tankers that got torpedoed just burn and burn and burn?

[beepee]

Just for interests sake:

 

http://youtu.be/JHCocpH8maM

 

http://youtu.be/cU6OK1zSxKg  (a pity this was not against tanks).

 

http://youtu.be/ccOXrfBZoLE (this is though).

Edited December 30, 2013 by =TFK=Beeps

[Finkeren]

So how do those crude oil tankers that got torpedoed just burn and burn and burn?

Because crude oil is not diesel?

 

Because of the very different scale of the combustion?

 

Crude oil can have very different flash points depending on its composition, but it's usually a lot lower than the 60 degrees Celcius for the most volatile types of diesel. Most diesel fuels require a temperature if at least 70 degrees to keep burning.

 

The fire ignited by a torpedo hitting an oil tanker is so much larger and can much easier produce a warm enough environment to keep itself going. In the case of an HE shell blasting open a small auxilluary tank in a Soviet AFV igniting part of the diesel and spraying some vaporized into the air, both temperature and preasure will quickly fall below the flash point of diesel, where as gasoline will burn all the way down to -40 degrees.

 

It's not that it's completely imposible to set at diesel fueled vehicle ablaze and have it burn out entirely, it's just much, much less likely than with gasoline, especially in the low temperatures of the Russian winter.

[unreasonable]

I would be interested to know the extent of overclaiming.  We know that pilots of all nationalities did  this, including the LW experten, and that the numbers claimed were far less accurate in circumstances where the claimed kill was in enemy territority so the wreck could not be identified, or in large and confused engagements.

 

Given that:

 

1) The germans were retreating throughout the vast majority of the time in which AT gun equipped aeroplanes were in service so there were few opportunities to check the actual wrecks

 

2) It is harder for aircrew to assess the damage to a ground target than to an aircraft, unless it actually blows up

 

You have to wonder about the reported claims: on the face of it I would be inclined to divide the reported claims by 3 to get an estimate, but I could be entirely mistaken as usual. 

 

I also wonder about the cost effectiveness of this tactic, especially in a context where the LW had far too few fighters to adequately protect the ground attackers. You are using a highly expensive aeroplane containing an expensive aircrew to destroy - or perhaps only damage - a crudely mass produced armoured tractor containing 3-4 conscript peasants, often under heavy ground fire. While I can see that with a properly configured ground attack plane such a tactic might possibly be worthwhile,  using a 109 for ground attack with a 500lb bomb and no means of aiming it correctly seems utterly stupid, especially in the context of having no air superiority.

 

Over the years I have come across many good books on air-air combat, but does anyone know a good source on the effectiveness of tactical air-ground attack?

[bivalov]

Diesel detonates because of compression, so an explosion from an HE round penetrating a fuel tank could potentially blow it up.

yes, exactly HE or AP with some explosives ("каморный снаряд" in russian terminology) it's main and almost single reason of explosion of fueltanks of t-34, plus needs some conditions inside fueltanks, according to soviet test/report'44 about...

 

i just want to understand possibility with another types of damage like burning, mainly with 30/37 mm shells... sparks for example? etc...

 

and - AP for mk101/bk.37, not sabot, have any explosives? if no and with sparks not easy to got burning, in this context, maybe first part of ammobelt for mk101 with only AP/sabot, and second with only HE, it's what we need to burning of diesel fuel in t-34? just funny theory...

[SKG51_robtek]

A AP round hitting any resistance will generat quite a lot heat from the conversion of kinetic energy.

A modern sabot round penetrating armor heats up to > 1000°C.

[Sternjaeger]

A simple schematics to clarify the "advantage" of attacking tanks with sloped armour