BoBP - Tank Busting

[Legioneod]

8 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

The chance of a heavily tumbling bullet after it had ricochet off the ground penetrating armor thicker then it is rated to penetrate at 100yds is doubtful.

Agreed, especially since it would lose velocity the moment it hit the ground. The only way for it to penetrate is with speed and if it's not going fast enough then it won't pen.

 

I'm not gonna deny it and say it couldn't happen though, ballistics tend to go crazy when you least expect it.

 

Could it have happened? yes, but it is highly unlikely and if it did happen then it is a very rare occurrence.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

25mm/0deg is Tigers top and bottom armor if this diagramm is correct. 

 

What is the maximum penetration of 50 cal?

 

Modern 50cal ammo has the following pen-rates. Draw your own conclusions if it ever has happened with the ricochet back then:

 

https://www.quora.com/How-much-armor-can-a-50-cal-bullet-penetrate

 

M8 API:

The 12.7mm M8 API bullet has been around for a very long time. It is almost as old as the M2HB itself. I believe it was first introduced during WW2, as a further development of the M2 AP bullet.

At muzzle velocity, the 12.7mm M8 API will penetrate ~25mm of steel. However, like all rifle and machine-gun bullets, the M8 API is a relatively light projectile (40 g). Therefore, it loses its energy fairly rapidly. As a result the same bullet will only penetrate ~16mm of steel at 500m and ~13mm at 1000m.

M903 SLAP:

The M903 SLAP is a much more recent addition to the M2HB’s ammunition load. It was introduced in US service in 1993, for use against lightly armored vehicles and helicopters. Interestingly, the M903 is a saboted round, meaning that it is made of a small, tungsten penetrator launched at very high velocity using a discarding sabot. The M903 SLAP has a muzzle velocity of ~1200 m/s, which is absurdly high for a machine-gun bullet (by comparison, the M8 API has a muzzle velocity of ~880 m/s).

Thanks to its superior velocity and its heavy tungsten penetrator, the M903 SLAP has a penetration of ~34mm against steel at 500m and ~27mm at 1000m.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by sevenless

[Gambit21]

17 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

So you admit he's not talking about a one off? 

 

I haven't watched that vid yet.

My comments are based on many other pilot accounts.

[Dakpilot]

22 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

 Your the one who brought Yeager to the discussion. I don't "believe" the 9th AF either, none of them, not one.

 

 

Hard evidence is the only thing worth anything in a debate like this, pilot 1st hand account matter not a jot and that's all you have. On the other hand there is documented evidence that proves it did not happen and zero documented evidence to prove it did.

 

Additionally, there was much effort to produce tank busting air delivered weapons, the PTAB being but one type. Yet no effort put into developing the .50cal machine gun for the anti tank purpose.

 

I always scoffed at the "50 cal Tiger Tank story"

 

However as you say hard evidence is needed, the example in 365 Hell Hawks book is good enough for me

 

detailed pilot report, after action examination of site, targets and incident report from troops on the ground who were pinned down and unable to advance, the only people involved were the ground troops and the P-47's (and Tiger's) , of course this was an isolated example but an example it is, not to say all attacks were as common or as successful but to say it did not happen is wrong until you have read the evidence, and I am quite the sceptic when it comes to anecdotes, but it does show legitimately where this story/exploit comes from..how often it was repeated/carried out is certainly up for conjecture, but 8 X .50 fired at en engine deck...chances are something may give, with the air superiority experienced people would try if given the opportunity

 

but no-one is seriously suggesting that 50 cals would have had effort put into to be developed as anti tank weapon in 44, but i will bet that they were used by US aircraft in suppressing role because that was what they were armed with

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Gambit21]

Hell Hawks is a must-read.

[sevenless]

23 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

However as you say hard evidence is needed, the example in 365 Hell Hawks book is good enough for me

 

 

Is there any date and location given in that book? Additionally are the ground troups (unit/division etc.) mentioned? Would help to find out if there were german tigers present at that date. You know every german tank was a tiger back then if we believe the soldier stories. could as well have been a Mk IV or a Panther.

 

Nevermind, found the answer here. Case closed for me.

 

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/02/18/p-47s-tiger-tanks-bouncing-bullets-limitations-eyewitness-accounts/

Edited March 26, 2018 by sevenless

[Gambit21]

So it has to be a Tiger now?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

FFS..

[Pict]

43 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I haven't watched that vid yet.

My comments are based on many other pilot accounts.

 

Fair enough...

 

So for sure we are not talking about a one off then

[Dakpilot]

14 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Is there any date and location given in that book? Additionally are the ground troups (unit/division etc.) mentioned? Would help to find out if there were german tigers present at that date. You know every german tank was a tiger back then if we believe the soldier stories. could as well have been a Mk IV or a Panther.

 

Pretty sure the date, location, troops,  after action report and damage reports of the captured Tigers were presented in the section of the book.

 

 

A flight of P-47 spent a fair amount of time suppressing 3 isolated Tiger tanks with no AA support, after knocking one out with bombs (flipping it on its side in a ditch) they then expend all 50 cal ammo on the two remaining. "helpless" Tigers aiming for the engine grates and attempting to "bounce shells off the road" into the weaker belly armour in the HOPE of some lucky damage, the pilot mentions that 8 50 cals put out a prestigious amount of firepower. *about 10,000 rounds (3 x P-47) at about 13lbs a second

The mission was a success with the Tigers effectively suppressed (neutralised)  the pinned down friendlies were able to complete the assault on a small village in the ardennes area. Pilot was Robert F Dorr of 386th FS

 

am sure  had a link to an article quoting the relevant section but must have lost the link, the book is available

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

[Gambit21]

This is an interesting topic, but in the end we'll be left in the spot.

You either lend the pilots some credibility on the matter or you don't.

 

Sevenless do I have your logic correct here?

1. Many Allied airmen incorrectly called all/most German tanks "Tigers" 

2. Tigers were the toughest tank and least likely to be damaged by .50's

3, Tigers were less common 

4. Therefore based on the above, tanks in general were not damaged by .50's as claimed.

 

Did I get that right?

Not sure how this turned into a Tiger'centric question.

 

 I'm sure many (most) of the tanks neutralized in this way we're not actually Tigers - but that's neither here nor there with regard to the matter of tank damage in general. I actually have no dog in that fight, where I have problems is the wholesale discounting of veterans accounts based on little else other than prior belief. It just so happens the place this happens is this subject for some reason.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sevenless]

20 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

 

 on a small village in the ardennes area. Pilot was Robert F Dorr of 386th FS

 

am sure  had a link to an article quoting the relevant section but must have lost the link, the book is available

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

 

 

Well hardly was Robert F Dorr the pilot, because he was born 1939?

[angus26]

I am sure there is evidence to suggest that some damage has been done to tanks with .50s, but they clearly don't do damage a high caliber anti tank designated weapon would do. 

[Dakpilot]

4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Well hardly was Robert F Dorr the pilot, because he was born 1939?

 

oops  yes indeed he was co author of the book not the pilot 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Sevenless do I have your logic correct here?

1. Many Allied airmen incorrectly called all/most German tanks "Tigers" 

2. Tigers were the toughest tank and least likely to be damaged by .50's

3, Tigers were less common 

4. Therefore based on the above, tanks in general were not damaged by .50's as claimed.

 

1) yes, 2) yes, 3) yes 4) No

 

Tanks were damaged by aircraft that´s sure. By example about 6% of abandoned german tank wrecks in Normandy showed signs of airplane inflicted damage. That are the facts. And we also know for a fact that old soldiers are good for telling stories. Now you have some random facts and you have the soldiers psyche and you need to make a picture out of it. I´m pretty sure the pilots who told those stories were humbly believing in their stories, however if we have corresponding evidence telling otherwise we can ignore the evidence or realize that their perception back then played tricks with them. 

[Gambit21]

I can imagine a conversation between blue lead of the 365th, 388th and Burner, the 5th Armored forward controller.

 

"Burner...Burner this is Elwood blue lead on station"

"Roger Elwood this is Burner...we have a company sized formation on road 61 just south of the village heading 180.

along with 6 tanks over"

"Roger Burner, any friendlies inside the tree line north of the river?"

"Elwood that's a negative - identify and destroy. When bingo bombs please make a strafing run on any remaining tanks - even though it's useless and we repeatedly see no effect here on the ground - over"

"Big Roger on that one Burner, we love expending ammo and exposing ourselves to AAA for no reason - Elwood out"

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

1) yes, 2) yes, 3) yes 4) No

 

Tanks were damaged by aircraft that´s sure. By example about 6% of abandoned german tank wrecks in Normandy showed signs of airplane inflicted damage. That are the facts. And we also know for a fact that old soldiers are good for telling stories. Now you have some random facts and you have the soldiers psyche and you need to make a picture out of it. I´m pretty sure the pilots who told those stories were humbly believing in their stories, however if we have corresponding evidence telling otherwise we can ignore the evidence or realize that their perception back then played tricks with them. 

 

I hear ya - just not sure about the "corresponding evidence otherwise"

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I hear ya - just not sure about the "corresponding evidence otherwise"

 

The problem with armor penetration and the .50 cal that was mentioned (not just by me) above. It is just not very likely (that doesn´t mean impossible) that a .50 cal is able to harm a german tank in any significant way. Only remote possibility I see here is to get 1 or 2 hits into the motor department through the air vents or rendering one of the tracks inoperable by a lucky hit. But that must be a 1/billion chance.

 

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

 

 

[Gambit21]

Man I love that tank.

Did you ever watch that Sherman vs Tiger documentary?

You can find it on YouTube I think.

[angus26]

The p-47 being known as a "tank buster" in general is largely a myth, and im sure, while there are certain instances of p-47s successfully destroying lots of tanks with bombs and rockets, the claims have mostly been exaggerated. The aircraft in general is too often regarded as a "tank buster" when its actual role was more adept at other task where precision accuracy with bombs/guns/rockets was less needed. 

[seafireliv]

Ahhh... This thread brings back old memories. These armchair arguments never stop... But they do get old.

Edited March 26, 2018 by seafireliv

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

Ahhh... This thread brings back old memories. These armchair arguments never stop... But they do get old.

 

Personally I have a position based on veteran accounts, not an armchair opinion based on conjecture or anything else.

The argument isn't with me - tell the pilots they were wrong.

 

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

On German side we'll still have the Stuka G (and 110 G2 BK37) to burn the huge stream of Shermans 

 

Thanks for the laugh.

[sevenless]

47 minutes ago, seafireliv said:

Ahhh... This thread brings back old memories. These armchair arguments never stop... But they do get old.

 

Others were over this topic before. It makes for some interesting read though. Here it is, enjoy:

 

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-P-47s-destroy-tanks-using-50-cal-only

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

4 hours ago, StG77_Kondor said:

.50 cals cannot destroy a Tiger.

Of course they can, it's very easy. You bounce it under the Tiger, then against a Rock or something, it then flies up vertically, falls down,  through the open Commander's or Gunner's Hatch, falling onto a 8.8cm Shell, igniting it with it's Tracer or it's Static Electricity it collects while travelling through the Air. 

 

Believing that a .50 will Punch through Belly Armor designed to withstand AT Mines is ridiculous though. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, angus26 said:

The p-47 being known as a "tank buster" in general is largely a myth, and im sure, while there are certain instances of p-47s successfully destroying lots of tanks with bombs and rockets, the claims have mostly been exaggerated. The aircraft in general is too often regarded as a "tank buster" when its actual role was more adept at other task where precision accuracy with bombs/guns/rockets was less needed. 

Sure your not getting confused with the Thunderbolt II? I've never really heard or read the P-47 referred to as a tank buster but I have heard it for the Thunderbolt II (A-10).

5 hours ago, Pict said:

 

Yes and add to that mix the young blokes who went overseas as fighter pilots only to find they are relegated to ground attack mission, either because the Luftwaffe is a rare bird, or the "Jug" they are flying has been declared unsuitable for air to air....

 

You can imagine them going home and admitting to having only shot up a few trains, trucks and horses can't you...when the Tiger tank was the thing on the ground to beat 

 

The P-47 was never declared unsuitable for air combat/ air to air. The stories or people who think the P-47 wasn't a good fighter are mistaken. P-47s were used as ground support simply because they were good at it, and tougher than the P-51 ever could be. It also had more firepower than the P-51 (The P-51 was used in CAS also but it didnt fare as well as the P--47)

 

The 56th flew P-47s through the whole war and was the highest scoring FG in the Eighth Air Force and produced the 3 highest amount of aces in the ETO. (39 aces)

Edited March 26, 2018 by Legioneod

[angus26]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

Sure your not getting confused with the Thunderbolt II? I've never really heard or read the P-47 referred to as a tank bus

I’m plenty sure, I’ve heard the p-47 referred to it plenty of times, and even this discussion is around it quite literally being able to “bust tanks” with its .50s. 

[=LD=Hethwill]

Out of commission / damaged / immobilized  is listed as a casualty... no ? Jugs providing close support means the tank crew on the receiving end is literally going to have a bad day.

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by =LD=Hethwill

[angus26]

2 minutes ago, =LD=Hethwill said:

Out of commission / damaged / immobilized  is listed as a casualty... no ? Jugs providing close support means the tank crew on the receiving end is literally going to have a bad day.

Very true, and I can imagine it’s not pleasant, even if you’re totally fine; everyone/everything in the tank is fine, cause being strafed from really almost anything doesn’t seem that great.

[ruby_monkey]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Of course they can, it's very easy. You bounce it under the Tiger, then against a Rock or something, it then flies up vertically, falls down,  through the open Commander's or Gunner's Hatch, falling onto a 8.8cm Shell, igniting it with it's Tracer or it's Static Electricity it collects while travelling through the Air. 

 

Believing that a .50 will Punch through Belly Armor designed to withstand AT Mines is ridiculous though. 

Bollocks. It's the same magic bullet design used by the CIA and the Illuminati to kill Kennedy. Totally true to life.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

 

Believing that a .50 will Punch through Belly Armor designed to withstand AT Mines is ridiculous though. 

 

Those sily WWII veterans - someone should set them straight.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Those sily WWII veterans - someone should set them straight.

Post battlefield studies set them straight. Fiddies dont kill tanks. The only kill with a gun in the studies were the 20mm Hispano.

 

Tiger and Panther (latter not a rare tank btw in 1944) had 25-30mm of belly armour. King Tiger had 40mm of belly armour. All these 3 offer protection from M2 and M8 AP(I) from near point blank range and perpendicular, nevermind shot from 1500ft at a 30degree dive, hit the ground, tumble like hell before striking the armor.

 

[angus26]

22 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Those sily WWII veterans - someone should set them straight.

Not trying to be rude, but can you show a direct source? I’d like to hear some of the stories of ground attack operations regardless of the current topic. 

[Gambit21]

Read Hell Hawks - it's a great book aside from this subject

[Danziger]

So did we come to a definite answer yet?

[Kawolski_VII]

Theoretically, how would a pilot have known the tank he was "bouncing bullets into" was destroyed anyways? If it was confirmed by people on the ground, shouldn't there be reports to that effect?

[angus26]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Read Hell Hawks - it's a great book aside from this subject

Thanks!

[ShamrockOneFive]

2 hours ago, angus26 said:

I’m plenty sure, I’ve heard the p-47 referred to it plenty of times, and even this discussion is around it quite literally being able to “bust tanks” with its .50s. 

 

That old chestnut

 

It's in the same league as British night fighter pilots seeing better at night because they eat carrots a lot covering for airborne radar. P-47s did superb work in the close air support role but post battle assessment reported few if any tanks were ever destroyed directly by fighter bombers.

 

Here's a good summary: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/articles/tactics/tank-busting-ww2.php

 

Here's another one (although maybe needs more detail): http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/combat-aircraft-versus-armour-in-wwii/

 

One shouldn't underestimate that fighter bombers did devastating damage. Lightly armored and unarmored vehicles were destroyed wholesale and even when not the psychological damage was perhaps even greater. Post battlefield damage assessment revealed vehicles were sometimes abandoned despite light or superficial damage from airstrikes.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Ehret]

Is it possible, considering material shortages, that some tanks were pushed to the front with sub-par armor?

[angus26]

19 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

One shouldn't underestimate that fighter bombers did devastating damage. Lightly armored and unarmored vehicles were destroyed wholesale and even when not the psychological damage was perhaps even greater

All those poor trains 

[ATAG_Flare]

30 minutes ago, Ehret said:

Is it possible, considering material shortages, that some tanks were pushed to the front with sub-par armor?

There is one case where a British tank commander was issued a Cromwell tank that was actually a training tank and had much weaker armour. And they wondered why it was faster than any other tank in the unit! Look up "Abbot of Chantry".

 

@Gambit21 - I am a bit confused on why you think that the pilots who strafed tanks are a definitive source on the effectiveness of those strafing attacks. You yourself admitted that pilots overclaimed. And as I said before, it would be very hard to determine if you knocked out a tank from a cockpit of a Mustang or Thunderbolt as you flew by. I have looked hard for any documented proof of machine gun fire taking out tanks and could not find any. I'd rather trust the studies and examinations of knocked out tanks than a pilot's account.

 

If those 3rd Armored and 5th Infantry ground controllers knew that .50s could take out tanks, why isn't it documented anywhere? And why don't we see anywhere else that tanks were taken out by aerial gun fire?

 

I do admit that a machine gun attack on a tank could be very frightening for the tank crew - the noise would be horrific and it could potentially cause the tank to fall back or cause minor damage to optics, machine guns, tracks, or the engine, but that is very unlikely considering how hard it would be to hit those things. Just look at that guncam vid. Tracers are going everywhere!

 

Anyways, back on the main topic of the OP, I do think that there will be decent anti-tank options in Bodenplatte. Sim pilots tend to be able to achieve pretty high accuracy with rockets and bombs and sim DMs of ground vehicles usually only require a few hits to blow up so I bet plenty of people will be able to knock out Panzer IVs, Panthers, Shermans, and Cromwells in BoBP.

 

Just don't expect to be able to do that with .50 cals!

Edited March 27, 2018 by ATAG_Flare