BoBP - Tank Busting

[Gambit21]

Eh - who cares really.

They saw it over and over - or said they did....beyond that I lack the will or energy to debate it.

It's not something that matters, not in our sim especially.

 

The Jug is going to be a blast - that's all that matters.

 

[ATAG_Flare]

Just now, Gambit21 said:

Eh - who cares really.

They saw it over and over - or said they did....beyond that I lack the will or energy to debate it.

It's not something that matters, not in our sim especially.

 

The Jug is going to be a blast - that's all that matters.

 

 

Agreed on that at least! The Jug will be fun to fly.

 

Although I'm more of a Tempest man myself. Just waiting for the inevitable 20mm vs tank debate now! Haha!

[Gambit21]

Those 20's are going to be just as fun - love the Tempest - beautiful aircraft.

[Danziger]

I just wonder why nobody thought to test it from the ground. Unless the aircraft mounted M2s had something different than the M2s mounted on tanks, trucks, and tripods? If the ground guys saw the planes disabling tanks with their .50s, why didn't the ground guys start taking out tanks with their own .50s?

[Porkins]

I tend to side with the idea that many of these stats were exaggerated. Whether planes, ships, or tanks, pilots on all sides exaggerated (often wildly) their kill tallies. Whether we're talking RAF and Luftwaffe in BoB, US pilots in France, Japanese in the Pacific, or Russian/German in the East, numbers were exaggerated, often claiming more "kills" than the enemy actually had available. I don't believe, for example, that Hans Rudel destroyed 800 vehicles flying the Stuka and FW. 

 

Zaloga (I believe) goes into some detail on over counting tank kills. One common reason for inflation of tank kills was that despite the fire and fury a plane directed at a tank, the damage caused was often very minor. The kind of thing that didn't knock out the tank at all or that could be patched up in 30 minutes. The tank was hit, but is reported destroyed, but often it was knocked out of action for a very small amount of time if at all. Tanks are made to withstand tremendous punishment, they're quite good at withstanding explosive and kinetic attacks. 

2 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

I just wonder why nobody thought to test it from the ground. Unless the aircraft mounted M2s had something different than the M2s mounted on tanks, trucks, and tripods? If the ground guys saw the planes disabling tanks with their .50s, why didn't the ground guys start taking out tanks with their own .50s?

Agreed. There's a reason that all nations in the second half of WW2 were developing increasingly larger AT and tank guns, because the smaller ones (which were much larger than a .50 MG) were not as effective against "modern" tanks. Compare the AT guns the Germans had in 1939 compared to 1945, or look at the difference between a 6 pounder and a 17 pounder. They weren't cranking out .50 cals for AT duty in 1943. 

[Blackhawk_FR]

Porkins, whatever you say... PULL UP !!!!! 

 

 

Sorry, I'm already out 

[seafireliv]

2 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

I just wonder why nobody thought to test it from the ground. Unless the aircraft mounted M2s had something different than the M2s mounted on tanks, trucks, and tripods? If the ground guys saw the planes disabling tanks with their .50s, why didn't the ground guys start taking out tanks with their own .50s?

Good question.

 

Perhaps they were only effective if hitting the tank from the very top so pointless to use from the ground?

 

As to why they never tested it - Again good question.

 

Just surmising.

Edited March 27, 2018 by seafireliv

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

[CrazyDuck]

I think too much thoughts are dedicated to power of 50 cals and too few to tank damage modelling in the sim vs reality. As an example, exploding externally carried fuel canisters (which does not mean penetrating the armor hull) can seem a very persuasive visual effect for the attacking pilot - yet it doesn't necessarily constitute a kill.

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

Omg this thread has more fantasy in it than the entire LOTR trilogy 

[KatieLuna]

23 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

'sigh'

 

It was 3rd Armored and 5th Infantry forward controllers etc that helped determine the efficacy of these attacks. They wound call in/coordinate these missions based on what they knew worked and seeing the aftermath on the ground.

 

Also Jug pilots were not into wasting ammo, or subjecting themselves and their aircraft to unnecessary German AAA, or risking getting jumped to execute demonstrably ineffective attacks.

You can also argue all day (as I predicted) that the pilots didn't know what they were seeing.

 

Kemp - with respect, are you trying to be ironic or is it unintentional? It's precisely these archives, reports, diaries etc where the information I speak of exists. Also your comment on "best intelligence report of the time" makes zero sense.

 

I guess we'll base history instead on the knowledge that over-claiming occurred.

 

 

 

Oh you were there? What did it sound like when the attacks came?

You only need to stress the engine compartment. 

Also nobody claims taking out a column of tanks in a strafing pass.

Simply that to some degree it was possible, enough that the pilots and controllers executed the attacks. Beyond that I can't say to what degree it was effective.

Jeez guys. Calm down. I can hear the pause of contempt in the "Oh you were there?". This was a discussion about options for tank busting not measuring our dicks against the pilots of the day and each others.

[Gambit21]

You're a bit late to come storming in the room Tac cat.

[Willy__]

 

 

This thread is gold 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by Willy__

[AndyJWest]

When the United States entered WW2, they had no effective infantry anti-tank weapon. By the end of the war, they were developing a 3.5-inch version of the Bazooka, which fired a shaped-charge rocket projectile. I somehow doubt they would have put all this effort in if a .50 calibre mg was capable of knocking out Tiger tanks with any regularity.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Why is this even being humored and discussed again? That's my question.

 

It never happened. Any USAAF pilot who really believe they cracked a tank with .50s was smoking too many of those French cigarettes.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[AndyJWest]

6 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

Any USAAF pilot who really believe they cracked a tank with .50s was smoking too many of those French cigarettes.

 

Or more likely, simply believing what he was told. It no doubt suited the USAAF to have their aircrews believing their efforts were more significant than they actually were.  Wars have always been fought that way...

Edited March 27, 2018 by AndyJWest

[Danziger]

4 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

Why is this even being humored and discussed again? That's my question.

 

It never happened. Any USAAF pilot who really believe they cracked a tank with .50s was smoking too many of those French cigarettes.

Maybe it just needed that little extra .50 cal push? Like the end of Saving Private Ryan. The plane destroyed the tank only because Cpt. Miller already softened it up with his .45ACP. 

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

It never happened. Any USAAF pilot who really believe they cracked a tank with .50s was smoking too many of those French cigarettes.

 

Could be my friend - could be.

 

 

[-TBC-AeroAce]

On 3/27/2018 at 1:33 PM, BorysVorobyov said:

I just wonder why nobody thought to test it from the ground. Unless the aircraft mounted M2s had something different than the M2s mounted on tanks, trucks, and tripods? If the ground guys saw the planes disabling tanks with their .50s, why didn't the ground guys start taking out tanks with their own .50s?

 

Good question. The only thing I can suppose is that a plane flying a 400kmh compared to a stationary tank will add much more kinetic energy to the 50 call ammunition. 

 

A quick bit of math using a muzzle velocity of 600 metres per second, a plane at 400 kph(111 meters per second), assuming a stationary tank and 42 gram projectile mass.

 

KE = 0.5*m*v^2

 

Fired from stationery tank:

KE= 7560 j

 

Fire from plane at 400 kph:

KE=10615 j

 

So from a plane we have 1.4 times the energy compared to stationary. 

 

To be fair I thought it would be more. I don't believe that is going to make a massive penitration difference. 

 

Disclaimer I just pulled some quick figures for muzzle velocity of the 50 cal which I think is a bit higher than 600m/s irl. So we are probably looking at a KE difference of about 1.5 to 1.7 between a tank and plane. 

 

I leave it to you to think about how that may effect penitration. 

 

Thanks

 

[Remontti]

On ‎27‎.‎3‎.‎2018 at 3:33 PM, BorysVorobyov said:

I just wonder why nobody thought to test it from the ground. Unless the aircraft mounted M2s had something different than the M2s mounted on tanks, trucks, and tripods? If the ground guys saw the planes disabling tanks with their .50s, why didn't the ground guys start taking out tanks with their own .50s?

Not much a tank can do to an aircraft as you want to keep those hatches closed. But infantry firing at a tank with mg. That is a situation tank can take care of. Pretty much what it was designed for. Can't blame any of those who did not try. Suicide, that what it is.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

Another to note is that the 50 cal AP performs bad at angles, ~1.25" pen at point blank perpendicular plate, only ~0.25" at 60 degree angle, ~0.53" at 45 degree which translate to diving angle of 30-45 degrees (the standard profile).

To penetrate the Panzer IV's 0.4" roof armor you either need to be closer then 300yds for 45 degree (too close), 700yds for 50 degree (doable), anything higher and you gain too much speed in the attack. To penetrate the Panthers 0.7" roof armor you basically need to be in near vertical dive which you wont pull out of (a vertical dive will be able to defeat it at 700yds). You can forget the Tiger and Tiger II
 

[DD_fruitbat]

So I've been on a fairly long break from this game (couple of years or so) and around christmas time, tried it again and have been really pleased with the progress over that time away, I am really enjoying it now in the main.

 

However, this thread makes me feel more at home again in the flight sim genre than the actual game itself, seen the exact same thread over 10 years ago at the ubizoo and many times since. 

 

A flight sim doesn't 'arrive' until a 50's vs tiger thread

 

All I need now, is for someone to request a shark firing laser beams from its eyes in the game, and i'll be convinced I'm in a time loop.... 

 

[SCG_Fenris_Wolf]

You mean sharks with friggin' lazer beams? Count me in! 

[=LD=Hethwill]

A tank without a crew is "dead". A tank with a stuck turret is "dead" ( tell it is a joke that a tiny brit slug did jam a tiger turret in north africa... truth is, it did, so who the hell knows what a torrent of fifty call raining from above can do to jam, cut, destroy vital parts here and there...). A immobile tank is "dead" especially when the rest of the company is on the retreat. There's literally thousands of hours of guncam footage from Falaise pocket operations, for example. Just go see them. Lot of trains, plenty of trucks, some "rudder skid" entire column spraying and you'll find some tanks, isolated ones and in column ones.

Edited March 28, 2018 by =LD=Hethwill

[migmadmarine]

That "Tiny British slug" was a shot from the main gun of a Churchill, so while not the most impressive gun in the world, still a 75, so more than a .50 cal slug. Sure, strafing from the air may cause the crew to halt what they are doing, or break the armored glass in view ports, or perhaps get in through the engine grills and puncture the radiator and cause an over-heat (seem to recall Carius in his book talking about frag from a mortar barrage doing in the radiator of one of his platoon), .50s aren't going to give us the fire and explosion that kills of armored (or any other) vehicle in this game gives us. 

[=LD=Hethwill]

 of course, but a 6 pounder is 57mm  and still, and I imagine no one in their right mind would think it possible for such a fairly "feeble" gun to render a heavy tank like that...useless...

 

As I said above, it is not a 1v1 plane versus tank.

 

If the Jugs are coming it means the tank is already in a firefight against ground forces that requested the close air support. The tank crew will have a bad day from ground and air, from everywhere. I can imagine track links being blast to hell, track wheels getting wrecked, grills being perforated. All kind of things can happen with 8 guns blazing slugs at extreme high speed ( a lot of energy, not only mass counts ). Tank cannot be destroyed simply by shooting it with the 50 cals at the plating, of course  

Edited March 29, 2018 by =LD=Hethwill

[wellenbrecher]

Is this going to be the new "190 light refraction" topic but with less solid proof being posted? 

[Eicio]

And yes, you can doubt of the pilots, because it was war and like every soldier they did not know what they were doing every time.

 

If they knew there wouldn't be any kind of friendly fire, and it happened... quite a lot.

 

Pilots shooting their own ground forces, ground forces shooting their own planes. And for the record americans were more prone to friendly fire than their british counterparts, you can definitly put it on the training, there are reports of american p51/47 trying to shoot friendly british planes.

 

And voila, I thought that this thread deserved a little more "fuel on fire" 

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

And per usual, every German tank is a big cat despite Pz IVs making up the vast majority of armor.

 

Also, you don't have to penetrate a tank's armor to destroy it/make it useless.

 

And the ".50's under the belly" video... he's not talking about the tank. He's talking about the lighlty armored fuel trailer that the German tanks hauled behind them. Ricochet rounds under the armor of the trailer to blow up the fuel. If you watch the video, it's pretty obvious that's what he's discussing.

 

What a hilarious thread though.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

ITT

[Legioneod]

On 3/29/2018 at 6:25 AM, Eicio said:

And yes, you can doubt of the pilots, because it was war and like every soldier they did not know what they were doing every time.

 

If they knew there wouldn't be any kind of friendly fire, and it happened... quite a lot.

 

Pilots shooting their own ground forces, ground forces shooting their own planes. And for the record americans were more prone to friendly fire than their british counterparts, you can definitly put it on the training, there are reports of american p51/47 trying to shoot friendly british planes.

 

And voila, I thought that this thread deserved a little more "fuel on fire" 

Americans have always liked to shoot at the British

[Original_Uwe]

On 3/26/2018 at 9:55 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

Nah - I was predicting the typical "I know more as a random forum guy  70 years later than the men who were there and attacked these columns day in and day out" response.

 

I nailed it didn't I?

 

Ya know gambit I get what you’re saying but you’re coming off as the instigator here.

 

And in the same spirit of your post, no, I don’t trust those old men to remember everything correctly. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable and memories formed in combat are even less so. 

 

As to footage is there any that shows a tank attack, from first to last shot, showing strafing with API and APIT .50 cal Browning destroying a tank? None that I know of. Many that show tanks being strafed to unknown effect though.

 

And yes, I do know more about the equipment they used regarding these weapons. A pilot who pulls a trigger knows less about a .50 than the grunt that eats, sleeps, drinks, and beats off on top of, behind, or next to said .50. Add to that 70 years to forget or misremember details too.

 

A .50 will go through a lot. I’ve shot through BMPs and BRDM with them (stationary targets) but expecting a round to impact/dump energy/deform/tumble and then punch through armor plate? No. Assuming the angle was so shallow as to ricochet off dirt/asphalt (soft surface) why would it not do the same off of the much harder armor of the tank? The impact angle would be the same no?

 

No offense but it’s asking a lot to believe these old war stories without some pretty solid physical evidence.

 

edit: if not clear I mean the old “.50 bouncing off the road into a tanks belly” story. I full well know a .50 will eat up soft rear and some top armor.

Edited March 31, 2018 by 1./JG54_Uwe

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The .50 cal has trouble punching through 25mm in any Case, and that'S the Tiger's Bottom Armor. 

 

Expecting it from a Light Barreled at a couple of hundred Meters Distance, loosing most of it's Energy after a Bounce and the still rather high Deflection Angle after the Bounce there just isn
t a Chance in Hell it will punch through the Tigers Bottom Armor. 

You could lay the Tiger on it's Side and have the P-47s fire at the Bottom Plate Directly and they wouldn't get through. 

[Gambit21]

A few days too late Uwe - who cares.

[Royal_Flight]

I don't know if the Tempest is going to get rocket projectiles in BoBo.

It was rated to carry then but as far as I'm aware never did so operationally.

 

If it does it could be quite an effective tank hunter, as a sort-of pseudo-Typhoon. 

 

It can also carry two 1,000lb bombs which should make a mess of a tank if they get close enough. 

[MikeDitka]

One thing a flight sim can't model is the suppression effect of being under air attack while buttoned inside the tank, along with damage that would reduce the combat effectiveness of the tank without the big fireball we see in the games.

 

I wonder what personal accounts one might find of tank crews under air attack? I sincerely doubt the reaction to a strafing attack was to carry on as if it were a gentle rain hitting the tank - even if there was little risk of a catastrophic explosion or fire.

[Original_Uwe]

35 minutes ago, MikeDitka said:

One thing a flight sim can't model is the suppression effect of being under air attack while buttoned inside the tank, along with damage that would reduce the combat effectiveness of the tank without the big fireball we see in the games.

 

I wonder what personal accounts one might find of tank crews under air attack? I sincerely doubt the reaction to a strafing attack was to carry on as if it were a gentle rain hitting the tank - even if there was little risk of a catastrophic explosion or fire.

Well, I know that modern tankers aren’t worried about .50 and below. I knew a tank platoon sergeant who got awarded (ARCOM V I think) for clearing dismounted infantry off of friendly bradlys with his abrams’ coax M240 in gulf war 1. He also told me that a .50 would go through an Abrams from the rear all the way to the turret ring, but overall he wasn’t worried about anything less than 30mm dpu.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

The .50 cal has trouble punching through 25mm in any Case, and that'S the Tiger's Bottom Armor. 

 

Expecting it from a Light Barreled at a couple of hundred Meters Distance, loosing most of it's Energy after a Bounce and the still rather high Deflection Angle after the Bounce there just isn
t a Chance in Hell it will punch through the Tigers Bottom Armor. 

You could lay the Tiger on it's Side and have the P-47s fire at the Bottom Plate Directly and they wouldn't get through. 

How thick was the belly armor of the panzer IV?

[AndyJWest]

Given that WW2 roads are apparently capable of deflecting mg rounds that would penetrate armour plate,  I'd have thought that covering the belly in tarmac (or possibly Belgian Pavé) would have been the best option. 

[Gambit21]

57 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Given that WW2 roads are apparently capable of deflecting mg rounds that would penetrate armour plate,  I'd have thought that covering the belly in tarmac (or possibly Belgian Pavé) would have been the best option. 

 

That got a laugh out of me...

[Eicio]

11 hours ago, Royal_Flight said:

I don't know if the Tempest is going to get rocket projectiles in BoBo.

It was rated to carry then but as far as I'm aware never did so operationally.

 

If it does it could be quite an effective tank hunter, as a sort-of pseudo-Typhoon. 

 

It can also carry two 1,000lb bombs which should make a mess of a tank if they get close enough. 

 

The tempest was used in anti-ground targets too tough don't overthink this anti-tank operations. To kill a tank is not that a big deal, kill a train or a train station: that will make the ennemy bleed.

 

And for the record I think that all explosives are good against tanks, it won't penetrate the armor, sure, but it will use it, damage it. A tank isn't a number that react to other numbers, as all things in the world it is evolving through time and conditions.

 

At the end of the war the germans didn't have the same resources capabilities and it had an effect on the tanks armor, so the late panther should have at least the same amount of armor but the quality wasn't there anymore, that is nearly impossible to duplicate in a sim, game or anything.