09-18-2006, 11:16 AM
09-21-2006, 12:34 PM
That's extremely interesting....the description during the video of the tactics. All Tigers towing around fuel trailers? Maybe so....but would setting them on fire actually disable the tank in front? It would certainly curtail the Tiger's range all of a sudden, no bad thing in itself.
Also this idea of bouncing .50 calibre bullets off the road into the belly of the tank.....superb idea, but would it actually have worked in principle? What penetrating energy would a .50cal round have after hitting a road hard enough to bounce it? Even if it did hit the bottom armour, it would be at a very shallow angle and already tumbling/misshapen....I would have thought it would just bounce off. What do others think?
It's my understanding that British Commonwealth & US pilots together overestimated their kills of tanks (not necessarily other vehicles, which were lost in the thousands) by close to 50:1 in Normandy (claims/German records of losses)....this video might an example of why. Note however that if I remember correctly German losses refer to writeoffs, not damaged vehicles able to be repaired....that would certainly be more.
Also this idea of bouncing .50 calibre bullets off the road into the belly of the tank.....superb idea, but would it actually have worked in principle? What penetrating energy would a .50cal round have after hitting a road hard enough to bounce it? Even if it did hit the bottom armour, it would be at a very shallow angle and already tumbling/misshapen....I would have thought it would just bounce off. What do others think?
It's my understanding that British Commonwealth & US pilots together overestimated their kills of tanks (not necessarily other vehicles, which were lost in the thousands) by close to 50:1 in Normandy (claims/German records of losses)....this video might an example of why. Note however that if I remember correctly German losses refer to writeoffs, not damaged vehicles able to be repaired....that would certainly be more.
09-21-2006, 12:38 PM
I was pretty skeptical of the tactics, figuring the retired pilot speaking in the film was suffering from "the older I get the better I was" syndrome.
That said, the video was pretty cool.
That said, the video was pretty cool.
12-02-2006, 04:46 PM
It was interesting to see all of the ricochets flying off of the tanks...
12-07-2006, 08:04 AM
Hello McIvan,
The .50 BMG could (and does in it's AP version) penetrate appx 1.25 inches (30mm?) of vertical armor plate under certain conditions - but only the AP round. Copper jacketed (FMJ) ammo would shatter on armored steel. Shooting air to air, the FMJ ammo would shatter magnesium, easily penetrate sheet aluminum, and fracture/shatter aluminum structure, possibly crack cast iron. AP ammo would penetrate armor plate and nearly all materials found in the engine compartment - including the engine block..
But.. attempting to bounce a round off the road/ground to kill a tank?? - I don't think so.. FMJ would be more likely to bounce than AP.. The steel core of .50 BMG would have a great tendancy to drive the bullet into the earth or tarmac - not bounce.. while the FMJ might have a greater chance of bouncing - it would likely deform and lose so much energy from hitting the ground that anything more substantial than sheet metal would defeat any penetration possibilites.. a Tiger's underbelly is 30mm thick, most other Tank types would have 12-15mm on the bottom (except for very early war tanks.. many would be easy meat for a .50cal AP round)
More likely the .50 would shred cargo/tool containers, mufflers, external air cleaners - etc. There might also be a possibility of a .50 AP round hitting a louver above the engine compartment, and then ricochet into the engine bay where damage to fuel systems, oil reservoirs, cooling ducts/tubing/radiators would lead to immobilzation..
-just my 2 cents worth..
-Greybeard (SP ladder)
The .50 BMG could (and does in it's AP version) penetrate appx 1.25 inches (30mm?) of vertical armor plate under certain conditions - but only the AP round. Copper jacketed (FMJ) ammo would shatter on armored steel. Shooting air to air, the FMJ ammo would shatter magnesium, easily penetrate sheet aluminum, and fracture/shatter aluminum structure, possibly crack cast iron. AP ammo would penetrate armor plate and nearly all materials found in the engine compartment - including the engine block..
But.. attempting to bounce a round off the road/ground to kill a tank?? - I don't think so.. FMJ would be more likely to bounce than AP.. The steel core of .50 BMG would have a great tendancy to drive the bullet into the earth or tarmac - not bounce.. while the FMJ might have a greater chance of bouncing - it would likely deform and lose so much energy from hitting the ground that anything more substantial than sheet metal would defeat any penetration possibilites.. a Tiger's underbelly is 30mm thick, most other Tank types would have 12-15mm on the bottom (except for very early war tanks.. many would be easy meat for a .50cal AP round)
More likely the .50 would shred cargo/tool containers, mufflers, external air cleaners - etc. There might also be a possibility of a .50 AP round hitting a louver above the engine compartment, and then ricochet into the engine bay where damage to fuel systems, oil reservoirs, cooling ducts/tubing/radiators would lead to immobilzation..
-just my 2 cents worth..
-Greybeard (SP ladder)
01-12-2007, 11:28 AM
Thanks for the reply Greybeard and I have no disageement with your points. Might note only that the louvres above the engine compartment in late war tanks, if I recall correctly, no longer led directly into the engine bay itself, more to reduce the effect of molotov cocktails I think but perhaps they also had strafing in mind.
I wouldn't want to be in a PzII Luchs when a .50cal armed fighter came by.
I wouldn't want to be in a PzII Luchs when a .50cal armed fighter came by.