.50's from above

[Gyrene]

Would a strafing run by a .50 equipped fighter do any damage to tanks like Tigers & Panthers?

I'm not usre how much armor their top decks have and if a .50 would do anything to them, but footage of fighters strafing tank columns with machine guns in WWII is pretty common.

Gyrene

[edgars]

I'm not the most qualified person to answer this question, but IIRC the Tiger E (early) top armor of 25mm was vulnerable to the .50cal fire and thus was increased to 40mm on the late model Tiger E.

Why Panthers had only 16mm top armour is beyond me.

[ March 12, 2002, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: ciks ]

[Armdchair]

From Michael D. Doubler's "Closing With the Enemy: How the GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945", (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1994), pp.68-69:

"Fighter-bomber pilots attacked German armor from the rear so that machine-gun bullets entered a tank's hull through exhaust portals and damaged its engine. Ground units found disabled German tanks with little external damage, but with a dead crew and extensive interior damage. Investigation revealed that machine-gun bullets had entered the tanks through open hatches, then ricocheted around inside, destroying equipment and mutilating crewmen."

[gunnergoz]

I've read and seen documentaries that both have veteran flyers commenting upon how they would ricochet their .50 rounds into the underside of armored vehicles. A really good, experienced pilot could use that tracer stream like a fire hose and get bullets pretty much where they want them. That's about 80 rounds per second beating the ground, surely enough to cause some significant hits, directly or through ricochets.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by ciks:

...snip...

Why Panthers had only 16mm top armour is beyond me.

Consider the balancing act designers have to juggle between armor protection, firepower and mobility. The Germans had seen how limited the manourverability and reliability of the Tiger was, even after improvments. The Panther, with a very similar drivetrain, had to give up some weight on the chassis to afford it improved mobility and reliability. Top armor was probably seen as an acceptable trade-off considering that a tank attacked from an aircraft has numerous other vulnerabilities besides top armor (like open hatches mentioned earlier, suspension components, external fuel, etc.

This is my theory, anyway.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

I've read and seen documentaries that both have veteran flyers commenting upon how they would ricochet their .50 rounds into the underside of armored vehicles. A really good, experienced pilot could use that tracer stream like a fire hose and get bullets pretty much where they want them. That's about 80 rounds per second beating the ground, surely enough to cause some significant hits, directly or through ricochets.

I've read and seen accounts of this as well. That belly armour was certainly vulnerable to .50 fire.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by ciks:

Why Panthers had only 16mm top armour is beyond me.

In addition to what people said about the weight, think about how much surface that is.

If you want to make the front of a tank 5mm thicker, how much cubic centimeters of steel do you need?

If you want to make the top of the hull and of the turret 5mm thicker, how much cubic centimeters does that make?

Also, the airplane hits on the western front are highly angled as vertical dive attacks were uncommon (at least when not bombing), so it is not as bad as it sounds.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Would a strafing run by a .50 equipped fighter do any damage to tanks like Tigers & Panthers?

If your question refers to CMBO, then no, US FBs' .50cals have had no effect on Panthers, Tigers or King Tigers so far on my puter.

[illo]

I think .50 cal penetrates about 20mm armor at 90dgr from 200m range.

So penetrating tank top isnt very likely.

[Yaba]

Just recently I observed a .50 cal take out the gun on a hetzer! Myself, I have taken out a PZIV from behind with the .50 cal from a scout car. This would seem to confirm what illo has for numbers.

Looks like those .50's pack quite the punch.

Cheers,

Yaba

[wbs]

Last night I had two different Shermans simultaneously take top hits from 81mm mortar fire. No damage to either tank.

[illo]

"Why Panthers had only 16mm top armour is beyond me."

Because it's enough to protect from strafing runs with Soviet Shvak 20mm, Brti./US Hispano Suiza II and .50cal mgs.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by jgdpzr:

I've read and seen accounts of this as well. That belly armour was certainly vulnerable to .50 fire.[/QB]

Considering that belly armour of the Panther, StuG and PIV was 30/16mm, 16mm and 20/12/10mm respectively it seem unlikely that .50cal would be able to penetrate at the angles afforded by ricochets off the ground.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by illo:

"Why Panthers had only 16mm top armour is beyond me."

Because it's enough to protect from strafing runs with Soviet Shvak 20mm, Brti./US Hispano Suiza II and .50cal mgs.

To the extent that the VVS (Russian air force) Started fitting 3,7cm and even 4,5cm guns onto airframes to insure kills on Panzers.

[YankeeDog]

A couple of months ago I was reading an interesting article about the A-10 Warthog. The article brought up and interesting aspect of strafing attacks against armour that I hadn't considered:

Basically, the fact that the machine gun is being fired from a platform that is very rapidly moving towards it's target effectively increases the muzzle velocity of the weapon and therefore the armour penetrating ability.

I don't actually know what speed a WWII era fighter plane would fly on a strafing run, but I can make an educated guess. I'm working off the top of my head here, but IIRC the P-51 Mustang has a top speed of around 450 mph. The pilot is certainly not going to be flying at top speed on a strafing run - it's too close to the deck. He's also not going to fly too slowly - the faster he flies, the less time he's exposed to AAA and the harder he is to hit. Let's say that a P-51 makes a strafing run at around 300mph.

300mph x 5,280 ft/mi. = 1,584,000 ft/hr.

1,584,000 ft/hr / 60 min/hr = 26,400 ft/min.

26,400 ft/min x 60sec/min = 440 fps.

So the P-51 is traveling at 440 feet per second. Assuming that that the P-51 is flying straight at it's target (not necessarily true - fixed wing aircraft don't always fly exactly where their nose is pointing), the velocity of the .50 cal bullet leaving its MGs relative to the target is going to be whatever the muzzle velocity of the aircraft-mounted version of the Ma Deuce is, PLUS 440fps. An additional 440fps isn't going to suddenly turn the .50 cal into something that can penetrate the frontal armour of a King Tiger, but it's certainly going to make a difference. I don't know exactly how many more mm of steel the bullet will penetrate traveling 440 fps faster, but maybe there's a grog (or a physicist) here who can figure THAT one out. It might be the difference between penetrating or not penetrating some tanks' top armour at certain angles.

Cheers,

YD

[ March 12, 2002, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Slangton]

"Considering that belly armour of the Panther, StuG and PIV was 30/16mm, 16mm and 20/12/10mm respectively it seem unlikely that .50cal would be able to penetrate at the angles afforded by ricochets off the ground."

Hmmm. I've heard pilot accounts that say different. Some pilots even said that they deliberately shot under the tank to get the rounds to ricochet up and into it...maybe I'm wrong and my ears have failed me...

[Rick614]

A question YankeeDog. You are firing a weapon from a fixed mount, a very fixed mount, straight into a 450 mph headwind. What does that do to the velocity of the projectile?

As far as the bouncing the rounds into the belly I really find that hard to believe. I'm sure that it happened from time to time with effect but probably the guys that claimed they were doing it on purpose were the guys that always fired a little short. I just can't see a young man probably flying over enemy territory making a strafing run at 300+ mph knowing that all sorts of people are shooting at him with no altitude and if anything goes wrong he will be just a smudge on the landscape with a dozen other things to think about would concentrate on any thing other than putting metal on the target. I would think that maybe a practice was to fire short and walk the bullets into the target. Yes, I have read those accounts also and I'm sure it happened. In my opinion I just think most of the time it was probably more luck than planning. Kind of "yeah, I meant to do that"

Anyway, I do not mean to belittle the efforts of those who actually did those things.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Slangton:

"Considering that belly armour of the Panther, StuG and PIV was 30/16mm, 16mm and 20/12/10mm respectively it seem unlikely that .50cal would be able to penetrate at the angles afforded by ricochets off the ground."

Hmmm. I've heard pilot accounts that say different. Some pilots even said that they deliberately shot under the tank to get the rounds to ricochet up and into it...maybe I'm wrong and my ears have failed me...

Airmen of all nationalities are apparently prone to overclaming, exaggeration or boosting if you will. For instance Mortain the classical example cited to prove that aircraft are efficient Panzer killers. Claims by the RAF’s 2nd tactical air force claims 140 tanks destroyed/disabled, US 9th army air force 112. These numbers actually exceeded the number deployed by the Germans. In reality only 46 tanks were lost and only 9 of these had been hit by air weapons.

Veteran stories, fantastic chaps. Know of one who was then known as Sqn leader South 42nd Sqn (iirc, have forced my father to send an email to confirm his Sqn during 44-45) flying the Tiffie or Typhoons during 44-45. He feels and thought at the time that the 2cm cannons were only any good at disabling engines through the opening on the rear of the Jerry tanks and the much more easily achieved busting tracks for a disable, guns were not tank killers. He feel that stories talking about ricochets to achieve kills through the belly are unlikely because a. no one in his Sqn was ever successful with such a techniques and b. They were told that belly armour was thicker than ‘top’ armour that had already proved impervious to 2cm cannon strikes. Also he notes that only the first few 2cm rounds were accurate due to the cannons having an unfortunate side effect of making the Tiffie rear due to recoil. I think you’ll find that the 2cm cannons on the Typhoons had better AP ability vs. the 12,7mm/.50cal machine guns.

You have your pilot accounts I have mine that mesh more with the figures Presented by Gooderson, Allied Fighter-Bombers Versus German Armour in North-West Europe 1944-1945: Myths and realities (Journal of strategic studies, Vol 14 No2 June 1991 pg 221), which is based on the operation research teams that investigated the wrecks found after the battle. Some of these figures are also in Jentz.

Edits

Grammar the thing that separates only some of us from the animals.

[ March 13, 2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Gyrene]

I just can't see a young man probably flying over enemy territory making a strafing run at 300+ mph knowing that all sorts of people are shooting at him with no altitude and if anything goes wrong he will be just a smudge on the landscape with a dozen other things to think about would concentrate on any thing other than putting metal on the target.

You have not talked to many veteran fighter pilots have you? Most of the throughout the history of flying have seen themselves as invincible, their attitudes usually being the complete opposite of the soldiers on the ground.

Gyrene

[ March 13, 2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Rick614]

To be honest I have never had the privledge of talking to a veteran fighter pilot.

However "feeling" invincible does not make one so. I'm sure you know as well as anyone that the "feeling" can be a mixed blessing. It can lead men to acts of courage in the face of danger, but it can also lead to foolhardy acts. There is a picture of a base in England with a runway covered with just what appears to be parts stretching a couple hundred yards from a returning P-51 pilot doing a victory loop which didn't quite loop.

Please note that I don't doubt the courage that it takes to be in combat. I have no idea how I would react under those conditions. The heaviest action I ever saw was in Norfolk, Va. That of course involved the USMC as you can imagine.

I will always remember an interview I saw with a German ace after the war. He told how hard it was to shoot down an allied heavy bomber. He said as sq. commander it was his place to go in first knowing that there were maybe 100 machine guns shooting at him as he did so. He described how he would try to approach from a certain angle and then at such and such a distance he said he would squeeze the trigger (as he said this he put his arm up in front of his face in a mock defensive gesture) "scared to death, scared to death." I know that this was a man probably with more courage in his little toe than I could ever dream of having admitting that he was just flat scared.

Completely OT I have just recently joined a sub vets org. and at the last meeting we had 4 men that have a number of war patrols in the Pacific fighting the Japanese. One man had made 8 patrols. I talked to each of them and shook their hands. These guys are national treasures.

Have a good day, Gyrene.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jgdpzr:

I've read and seen accounts of this as well. That belly armour was certainly vulnerable to .50 fire.

Considering that belly armour of the Panther, StuG and PIV was 30/16mm, 16mm and 20/12/10mm respectively it seem unlikely that .50cal would be able to penetrate at the angles afforded by ricochets off the ground.[/QB]</font>

[Gyrene]

Rick, my mentioning that pilots often felt invincible was to illustrate the point that trying to skip bullets under tanks and tricks like that were the kind of things that fighter pilots would likely try, if they were told they might work.

I just think that the notion that most ground support pilots would just want to get rid of their payloads and scoot away from the scene as mentioned as incorrect. Given enough flak that might be the case, but that was not the norm.

Gyrene

[ March 13, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

You have not talked to many veteran fighter pilots have you? Most of the throughout the history of flying have seen themselves as invincible...

I have noticed though, that in many of the first-person accounts I have read that the feeling of invincibility suddenly evaporates if for any reason that mill in front stops turning. Then they begin thinking of all those men on the ground they just got thoroughly pissed off at them. :eek:

Michael

[wbs]

From rick614:

A question YankeeDog. You are firing a weapon from a fixed mount, a very fixed mount, straight into a 450 mph headwind. What does that do to the velocity of the projectile?

It would have no EXTRA effect, Rick, because there really isn't a headwind (assumes calm conditions) but rather the plane is moving through calm air at that speed.

The "drag" effect would be identical to that applied to a bullet fired at normal muzzle velocity plus 440 f/sec.

[ March 13, 2002, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Compassion]

Originally posted by jgdpzr:

I've read and seen accounts of this as well. That belly armour was certainly vulnerable to .50 fire.

I've read accounts of this as well, though a couple eyars ago, I argued this point with Fionn. He pointed out that no matter what first hand accounts might say, there's no denying that the armor on the floors Tigers IS proof of .50 fire... even 8 of them, especially after spending much of it's kinetic energy on he ground.

What is easily beleivable is that these .50's cause damage to tread and roadwheel and drive train causing smoking and crew bailing... As far as the P-47 pilots are concerned, they killed the tank.

[ March 13, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Compassion ]