.50's from above

[gunnergoz]

Well, after all this talk about the efficacy of .50 cal rounds against armor, we are drifting away from the fact that the primary weapons that attack fighter-bombers were using were, after all, rockets and bombs. No question but that those were effective tank killers. Based upon the predominant opinion I've heard here (not without persuasive effect), strafing tanks with your mg's was perhaps a last resort or even just a matter of mistaken identification of the target. Either way, a hailstorm of .50 cal slugs as big as one's thumb is bound to shake up the crew, who are unlikely to know whether a particular jabo has it's bomb load left or not and may welll have bailed out upon first sighting the fighters (let's not forget that they hunted in pairs and larger formations.) Strafing a tank that has been abandoned by its crew might well wound or kill crewmembers who happened to get in the way, not to mention the damage done to external components (antennae, fuel cans, periscopes) of the tanks themselves. All in all, it was probably a most unpleasant and inconvenient thing to happen to any given panzer crew.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

And what happens during night attacks when the pilot is strafing at the speed of light and has to put his lights on for a better view?

Time reverses and we all go into a black hole.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Well, after all this talk about the efficacy of .50 cal rounds against armor, we are drifting away from the fact that the primary weapons that attack fighter-bombers were using were, after all, rockets and bombs. No question but that those were effective tank killers.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. Right in this very thread there have been questions raised about how effective they were. But I will agree that at least sometimes they did achieve damage and, less frequently, kills.

Either way, a hailstorm of .50 cal slugs as big as one's thumb is bound to shake up the crew, who are unlikely to know whether a particular jabo has it's bomb load left or not and may welll have bailed out upon first sighting the fighters...

From all I have read on the subject, tank crews were quite fond of their armor and preferred having a layer of it between them and anyone with unfriendly intentions. Translation: they were reluctant to bail unless they knew or had a strong suspicion that the armor had been penetrated. After all, if fifties are flying about in one's vicinity, it's a lot safer to have some thick steel shielding one than to expose one's very tender and vulnerable hide to same.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

[snip] the primary weapons that attack fighter-bombers were using were, after all, rockets and bombs. No question but that those were effective tank killers.

Please read my post on the previous page. I don't agree with the assessment for the reasons outlined. I suspect that the Blitzkrieg Luftwaffe pilots were as prone to overstating their claims as the 1944 Allied pilots, but without the operational research to tell them how wrong they were.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

And what happens during night attacks when the pilot is strafing at the speed of light and has to put his lights on for a better view?

Is that a European or an African pilot?

[YankeeDog]

Yes, yes. Obviously MGs not overly effective at taking out tanks, or they wouldn't have developed rockets and heavier guns on planes to try to take them out. At the same time, something made tank designers decide that the 10-12mm of top armour that tends to show up on early war tanks was not enough, and up that to 16mm, or even higher in the case of the Tigers. As noted before, because of the high surface area on the top of a tank, designers would be loathe to add this much weight without good reason.

Now, it might not have been air attacks that caused this increase in top armour. Maybe tanks were shown to be too vulnerable to mortar barrages (i.e., the lucky direct hit). Maybe tanks were being lost to infantry attack in close assault where the infantry could place small explosives on the deck of the tank. I don't know.

So where does the vulnerability/invulnerability line lie when it comes to aircraft mounted .50cals, or any other .50 cal, for that matter?? I don't think I'm assuming too much to state that any open-topped armoured vehicle would be vulnerable to aircraft MG fire of any calibre. After that, the ink gets greyer.

Here's some top armour figures pulled straight from CM:

Puma: 6mm top hull, 10mm top turret

Hetzer: 8mm top

Pz II: 10mm top hull, 12mm top turret

Pz IV: 12mm top hull, 10mm top turret

StuG IV: 11mm top

StuH 42: 15mm top

Panther: 16mm top

So which of the above are vulnerable to .50cal strafing attacks and which are not just based on the chance of rounds penetrating the top armour?? What if it's a 20mm strafing attack; what about 37mm?? I don't know, but if I were a betting man, I'd put money down on everything up to the StuG IV being vulnerable to the .50cal, and the rest not. I'm not a betting man, so I'll go do some reading and try to find out.

Cheers,

YD

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Tomb:

you dont have to penetrate to kill thier is a report i have somewhere which compares the 60lb HE an AP rockets as fired by the typhoon while the AP in theory would get the most kills in practice the HE did since it had a habit of removing the turret from the tank if it hit near and since removeing the turret was rather a effectice way of killing a tank despite no armour pentration being achieved. i think i have remebered it right i,ll see if i can dig it up , its a PRO document.

Tomb

Did you manage to dig that one out by any chance? I find that claim very hard to credit, too. A bit like the 'one bomb throws 3 T-34 through the air like Dinkytoys' claim.

I just read the figures again - Allied pilots overclaimed their success at a rate >10:1 when the operational research lads got down to counting wrecks on the ground. This based on research carried out after Falaise and in one area of the Bulge battle.

The $64k question for CMBB early war now is - since the Germans did not do similar research, do we have to believe their figures at face value or should we assume a similar 10:1 reduction in direct air support effectiveness? Which would still give Rudel 52 tanks to his name BTW, still not bad.

I guess what this all comes down to is that pilots probably had too much time on their hands bragging about what they did when they were in a pub at the end of the day trying to impress the WAAFs and Blitzmädels, respectively.

Sorry if this has nothing to do with .50s, but I guess that topic is through anyway, not?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Yes, yes. Obviously MGs not overly effective at taking out tanks, or they wouldn't have developed rockets and heavier guns on planes to try to take them out....I don't think I'm assuming too much to state that any open-topped armoured vehicle would be vulnerable to aircraft MG fire of any calibre. After that, the ink gets greyer.

Right.

BTW, I think people in this thread have fairly consistently been underestimating the range at which an FB pilot would be firing his guns. If he were straffing at a fairly shallow angle (because of flying close to the ground), I would expect him to pull off the target at around 200 meters. But at a shallow angle, he isn't going to penetrate any armor anyway.

If he is diving at a steeper angle (to maximise penetration), he is going to be initiating pull out at least at 300 meters, probably more...a lot more in hilly terrain.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

BTW, I think people in this thread have fairly consistently been underestimating the range at which an FB pilot would be firing his guns. If he were straffing at a fairly shallow angle (because of flying close to the ground), I would expect him to pull off the target at around 200 meters. But at a shallow angle, he isn't going to penetrate any armor anyway.

If he is diving at a steeper angle (to maximise penetration), he is going to be initiating pull out at least at 300 meters, probably more...a lot more in hilly terrain.

Michael

This would mesh with my own experience in general (i.e., civilian) aviation. My guess is that, even in relatively flat terrain, a pilot is still going to pull out of a steep dive strafing run at closer to 500 meters unless he's flying a plane like a Stuka that has dive brakes to slow him down. I've never flown a high-performance aircraft like a P-51, though, so it's possible that the pull-out could be as low as 300 meters. As I noted in my original post on this thread, though, the airplane's own velocity gives it's MGs a little bit more kick, which would have the same effect as shortening the distance to the target as far as penetration is concerned.

Nevertheless, as I noted above, the top of that PzIV turret is only 10mm thick - that's well within the penetration ability of a .50 cal, even taking in to account a range somewhat longer than 200m, and an angle less than 90 degress. While the top of the turret is not a huge surface area, it's a lot bigger than a 'lucky hit' target like an exhaust port. Thus the logic for my guess that tanks like the PzIV might be vulnerable to ".50s from above", but Panthers and Tigers probably aren't.

As future iterations of CM portray more and more of the early war period, this question of .50cal penetration from strafing planes becomes more important. The .50 cal was the primary armament for most US fighters for the entire war, but as noted above, tank top armour changed considerably. There were no Panthers in the North African Desert; in 1943 the PzIV was the best medium tank the Germans had available to them. In fact, this issue may come in to play in CM:BB with the Russian 12.7mm. I don't know how the 12.7mm compares to the US .50 in penetration, though.

Cheers,

YD

[illo]

the $64k question for CMBB early war now is - since the Germans did not do similar research, do we have to believe their figures at face value or should we assume a similar 10:1 reduction in direct air support effectiveness? Which would still give Rudel 52 tanks to his name BTW, still not bad.

There are many pictures of t-34s killed by rudel. Neat hole in 2/3 to the rear of side turret. Also he describes to detail how they bombed soviet tanks. What was effective and what was not. He sounds like fanatic..but not a liar. Ofcourse it's only my opinion.

Quite much of ground kills were confirmed by camera in Luftwaffe, only pilots own word sure wasnt enough for confirmation. Well i think we have to dig some information and photos since this quessing isnt going to lead anywhere.

[Ozzy]

YD - I see we have a pilot talking...

I would still say 250-300 kph is a realistic speed for a P-51, as 250 kph is the average stall speed of a modern supersonic fighter aircraft. When comparing the P-51 with a modern Cessna, we must see that these subsonic aircrafts have similar aerodynamic properties regarding stall speed. If you like, say the air speed of the P-51 was 300-350 kph (or ask some veterans... )

A WWII (but also a today's) pilot on a strafing round has to balance between sufficient speed for maneuverability and to avoid stalling when firing (actio=reactio; hence the recoil of the firing guns de-accelerate the aircraft. Example: in Korea a F-104 tried to shoot down a Korean MiG-3 (yes, MiG-3), and had to use full flaps and even gears to slow down enough, but when it fired its guns, the F-104 stalled and converted to a 10 Million $ stone - the MiG evaded...) and dispersion (the higher the speed, the higher the dispersion of the fired rounds, IOW the lower the density on target).

However, if we are talking about implementation in CM engine, I would say no the .50 cal against TANKS, for the following reasons:

- density: IMO it is very questionable if a FB can bring sufficient rounds on the target to have a significant chance. Most of the projectiles will miss the tank. The pilot would prefer to use them agaist softer targets.

- you mention the .50 cal penetration capabilities. but this is the MAXIMUM possible and at 90° (which makes the discussion futile, as for Allied FBs (not StuKas) I would say a max. angle of 45° is realistic). Lots of ricochets I would say...

- It is also doubtful that hitting the tank indirectly via the ground and the understructure has good chances - again the question of density. then the projectiles either get stuck in the ground (in WWII, there were not much 8 laned paved highways... ) or ricochet, which would easily consume 75% of their kinetic energy AND disfigure their sharp lined body. I would tend to consider such reports as pilot good-night tales...

- the best chance might have been to hit the air intakes and exhausts thus disabling the tank's engine or even brew it up (in WWII easier than today, as WWII used gasoline instead of diesel fuel).

Another question is .50 cal against HT and soft skinned vehicles or the already mentioned >20 mm MGs and MKs with AT capabilities...

[illo]

Heres something I found on the net, just in case it helps anything.

Rudel's personal victories as a ground-attack pilot were achieved exclusively against the Soviets, and despite the most primitive conditions imaginable, including operations solely from dirt, mud, and snow covered airfields, his confirmed victories (those witnessed by two or more fellow pilots) include:

518+ Tanks

700 Trucks

150+ Flak and Artillery positions

9 Fighter/Ground Attack Aircraft

Hundreds of bridges, railway lines, bunkers, etc.

Battleship October Revolution, Cruiser Marat, and 70 landing craft

His losses:

Shot down 32 times.

Innumerable aircraft brought back to base that were later written off, due to heavy combat damage.

Wounded on many occasions, including the partial amputation of his right leg in the Spring of 45, after which he continued to fly with a prosthetic limb.

In the book "Stuka Pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel" there are several pictures of tanks destroyed by him. Even one where hes standing next to t-34 and pointing little hole in its side turret with his finger.

[ March 18, 2002, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Ozzy:

- you mention the .50 cal penetration capabilities. but this is the MAXIMUM possible and at 90° (which makes the discussion futile, as for Allied FBs (not StuKas) I would say a max. angle of 45° is realistic). Lots of ricochets I would say...

...

And remembering that the figures of penetration for the .50cal should refer to WWII AP cartridges and refer to effect vs. RHA and/or FH armour not the H or mild steel armour of a lot of reports.

[Caesar]

Ozzy - I just looked up the stall speed of a Mustang. It varies between 95mph - 150mph depending on flaps, load, and inclination of the aircraft. If you are going to fire 6 or 8 (can't remember) .50s at ~750 - 850 rpm each gun (that's going to cut your speen a fair bit), I would think that you would want at least 50 mph extra, so you are looking at at least 200mph or 320 kmph.

Of course other planes may be capable of slower, but I would think that this is at least indicative of the minimums.

[Ozzy]

Illo - yes, Rudel's achievements are impressive and absolutely unique - that I think was why he was the only one to receive the Goldene Eichenlaub mit Schwertern und Brillianten to his Ritterkreuz.... :eek:

[illo]

PzIV turret is only 10mm thick

Im quite sure PzKpfw IVh had 15mm top turret armor and 12mm on deck.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by illo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PzIV turret is only 10mm thick

Im quite sure PzKpfw IVh had 15mm top turret armor and 12mm on deck.</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It's especially notable that, after upping the armour to 15mm for the IVH, the designers decided that this wasn't enough, and upped it to 18mm for the IVJ. That's a lot of extra weight just to protect the turret from the occasional lucky 81mm mortar hit.

As I noted before, increased protection from air attack is one possibility for this armour increase, but there are certainly others.

The Soviets had an anti-armor grenade that was designed to be top attack. It had a shaped charge and was attached to a long ribbon that unfurled after the grenade was thrown and was meant to assure the proper orientation to get a penetration. I can't say for sure that it was the reason the Germans uparmored their vehicle tops, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Michael

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

It's especially notable that, after upping the armour to 15mm for the IVH, the designers decided that this wasn't enough, and upped it to 18mm for the IVJ. That's a lot of extra weight just to protect the turret from the occasional lucky 81mm mortar hit.

As I noted before, increased protection from air attack is one possibility for this armour increase, but there are certainly others.

The Soviets had an anti-armor grenade that was designed to be top attack. It had a shaped charge and was attached to a long ribbon that unfurled after the grenade was thrown and was meant to assure the proper orientation to get a penetration. I can't say for sure that it was the reason the Germans uparmored their vehicle tops, but it is worth keeping in mind.

Michael</font>

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

Michael[/qb]

The Germans had something like that also.

Can't 'memer the name right now.

Gyrene[/QB]

[wbs]

From Andreas:

Did you manage to dig that one out by any chance? I find that claim very hard to credit, too. A bit like the 'one bomb throws 3 T-34 through the air like Dinkytoys' claim.

Interestingly enough, if any of you read the first-person account of the war in the ETO that was done by "CRODA"'s grandfather-in law (the link was posted on another thread a few days ago--"To all the grogs I've loved before....." is the title of the thread), he was an eyewitness to two occasions where a US halftrack was blown completely into the air by a landmine. In one case the halftrack was blown something like 10 feet into the air, across a road, and into a ditch or field on the other side of the road.

Now, a halftrack isn't as heavy as a T-34, but I don't think that a landmine is as powerful as a large bomb, is it? If not, then perhaps tanks may have been blown over by bombs.....

[wbs]

From Yankee Dog

As future iterations of CM portray more and more of the early war period, this question of .50cal penetration from strafing planes becomes more important. The .50 cal was the primary armament for most US fighters for the entire war, but as noted above, tank top armour changed considerably. There were no Panthers in the North African Desert; in 1943 the PzIV was the best medium tank the Germans had available to them. In fact, this issue may come in to play in CM:BB with the Russian 12.7mm. I don't know how the 12.7mm compares to the US .50 in penetration, though.

This "Stafing from above" topic was discussed last night on the History Channel in a piece about the F-86 Sabre. It reported that special ground-attack F-86 units were created during the Korean War, and that many pilots transfered into the units since it gave them the opportunity to fly their jets low and fast and apparently, to the pilots, it was a hell of a lot of fun to do this.

It also reported that the F-86's were armed with 6 M-3 .50 Caliber machine guns, whereas I have seen elsewhere that the WWII .50 caliber was the M-2 version.

What is the difference between the two versions--muzzle speed? (and therefore penetration ability?)

When was the M-2 replaced by the M-3?

The piece did not really address the kinds of targets being attacked, so I don't know if they meant "Chinese/NK (in reality Soviet-made)tanks".

All they said was 'ground targets' and showed footage of the F-86's firing at roadways from quite a distance. The quality of the film, plus my small TV screen, made it impossible for me to determine the types of vehicles that were being attacked.

[ March 20, 2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Michael Emrys]

After the first year of the war, I can't recall reading or hearing anything about the Communist forces using armor. There were a wealth of soft targets for the flyboys to go after, however. In addition to trucks and trains, there were artillery emplacements, dumps, etc. One of my neighbors flew as the gunner on B-26s. I'll ask him next time I see him if there were any tanks around.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by wbs:

Interestingly enough, if any of you read the first-person account of the war in the ETO that was done by "CRODA"'s grandfather-in law (the link was posted on another thread a few days ago--"To all the grogs I've loved before....." is the title of the thread), he was an eyewitness to two occasions where a US halftrack was blown completely into the air by a landmine. In one case the halftrack was blown something like 10 feet into the air, across a road, and into a ditch or field on the other side of the road.

Now, a halftrack isn't as heavy as a T-34, but I don't think that a landmine is as powerful as a large bomb, is it? If not, then perhaps tanks may have been blown over by bombs.....

While the statement "landmines are not as powerful as a large bomb" is generally true, there are lots of different sizes of landmines. There's other issues, too - in the PTO and in Vietnam, it wasn't uncommon to improvise landmines using hand grenades, artillery shells, demo charges, or even aerial bombs. I've never read any accounts of this kind of improvisation being done in the ETO, but I would guess it was done at least to some extent - especially by the Germans towards the end of the war as supply lines crumbled and resources were short.

Having been in close proximity to a modest size explosion (in my case, a handbag full of plastique - not far off a small landmine), I can also relate from experience that being near an explosion does funny things to your head - you don't see or hear quite right in the moments immediately after the explosion. I wouldn't trust anything my eyes saw for about 20 sec. after being in an explosion. Then again, we don't know how close the witness was to the halftrack explosions above - I'd be more inclined to take the 10ft. figure as accurate if he was far enough away to not be affected by the blast wave himself.

There is also a physical reason why a less powerful landmine might throw a vehicle where a bomb exploding nearby might not. The fact that a landmine explodes directly under the vehicle means that the vehicle takes a lot more of the force of the explosion. Basically, the ground prevents the pressure wave created by the explosion from going anywhere but up and into the vehicle. The result is much more force applied (and damage caused) to the vehicle than would be cause by the same amount of explosive placed right next to the vehicle.

When a bomb explodes right next to a vehicle, the pressure wave can go in many more directions, so the amount of the overall force that the vehicle absorbs is less.

Nevertheless, I still suspect that a good sized aerial bomb could lift at least one tank up in the air a bit, or tip it over on it's side. I'm just guessing from the size of bomb craters that I've seen, but it seems that these bombs move an awful lot of dirt, so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to move a bunch of steel, too.

Cheers,

YD

[illo]

I was quite sure it was 1000kg bomb from stuka which i saw on that film tho(some east front document i think). I can't imagine anything else doing such thing. 3 T-34s were moving very fast and close to eachother (few meters in between) and suddenly huge amount of dirt was thrown in air in front of them flipping 2 t-34s over.

Anyway it would be 1000kg compared to 20kg AT mine.

T-34/76 model B weights about 27tons.

[ March 20, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: illo ]