German Tanks - MG-34s In Commander's Cupola?

[user1000]

My point was that mg-34 panzerlauf rounds shot from a tank cupola could easily cause major problems for a ground attacking P-51.

 

Or half-tracks, trucks, jeeps, troops, armored cars etc..

Edited March 25, 2016 by user1000

[Fizou]

On 24 mars 2016 at 8:59 PM, landser said:

Well, what he meant was that coolant lines would only run from the engine to the reservoir and radiator locations, and since they weren't located anywhere aft of the cockpit the coolant lines did not run through the entire plane. The point you are making is correct, but his correction is also correct

The chap has not been around long enough to learn that Emrys always is correct.

Edited March 25, 2016 by Fizou

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Fizou said:

The chap has not been around long enough to learn that Emrys always is correct.

Ah, it's so nice to have a following! 

Truth to tell though, Emrys is not always right. I have been caught now and then with my shorts down around my ankles, but I do work pretty hard to keep such embarrassing moments to a minimum. I take seriously my responsibility not to add any cockeyed misinformation to the discussion. There is already plenty of that.

Michael

[General Jack Ripper]

17 hours ago, user1000 said:

My point was that mg-34 panzerlauf rounds shot from a tank cupola could easily cause major problems for a ground attacking P-51.

Not exactly. Aircraft firing at ground targets have a much longer effective range due to their elevation, than ground fire does firing up against the aircraft. It's a function of slant range. As Ken said, ground fire was a deterrent, but not exactly as dangerous as dedicated Triple-A. It really was more of a morale booster for the guys on the ground, rather than an effective form of defense.

[Andrew H.]

I suppose this is only tangentially related - but here is an interesting link about self-sealing fuel tanks...including an experiment you can perform at home:

 

 

[user1000]

17 hours ago, SLIM said:

Not exactly. Aircraft firing at ground targets have a much longer effective range due to their elevation, than ground fire does firing up against the aircraft. It's a function of slant range. As Ken said, ground fire was a deterrent, but not exactly as dangerous as dedicated Triple-A. It really was more of a morale booster for the guys on the ground, rather than an effective form of defense.

You are wrong my naive friend.. Have a great day

Edited March 27, 2016 by user1000

[General Jack Ripper]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

You are wrong my naive friend.. Have a great day

Lovely counter-argument. Do you perform at children's birthday parties too?

Physics. Look it up, especially that part about gravity.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, user1000 said:

You are wrong my naive friend.. Have a great day

You know, this is the kind of attitude that can get you banned. Really.

Michael

[Panzerpanic]

6 hours ago, user1000 said:

You are wrong my naive friend.. Have a great day

Lets not forget that we are in  a discution between adults here so please act like on and if you have more argument then come back with facts and/or proofs not child-like comment like that. 

 

 

Also for that topic, i would say that the german thought that their 20mm wasnt enough against the air forces of the allied an wanted a bigger calliber is 37mm (and even trid 50mm) so that say a lot to the usefullness of the 7,92mm AAMG.

[RockinHarry]

An excerpt from "Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppe, Nr 17, November 1944" (information bulletin for the armored forces..) might be of interest. Translated just the introductory chapter from page 6. There´s 4 more pages on details about engaging aircraft from and with AFV weaponry. German readers can grab the bulletin directly here:

http://downloads.sturmpanzer.com/Documents/Nachrichtenblatt_der_Panzertruppen_1944.11.pdf

website overview: http://www.sturmpanzer.com/Default.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=620&item=3&sec=0

page 6

Air defense from armored fighting vehicles and tank hunters with guns and machine guns

The increased employment of tank hunter aircraft at all fronts, as well as the fact that AA units of the (ground) forces are oftenly non available, or because of equipment non capable to accompany tank attacks, necessitates the makeshift air defense from AFV and tank hunters respectively.
In this makeshift air defense it doesn´t depend on shooting down airplanes, but rather through strong fire with guns and machine guns to prevent aimed enemy bombing and strafing runs.
Furthermore, concentrated fire achieves hits on aircraft which can´t be observed from the ground; but requires the hit aircraft to go into maintenance, take spare parts and become inoperative for employment for a time.
This makeshift air defense only promises success for directly approaching or departing enemy aircraft. Every shooting at aircraft that do not attack directly, is a waste of ammunition. It is to take care that enemy tank hunting aircraft will attack from the rear in most cases.
...

[Michael Emrys]

On March 26, 2016 at 7:15 AM, SLIM said:

Not exactly. Aircraft firing at ground targets have a much longer effective range due to their elevation, than ground fire does firing up against the aircraft. It's a function of slant range. As Ken said, ground fire was a deterrent, but not exactly as dangerous as dedicated Triple-A. It really was more of a morale booster for the guys on the ground, rather than an effective form of defense.

In addition to this, which is a totally valid argument, the guns on the Allied strafing aircraft were either .50 caliber or 20mm (one possible exception: some of the Spitfires might have still been partially armed with rifle caliber MGs), both of which are longer ranged and more destructive than the rifle caliber MG34.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Looking at the photos of the mg mounted on the tank you get the impression it might've had some nominal anti-partisan utility as well. Not much use on the front line but it might dissuade people from throwing things down on your tank from building rooftops as you pass. A coax mg isn't of much use when the main gun's locked for road travel

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Generally most "AA Machine Guns" were not especially effective.  The idea was more or less than every tank in a company or something started shooting skyward that they might accomplish some hits, or at the least Strongly Encourage enemy aircraft to go elsewhere.  In practice, again, just not that effective.  Reasons follow:

1. LMG rounds were increasingly less effective against all aircraft regardless of mounts.  There's a reason you start to see less .303, .30 cal, 7.7 mm etc on aircraft is simply they weren't that effective at killing airplanes, even on platforms well designed for putting lead into airplanes.  .50 caliber arguably was the lowest end of reasonable anti-aircraft, and even that generally required a quad mount to be reasonably effective.

2. Most tank crews simply had limited to no experience shooting at airplanes.  Odds of even getting rounds off were very limited, let alone rounds off into the enemy airplanes.

3. While virtually all aircraft were subject to the "golden BB" effect, most of the airframe could take more than a few rifle caliber hits and simply continue on mission.  If you're spraying rifle caliber bullets in the course of a fighter, your odds of putting holes in nothing especially harmful are a lot higher than otherwise.

[Bulletpoint]

Not sure I understand why such tank-mounted machineguns would discourage or chase off enemy airplanes, if the ammunition was not effective?

Also not sure I understand why attacking aircraft would have a range advantage, since a MG42 has an effective range of more than 2 km? What distance/altitude did aircraft engage from? If more than 2 km, how could they even see the target?

 

By the way, I'm not attacking anyone's argument here, it's just that I genuinely don't understand

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

27 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Not sure I understand why such tank-mounted machineguns would discourage or chase off enemy airplanes, if the ammunition was not effective?

I would imagine that for an attacking pilot, any kind of tracer coming at you is gonna increase your pucker factor.

27 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Also not sure I understand why attacking aircraft would have a range advantage, since a MG42 has an effective range of more than 2 km? What distance/altitude did aircraft engage from? If more than 2 km, how could they even see the target?

By the way, I'm not attacking anyone's argument here, it's just that I genuinely don't understand

Okay, since you honestly say you don't understand, I'm gonna get pretty basic. This is for completeness—so far as I am capable of providing that—and not meant to insinuate that you are dumb, okay?

The reasons why attacking aircraft have a range advantage has mostly to do with gravity. The aircraft are firing downhill and gravity give them a slight boost. Contrarily, the defending MGs are firing uphill and as a result gravity is exacting a slight—or even not so slight—penalty. But more importantly, the MGs and cannon on the aircraft are larger caliber and have inherently longer range in most cases.

HTH

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

I would imagine that for an attacking pilot, any kind of tracer coming at you is gonna increase your pucker factor.

Okay, since you honestly say you don't understand, I'm gonna get pretty basic. This is for completeness—so far as I am capable of providing that—and not meant to insinuate that you are dumb, okay?

The reasons why attacking aircraft have a range advantage has mostly to do with gravity. The aircraft are firing downhill and gravity give them a slight boost. Contrarily, the defending MGs are firing uphill and as a result gravity is exacting a slight—or even not so slight—penalty. But more importantly, the MGs and cannon on the aircraft are larger caliber and have inherently longer range in most cases.

HTH

Michael

No offense taken, sometimes it's necessary to ask 'stupid' questions if we want to learn something. However, I know about gravity  The thing I don't understand is how longer range is an advantage in this case, because I assume an aircraft would need to get closer than 1000 metres anyway, in order to see and hit the target. Maybe this assumption is wrong?

Edit: Or maybe we could say 2000 metres. From what I read, an MG42 has an effective range of 2 km, and a max range of around 4.7 km.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

No offense taken, sometimes it's necessary to ask 'stupid' questions if we want to learn something.

Damn right!

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

However, I know about gravity  

Thought you might, but not know how it impacts on the current question.

2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

The thing I don't understand is how longer range is an advantage in this case, because I assume an aircraft would need to get closer than 1000 metres anyway, in order to see and hit the target. Maybe this assumption is wrong?

No, I don't think that assumption is at all wrong. But you may be underestimating how rapidly the energy of a bullet falls off when it is fired uphill.

But we need to not lose sight of some other important points here. Even if a bullet retains enough energy to do important damage to an aircraft, it has to strike that aircraft and it has to do so in a part where there is some kind of critical part. The MG on a vehicle such as a tank or truck is basically a handheld device. I will hazard the guess that during the war, such devices required between 1,000 and 10,000 rounds fired to gain a single hit. Even MGs in powered turrets required something in the lower part of that range with equipment that was optimized for that role and gunners who were specifically trained to do just that. So hitting a fast moving airplane with an MG is not at all a given. And even if you hit it, what are the odds that you will hit something vital? During the WW II era, airplanes were mostly just empty space. A bullet could pass right through and not do more damage than putting a hole in the skin. Granted that is going to increase the pilot's pucker factor and might cause him to abort the attack.

Another point we need to not lose sight of is that tanks were not the primary target for strafing attacks anyway...at least not for smart pilots. When they were going after tanks, they were mainly using bombs and rockets. As it turned out, tanks were hard to kill from the air even using bombs and rockets. Soft-skinned vehicles, on the other hand, were quite vulnerable and were meat on the table for the jabos.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks for the elaboration. I guess another factor is that when you're firing your MG at the aircraft, you're using your tracers to aim, but at what distance does the tracer burn out? At what distance does it become to faint to see, especially in daylight? Even more so with the sun in your eyes, if the aircraft attacks with the sun behind it. Heavier AA weapons would likely have bigger, more powerful tracers that burn longer - but this is speculation on my part.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[kensal]

I think that there are other factors as well to take into account in explaining why the effective range of an aircraft v turret mounted MG is greater than there other way round. The tank has one barrel and is firing at an object moving extremely quickly. Most ground attack aircraft would have been packing between 4-8 barrels, and almost certainly most of those barrels would have been of greater calibre.  I cannot think that anyone without a complete death wish would even contemplate facing it off with an aircraft coming straight at you. I might I suppose be inclined to have a crack at something quite close that is flying in a different direction but otherwise not.

[General Jack Ripper]

23 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The thing I don't understand is how longer range is an advantage in this case, because I assume an aircraft would need to get closer than 1000 metres anyway, in order to see and hit the target. Maybe this assumption is wrong?

Edit: Or maybe we could say 2000 metres. From what I read, an MG42 has an effective range of 2 km, and a max range of around 4.7 km.

From my own personal experience, a pilot can make out individual vehicles on the ground from a range of about 1.5 miles. Beyond that, you're looking at a bunch of tiny dots, unless you use a low power set of binoculars. The presence of a Forward Observer on the ground allows aircraft to start their attack from much further out, to the limits of their weapons effective range.

However hard it is for aircraft to spot ground targets, it's also hard for ground spotters to see aircraft, until they're relatively close.

I drew this up, using no maths whatsoever, but basically meant to show the concept.

Firing from the ground, a projectile will continue to climb, losing (9.8 M/s per second) of velocity due to gravity, and (Bullet Mass/Ballistic Coefficient - Air Density) or somesuch nonsense due to atmospheric friction. When it no longer has enough energy to defeat gravity, the projectile will no longer ascend, and when it has lost the energy to push through the air, it will simply fall to the ground at terminal velocity.

Aircraft have an advantage because, they usually fire a larger projectile with more energy, but also because gravity losses from the ground, are reversed, and become gravity additions. They also are fired into slightly less dense air, and lose less of their initial velocity due to air friction. They also start out with a higher than normal velocity, because the aircraft is already traveling a couple hundred miles an hour.

Rockets on the other hand, are propelled forward at a steadily increasing rate of acceleration, until their propellant is expended, whereby they transform into a ballistic projectile.

I'm sure someone with an actual physics degree can throw the maths into it, but I'm not a physicist, I'm a pilot, with a pilot's knowledge of physics.

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, SLIM said:

...I'm a pilot, with a pilot's knowledge of physics.

SLIM, would you mind my asking what do/did you fly? Most anything about aircraft fascinates me.

Michael

[iluvmy88]

On 3/24/2016 at 7:38 PM, RockinHarry said:

but as tank commander I would´ve prefered to close hatches and hope for the best...

 

hatches didnt really matter ground attack planes usually aimed to richote to the underbelly not hit the top armor. of course it doesnt hurt just saying they where screwed either way.

[user1000]

6 minutes ago, iluvmy88 said:

hatches didnt really matter ground attack planes usually aimed to richote to the underbelly not hit the top armor. of course it doesnt hurt just saying they where screwed either way.

A .50 cal is going to penetrate the soft upper decks of ANY German tank, very thin armor on top no ricochet needed..

 

German rifle and machine guns crippled and brought down US planes.. This was because the fact that the planes flew so slow at the time and had to get low to see objects on the ground making them an EASY target.

Edited April 1, 2016 by user1000

[iluvmy88]

There is a documentary on thunderbolts that has first hand testimony on theyre tactics which where to aim for a richote especially on tigers. often thy would be carrying fuel trailers and they would aim for those but thy said the easiest way to take out a tank was to tear up its underbelly

 

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, user1000 said:

A .50 cal is going to penetrate the soft upper decks of ANY German tank, very thin armor on top no ricochet needed..

 

In the game, even a Stug is safe from strafing... it can knock out optics and radio though.