Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

Drives me nuts how you can show hard evidence that something is true

What hard evidence?

 

Quote

things like balistics tests

Ballistics tests? What ballistics tests? I see plenty of unfounded assertions, but no tests.

 

Quote

personal testimony

In this context 'personal testimony' is essentially worthless, as any policeman will tell you. Flyboys will tell you whatever strokes their egos, and it is well known that their claims of shooting prowess are wildly inflated. 80+ year old flyboys will have some difficulty (note: massive understatement) remembering in detail something they think they saw fleetingly 40 years ago while trying not to crash or get shot down.

 

Quote

footage

That footage has been discussed numerous times. Take a long hard look at it. What is it ACTUALLY showing? Sweet fanny adams. A plane (of some sort) is shooting MGs (of some sort) at a target (of some sort) on a road. There are many hits on the ground around the nominal target, and probably some hits on the target. At one point there is a small explosion of sort sort, which seems to have been caused by a liquid fuel of some sort. A jerry can being punctured? A 44-gallon drum strapped on the back being punctured? A kerosene cooker or lantern being punctured? Maybe. Probably. In which case it would have done essentially no damage to the target if it were armoured. It could also have been the fuel tank of the target, which would have caused damage.

 

As for ricochets KO-ing Tigers, or the video showing "exactly that"; GTFO. Among many other things, an MG round is NOT going to ricochet off soft ground and the kinds of angles the planes approached at. If the ground were harder the round might ricochet, but would be horribly deformed and have transferred a significant fraction of its energy into the ground in an inelastic collision. At that point its armor piercing potential would be nugatory.

 

For the record, this book has numerous operational reports compiled during 1944 and 1945, several of which specifically look at the effects of air-ground weaponry on amoured targets, and includes detailed surveys of many battlefields where numerous tanks were destroyed. That is 'hard evidence', and not one of them mentions penetrations of the floor by MGs. This book is a detailed academic study of close air support in 1944-45, including the effects of different types of air-to-ground weapons (MGs, cannons, rockets, bombs). Not once is penetrations of the floor by MGs mentioned. I will take the analysis and results of those books, both based on the detailed inspection and survey of destroyed tanks, over the half-remembered reminisces of some old diggers in a heartbeat

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, JonS said:
58 minutes ago, JonS said:

What hard evidence?

 

 

Ballistics tests? What ballistics tests? I see plenty of unfounded assertions, but no tests.

 

 

In this context 'personal testimony' is essentially worthless, as any policeman will tell you. Flyboys will tell you whatever strokes their egos, and it is well known that their claims of shooting prowess are wildly inflated. 80+ year old flyboys have some difficulty remembering in detail something they think they saw fleetingly 40 years ago while trying not to crash or get shot down.

 

 

That footage has been discussed numerous times. Take a long hard look at it. What is it ACTUALLY showing? Sweet fanny adams. A plane (of some sort) is shooting MGs (of some sort) at a target (of some sort) on a road. There are many hits on the ground around the nominal target, and probably some hits on the target. There is an explosion of sort sort, which seems to have been caused by a liquid fuel of some sort. A jerry can being punctured? A 44-gallon drum strapped on the back being punctured? A kerosene cooker or lantern being punctured? Maybe. Probably. In which case it would have done essentially no damage to the target if it were armoured. It could also have been the fuel tank of the target, which would have caused damage.

 

As for ricochets KO-ing Tigers, or the video showing "exactly that"; GTFO. Among many other things, an MG round is NOT going to richochet off soft ground and the kinds of angles the planes approached at. If the ground were harder the round might richochet, but would be horribly deformed and have transferred a significant fraction of its energy into the ground in an inelastic collision. At that point its armor piercing potential would be nugatory.

 

For the record, this book has numerous operational reports compiled during 1944 and 1945, several of which specifically look at the effects of air-ground weaponry on amoured targets, and includes detailed surveys of many battlefields where numerous tanks were destroyed. That is 'hard evidence', and not one of them mentions penetrations of the floor by MGs. This book is a detailed academic study of close air support in 1944-45, including the effects of different types of air-to-ground weapons (MGs, cannons, rockets, bombs). Not once is penetrations of the floor by MGs mentioned. I will take the analysis and results of those books, both based on the detailed inspection and survey of destroyed tanks, over the half-remembered reminisces of some old diggers in a heartbeat

Ohh so you can come up with a more coherent retort then thats rubbish. the initial posting of that video wasnt even meant to prove the taking out a tiger it just so happened thats what they where shooting at. we where talking about pzIV and the turret mount, i made a remark that it wouldnt matter if the hatch was open or not cause if they get a direct hit they are screwed either way.

second, like i said you dont have to blow a tank into a pyre to kill it, much like the game counts a mobility kill as a kill. give me a 50 cal and a abrams tank as a target on the right side and i can disable that tank, cause i know its weak points. now if someone is shooting at it will they hit those weak points every time.....obviously not. but when your spraying something with 6 .50 cals you can get pretty lucky.

what i dont understand is why you posted a weak ass comment like thats rubbish and then proceed to insult me, so to me your opinion means nothing because you bought nothing to the table. 

 in this time of the war when they where doing these strafing runs the allies had absolute air superiority. all you had to do was make that thing stop moving and the crew would most likely have abandoned it because they had no way to recover these tank without risking another tank on a wide open road that is getting strafed all day. 

 was this common throughout the war, obviously not it was late war when the germans couldnt really do anything about it so the flyboys where just out there doing what they could to empty their mags and go home. what you saw in the video if you look close was initially they where taking out fuel tanks pulled by the tigers as he explained, on the last cam you can see what is a thunderbolt shooting at a tiger, he is walking his rounds to the lower portion of the tank because he wont do any damage to the turret side armor ext, he can however spray the engine compartment (which HAS to have ventilation every vehicle does) and walking down to the road wheels and idlers, is he garunteed to damage it, no. but he can cause significant damage and easily cause it to be undriveble without pulling track (which takes hours) or damaging driv sprockets / road wheels which take about a day to replace and yes they can get a golden bb and maybe cause some internal damage. i have seen this type of damage before so no report or book can tell me otherwise, its not the amount of books i read its my own personal experiences in a combat environment that let me know a .50cal can significantly damage immobilize and/or cause it to be unrepairable without pulling it back to a maintenance team, which is all they where trying to accomplish when they did this and all they really had to do.

all the gun cam footage is retrieved from the national archive which is cataloged cause they used this footage in ww2 so they know what was shooting and what it was shooting at they didnt just DL it off youtube.

The ballistics thing was from a different post i had awhile back not related to this and i apologize for that. its just similar in the idiotic responses and flame wars.

Thank you for demonstrating that you can write more than one sentence, i was beginning to thing you where more of a troll than someone who really had any knowledge to put into the subject, funny how that works huh.

And those report are likly to stat KO reports which is not what im talking about, a KO is absolute destruction of a vehicle, which isnt easy. it is however easy to disable a vehicle which is what im talking about here. AT THIS POINT THATS ALL THAT WAS NEEDED. they jut had to make the damn thing stop and there wasnt much the germans could do with the logistics issues they where facing to repair these vehicles and put them back in the fight so the crew would abandon/ destroy them so they didnt fall into enemy hands. hell there are real reports from the germans that if they heard planes in the area they would abandon the vehicles immediatly. that is just as good as destroying and is the point im trying to get across here NOT that by bouncing round off they can completly destroy a tank of any type but disable it and make it combat ineffective. and thats all im gonna say on this cause frankly im tired of this forum only reason i started coming back was to keep up to date on FB release.

 

Edited by iluvmy88
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

And those report are likly to stat KO reports which is not what im talking about, a KO is absolute destruction of a vehicle,

Instead of talking out of a hole in your ... uh, head, why not read the bloody things, instead of making yet more asinine assumptions? I trust you're familiar with the expression about what to do when you find yourself in a hole.

 

 

Quote

your opinion means nothing because you bought nothing to the table.

Well, when you're new to the table, it's not good manners to assume you have suddenly uncovered something earth shakingly new and then start babbling like we're all idiots. You haven't. We aren't. We've trod this ground. You're wrong.

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

Once again im reminded why i hate this forum, never said i was skilled or entirely knowledgeable in anything i just pointed to the evidence where people who are experts and the people who where there tell you what they did, sounds like you have a problem denying your own ineptitude unless you where there and have guncam footage to prove it otherwise your not as experienced as they are.

The problem you are having is, you are equating the words "internet forum" with "a bunch of dumb kids".

Just because this is a game forum, doesn't mean it's populated by pre-pubescent teenagers.

You're also equating "experience" with "expertise".

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JonS said:

Instead of talking out of a hole in your ... uh, head, why not read the bloody things, instead of making yet more asinine assumptions? I trust you're familiar with the expression about what to do when you find yourself in a hole.

 

 

Well, when you're new to the table, it's not good manners to assume you have suddenly uncovered something earth shakingly new and then start babbling like we're all idiots. You haven't. We aren't. We've trod this ground. You're wrong.

i never said anyone was an idiot, you sure did tho before mind you, you brought anything usefull to the table. i never said it was an earthshaking discovery sounds like your own ego is talking for you

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SLIM said:

C'mon guys, knock it off. Shake it out. Calm it down.

I can't agree more ....quit busting each others chops.. agree to disagree and let it be. @iluvmy88 don't hate or leave the forum ...you said you were a mechanic for 10 years in the army (think that's what you said). So was I ...only a different era. I was a 63B and a 63C, but that was way back when. Spent 3 yrs. 68 to 71 in the Army. One tour RVN. So stay here please.

@JonS Same with you. You also have contributed much and lots of experience. I enjoy reading everything that all you guys post, I just don't post to much myself.

Bottom line is ..it's a game forum, a game that tries to re-create real life. It's fun. Lets try to keep it that way. I know, boys will be boys, but dust yourselves off, shake hands and let it go. Please.

Regards,

Dennis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I certainly support @SLIM and @Dennis50 trying to get the tone of this thread back to civility, I have a small problem with the conclusion that they are both right. It seems to me that the whole .50 Cal ricocheting off the ground to kill tiger tanks has been handily refuted. The entire concept seems to be so questionable that I am not sure it really warrents a full dissection but @jons did any way. So, yes let's return to civility but let's also recognize that the myth is busted too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be nice.

However:

1. Massed MG fire was not a significant threat to tanks and tank-like targets.  

2. Aviation in general in the 1940-1960 or so range did not account for an especially large amount of armor.  

3. Aviation claims against armor are often astronomically higher than actual kills (mobility, firepower, or otherwise).

4. The ricochet thing is frankly urban legend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like seeing an old discussion to ease me back into befouling this forum with my presence.

As pointed out by others, the physics of the "ricocheting into belly armour" just does not add up at all.

First of all, the angle required to reliably bounce into the underbelly pretty much makes it impossible to penetrate any sheet of armoured steel. It is exceedingly unlikely to penetrate that plate after losing energy and shape in bouncing off the ground. Furthermore I cannot figure how anyone can expect this damaged and reduced in energy projectile to penetrate armour if it could not even bury itself into whatever ground surface the tank was standing on while it still had its original shape and energy.

As ever when it comes to the claims of airmen, it is perhaps best not to unquestioningly trust the testimony of someone who is observing events through a gunsight filled with tracers, smoke and dust while travelling several hundreds of kilometres per hour.

Edited by Elmar Bijlsma
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IanL said:

I am thinking you actually meant this:

More or less. In particular, I was referring to Matt Damon's line about P-51's being tank-busters. I remember almost falling out of my chair in laughter when I heard that quote. :D 

Edited by LukeFF
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a semi-related note, it is really a great study in how history gets away from facts.  The reality of what the various fighter-bomber efforts accomplished (and they did accomplish great effects), and what we've come to accept those results as (flaming Tigers scattered everywhere as a Tiffy or Thunderbolt does a leisurely barrel roll, assured of its success in winning against the Hun) is an interesting transition.  I recall a lot of the eye rolling at P-51s being "tankbusters" related more to that they were P-51s, not P-47s or Typhoons which were "in reality" the tank busters.

Which in no way denigrates the contribution of fighter bombers to victory in Europe.  It's just that victory was namely keeping the skies devoid of anything with a swastika, and endless columns of burning trucks, or hours spent by German tactical units trying to reassemble on the road after having to go to ground for the third time in 1 KM of roadmarch.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

More or less. In particular, I was referring to Matt Damon's line about P-51's being tank-busters. I remember almost falling out of my chair in laughter when I heard that quote. :D 

Oh I missed that. I thought you were going for the .45 blowing up the tank (or so it initially looked).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I recall a lot of the eye rolling at P-51s being "tankbusters" related more to that they were P-51s, not P-47s or Typhoons which were "in reality" the tank busters.

that never bothered me. I get that there are loads of P-51s around, but no Typhoons (not that Speilberg would have deined to have the British come to Ryan's rescue) and not many Thuds, so it makes sense to use Mustangs.

I did think the imagery of having mustangs/cavalry riding in to save the day in a last minute deus ex machina was a bit twee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JonS said:

 

I did think the imagery of having mustangs/cavalry riding in to save the day in a last minute deus ex machina was a bit twee.

Agreed. It cheapened the hard fought stand that climaxed the movie. Why set up a situation that requires the "heroes" to be rescued?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Yeah, it was just another of those dumb ideas that Hollywood finds eternally irresistible.

Michael

Imagine if this was as how it worked in a game:

You get a tough mission, you struggle to keep your units in one piece, or the pieces that remain of any usefulness, you wrack your brain to outwit and outfight your opponent. He beats you. You're about to quit when a flood of units appears, out of the blue. And wipes him off the map. 

That might be fun once. Or twice. Of if you're obsessed with win-lose ratios, but otherwise...yuk....

That is what this stuff does, and I really detest it. Lazy scriptwriting. 

Edited by Bud Backer
Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be the the pilot misspoke and was really trying to say was that it would go through the top hatches / upper deck and bounce around inside the tank. I doubt that a .50 could bounce through armor after hitting hard surface as well but how much more force does a .50cal round have when gravity and speed of the plane are are working in favor of the .50cal. Would that much more down force make a difference on the bullet?

Edited by user1000
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Masters of the Air the author ( will cite page after work)  notes during an early 8th AF rais meant for Lille but that hit St Omer gunners claimed 104 or so definite kills with another 84 probables. German losses that day according to actual German records? 2 planes. Of course this is air to air gunnery and not air to ground but I believe it shows a point. As the author astutely points out with more than one guy shooting at a target, being in combat conditions, and also things like German fightings turning over and diving in head on attacks when they broke off. ( which could appear to be a nose dive bc a hit and would also cause the engine to belch a puff of black smoke) with things like this happeing in the air i  can imagine even more scenarios that would make it seem a ground target was destroyed when it wasnt or the crew bailed until the jabos left. Btw thunderbolts had 8 .50 cals not 6. Also iluvmy88 everyone here is capable of mistakes. I specifically recall you telling someone ww2 arty couldnt perform Time on Target strikes, that that was only possible with paladins firing multiple times at different angles and charges. While its true thats how paladins do it its also true the ww2 arty was capable of doing it through different methods. Being wrong or corrected doesnt mean your stupid or being insulted and JonS and alot of the Commonwealth and Brit board members have a certain dry way of pointing out peoples errors. I really doubt its personal.

 Even Typhoons which probably were the absolute best tank busting aircraft probably have a sobering record of actual tanks killed or immobilized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 cal just was not effective against armor.  Full stop.  Simply because I've got the book beside me:

In the Korean War the USAF claimed the following:

1,256 NKPA tanks destroyed
1,298 Damaged

The Navy/USMC claimed an additional

286 Destroyed
161 Damaged

In reality there were a total of:

258 T-34/85s active in South Korea
80 SU-76s

Of those:

256 T-34/85 wrecks 
74 SU-76s wrecks

Were recovered by November 1950.

Of those tanks (I don't have ready numbers for the SU-76s) a whopping 27 were accounted for by aviation type weapons.  Another 63 or so were destroyed by causes unknown (which encompasses napalm, other catastrophic fires, or the tank frankly is enough wreckage to confirm it used to be a T-34, but no firm cause).  The majority were killed by US Armor, with aviation having only slightly better claims than artillery or bazookas.

While it's Korea, the T-34 wasn't magically better or worse armored than the Panzer IV let alone Tigers.  The weapons employed by US aviation in Korea were the same generally as Normandy minus napalm.  It's also helpful as all but two NKPA tanks were located and surveyed (the remaining two might be anything from remaining as a training tank in the DPRK, or falling off a bridge into a deep river or something).  For the claims made, the actual damage done to armor was minimal.  Aircraft strafing, unguided rockets, or "dumb" bombs are simply not that effective per attack attempted.

So yeah.  .50 cal was not a significant tank killer, fixed wing aviation prior to guided weapons had a very low success rate against AFVs and why are we still talking about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All this talk about pilots' exaggerated kill claims... I think I read somewhere that all planes had gun cams that would record while the trigger was pulled, and that the film would later be analysed by military intel in order to estimate damage. In that case, I don't see why they would even ask the pilots. Or did they only record gun footage in special circumstances?

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JonS said:

look again at the gun cam video that (re-)started this boondoggle. Can you really tell what the BDA should be? Really?

Never said I was a military intelligence analyst. My point was whether or not it should be up to the pilots themselves and their potentially inflated egos to assess their own impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...