.50's from above

[illo]

Yes rocket and bomb hits could throw tanks in air.

No question of those being effective. I've seen footage where 3 t-34s are thrown in air by blast of single 1000kg bomb from Stuka. Also i bet most of us have seen pictures of even Tigers upside down after airattack.

[ March 15, 2002, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Ozzy]

I am not a ballistics expert, but here are some rough ideas regarding the increased penetration of projectiles rate when fired from a moving gun.

Basically, penetration is the transformation of kinetic energy into thermic energy and material deformation energy. Hence the higher the kinetic energy, the higher the penetration chances.

The formula for kinetic energy is: E_kin=0.5*Mass*Velocity^2 (note the "^2")

Now an example: we assume the P-51 is traveling at 250 kph (more realistic for a strafing round).

v_0 = 250 kph = 70 m/s

and fires an automatic weapon (whatever this may be), which a BASIC muzzle velocity of

v_1 = 2000 kph = 555 m/s

Of course the flying speed is added to the basic muzzle velocity, as it is an additional velocity component viewing from target being static on the ground.

The rest of the projectile properties (such as mass and shape) do not differ, hence we have an additional kinetic energy of:

(v_0 + v_1)^2 / (v_O)^2 = 1.27

hence a 27% higher kinetic energy.

Now, of course the projectile suffers air drag. A body in a vortex does not see any difference if he is moving trough calm air or if he is static and the air flows - the effects are the same.

For projectiles - due to their shape - we have only air friction effects. The energy losses due to friction drag are also a function of Velocity^2. Hence the initial drag FORCE is basically also 27% higher. But important is the ENERGY loss, which depends on the distance between muzzle and target. Additionally, projectiles mostly have supersonic velocities, which complicates the calculation pretty much.

However, in this example I would estimate that a projectile fired at a distance of <500 meters would still have a 10-15% increased penetration chance, which is not that bad.

Now, after all that - what does that help us in CM :confused:

[wbs]

From Charlie Rock:

If you can convince me that Tony Williams knows more about .50 cals than the US Army, OK.

I do not know anything about Tony Williams, but I would point out that there are tens of thousands of "Tony Williams" (i.e. specialists in their fields) who have taught the army most of what it knows on most subjects. They may be DOD civilian experts, highly specialized consultants who work for a "beltway bandit", or university professors who run experiments on various topics at the request of the army.

So, although I do not know Tony Williams or his background I would think that, as a specialist in the field, it is QUITE possible that he knows more than the Army, in general, does IN THAT FIELD.

[ March 15, 2002, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: wbs ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by wbs:

So, although I do not know Tony Williams or his background I would think that, as a specialist in the field, it is QUITE possible that he knows more than the Army, in general, does IN THAT FIELD.

I have read a lot of Tony's contributions to various military newsgroups, and though I would not claim that he is infallible, he is usually quite well informed. I've certainly gained from reading his posts.

Michael

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

Personally, I would not go around contradicting pilots who saw things with their own eyes, years before I was born.

Why not? It is a truth universally acknowledged that pilots have always been lying egotistical sociopaths.

This is why they avoid anything like hard work with all their beds and sheets, fine wines, good food, flying pay etc...

I have not let my experience as an embittered ex-infantryman colour my perceptions in this regard.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Determinant:

I have not let my experience as an embittered ex-infantryman colour my perceptions in this regard.

There you have it, the very apex of objectivity!

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Theirs an account in Parkers To Win The Winter Sky from an Panther TC IIRC that tells of being caught on the road by US Fighters that made continous strafeing runs on his Panther.

Basicly he said IIRC they sat their buttoned up till the US planes got bored strafeing, & then drove away.

Regards, John Waters

John you're back, send me an email old chap.

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by Determinant:

I have not let my experience as an embittered ex-infantryman colour my perceptions [regarding pilots].

I know an old ship-driver who used to say, "I don't begrudge [pilots] their flight pay... it's the rest of their pay they don't deserve..."

Agua Perdido

[JonS]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

...Let's assume, for argument's sake, an AP round is 30% more effective than ball. Now we are at about 30mm penetration. If a P-47 fired a one second burst, that is 80 rounds. If at close range, half did not miss left or right, you might have as many as 40 (50%) ricocheting under the tank. 1 in 5 rounds would be tracer, so assume 32 rounds have AP capability. Let's say that half the kinetic energy was absorbed by the ground, so we now have 32 rounds which can penetrate 15 mm, as opposed to 30mm. If the rounds are glancing against the underbelly, probably won't penetrate. If a couple bounce upward at a sharp angle, it would be close. (near 90 degree penetration against the underbelly) As few as three or four rounds zinging around in a turret could cause a lot of damage. I would say with a great deal of luck and a great deal of ammo it would be possible. Occasionally. Not the most efficient method, but possible.

What percentage decrease in penetrating-ability do you think would be caused by the deformation of the projectiles shape due to ricocheting against a hard surface?

Regards

JonS

Edit: the usual suspects

[ March 15, 2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[YankeeDog]

Ozzy - Thank you for your response. I assumed that the relation between velocity and armour penetration would be a very complex one, but at least your post gives me an idea of where to start. One would think that the US army would have done real-world testing on the AP capability of the .50cal ball round at different velocities at some point. When I am old and retired and I have lots of spare time, I will make finding this data my personal quest.

I have one minor issue with your calculations, though: 250kph is a very slow flight speed for a high-performance piston aircraft like a P-51. 250kph is approximately equivalent to 160mph. I am working without hard data in front of me, but this is probably way too slow for a strafing run for a plane like a P-51. A Cessna 210RC (a much more pedestrian single-engine piston plane I am more familiar with) has a stall speed with the flaps up of around 100mph. A high-performance aircraft like the P-51 would have a stall speed substantially higher than a civilian plane like the 210.

Furthermore, airplanes' handling characteristics begin to fall off substantially above stall speed. This is especially true for high-performance aircraft. Basically, they get "mushy" and don't respond to control input very well - this is probably what happened to that chinese fighter that hit the USN E-3 last year.

A pilot on a strafing run would want to make sure that he was carrying enough speed into the strafing run that he would not get anywhere near stall speed on the pull-out. If he's moving at 160mph during the attack portion of the strafing run, I would wager that he would come dangerously close to stall speed on the pull-out. I would be very surprised if a WWII fighter jock would feel comfortable making a strafing run at 160mph. In fact, as the plane presumably would be in a shallow dive, it would actually be difficult to keep the P-51 moving that slow without cutting the engine way back and "dirtying up" the airframe by lowering the flaps. WWII fighter jocks hated to cut their throttles too much - it took time for those big piston engines to rev up again to full power. A P-51 might be flying slower than my figure of 300mph on a strafing run, but I really doubt 160mph.

OTOH, I have read accounts of fighter pilots in the Pacific flying P-38s acutally lowering the flaps on a strafing run and applying maximum power at the same time. The flaps create a lot of drag, so this would result in a slower speed, which means more time over the target, and therefore more bullets into the target. At the end of the run, the pilot raises the flaps. Since the engine (or engines in the case of a P-38) are already generating maximum thrust, the plane then gains airspeed very rapidly.

Since lowering the flaps also generates a lot more lift, the pilot also has to lower the nose in order to keep the plane flying level. In this way, the plane could be made to fly with the nose pointed at the ground, but maintain a constant altitude. Apparently, this was especially useful for surprise strafing attacks on fixed targets like airfields since the pilot could make his approach low and unseen, rather than starting at a higher altitude and making a shallow dive on the target to strafe it. I have no idea if this tactic was ever used in the ETO. It would only really be useful against fixed targets of known location, though - while the target can't see the plane approaching, neither can the pilot see the target until he's right on top of it. Not good for a moving target like a tank column - even a change in position of a couple of dozen meters means the pilot strafes empty road.

It's also worth noting that giving full power to a plane with it's flaps down in level flight is very bad for the airframe. I bet the maintainence crews loved the fighter jock who thought up that tactic.

Once, again, thanks for your input. If your figure of 10-15% additional penetration for 250kph is true, then I would think it quite possible that the 16mm top armour on a Panther could potentially be vulnerable to .50 cal fire from a strafing plane under the right conditions, even assuming that the 23mm penetration figure above is for a modern .50 SLAP round at 90 degrees. After all, you only need a 1% penetration probability or so to be dangerous when you're spraying 3,000 rounds/min at the target. If one round hits on a slightly weaker point on the armour, it's going to be pinging around the interior of that Panther like a pinball.

This "data" is by no means conclusive, of course. But I think it shows that there is enough evidence that .50 cal rounds from strafing planes might be dangerous to some heavier tanks like Pz IVs and Panthers (though probably not Tigers) to merit further examination. This is certainly something that could be important to future iterations of CM, especially when you consider that a future CM that included the North African campaign would see .50cal-equipped fighters strafing earlier generations of Axis armour with even thinner top armour. Figuring out exactly when and how often those bullets would penetrate could be pretty important to resolving those strafing attacks more realistically.

The other thing to consider is that this same phenomenon (i.e., the AP-increasing effect of platform speed) would also be a factor in heavier aircraft mounted automatic weapons like the 20mms on various German, Russian and British fighters, and the 37mms on the IL-2. The British also did some versions of the Mosquito with automatic weaponry above 20mm. IIRC these were mostly used in the North Sea against marine targets, though.

Hmmm. . . this sounds like a good first research project in the long road toward Groghood. After all, one must have something to aspire towards.

Cheers,

YD

[edited for stupid typing mistakes]

[ March 15, 2002, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Michael Emrys]

YD, if I may make a suggestion, you might consider beginning your researches by reading the reports of Allied teams who examined the hulks of abandoned Axis vehicles and determined (in most cases) the cause of their loss.

The next direction your investigation might take would be to comb the maintenence records of the various units to see what kinds of damage and from what causes are reported.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

YD, if I may make a suggestion, you might consider beginning your researches by reading the reports of Allied teams who examined the hulks of abandoned Axis vehicles and determined (in most cases) the cause of their loss.

The next direction your investigation might take would be to comb the maintenence records of the various units to see what kinds of damage and from what causes are reported.

Michael

Excellent suggestion. My old high school biology teacher always said that it's important to reconcile your "in vitro" data from the lab with "in vivo" data from the real world - if they don't match, you know there's something you didn't take into account

[gunnergoz]

Which version of the Stuka could carry a "1000 kg" bomb? IIRC the Stuka carried a much smaller payload, on the order of 500kg or so. Can any aero-grogs illuminate my murkyness?

[Caesar]

I think people are overestimating the number of bullets on target. If you have a plane doing a strafing run at 300mph (~500kmph) with 8 MGs firing at 850 rpm firing at a 6m long target, then you are going to hit it with about 5 - 6 rounds (assuming my maths is correct - not necessarily a good assumption ) This is hardly enough hits to get too hopeful about hitting the weak spots IMHO.

As for the idea of knocking out a tank by bouncing the bullet off the pavement, think how far apart the bullets are striking the ground at that speed and what the odds are that you would manage to get even one to skip get under the attack and hit a weak spot. You would have infinitely more chance achieving the same hit with a ground based MG in a high building. Not only that, to get the bullet to skip it is going to have to be on a fairly extreme angle and thus the chances of penetration are going to be practically Nill.

Admittedly all my maths is based on (what sounds like to me) a very high strafing speed. Even if you drop the speed to say 200mph, you still only hit with ~10 rounds (and this is assuming that you can hit with all 8 guns - how like that is I don't know)

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Caesar:

I think people are overestimating the number of bullets on target. If you have a plane doing a strafing run at 300mph (~500kmph) with 8 MGs firing at 850 rpm firing at a 6m long target, then you are going to hit it with about 5 - 6 rounds (assuming my maths is correct - not necessarily a good assumption ) This is hardly enough hits to get too hopeful about hitting the weak spots IMHO.

I haven't checked your math, but I have seen plenty of gun camera footage from planes strafing tanks or similar-sized targets (like other planes on the ground, etc.) that clearly show more than 5-6 rounds hitting the target over the length of the strafing run, and you can only see the tracer rounds clearly in these reels.

Our difference of opinion may stem from the fact that there are actually several different methods used in strafing attacks. One, which is commonly seen in movies, involves "walking" the fire along the ground in a more or less straight line across a target area. This tactic was commonly employed against soft targets like troops, or installations like airfields where there were lots of targets in an area. In this type of attack, a target the size of a tank would only be in the line of fire for a fraction of a second, probably resulting in an actual hit total somewhere around the 5-6 you mention.

Pilots could also focus their strafing attack at one point on the ground by strafing while in a shallow dive. Obviously, this type of attack covered a smaller area, but focused the firepower more. There's lots of footage of this type of attack against ships in the PTO and locomotives in the ETO. The History Channel seems to drag it out every time they do another WWII aviation documentary. While a high proportion of rounds would still go astray, this type of attack would certainly result in a hit total higher than 5-6. In after attack photos of locomotives subjected to strafing attacks, the locomotive looks like some sort of giant cylindrical strainer. Granted, a locomotive is bigger than a tank, but only by perhaps 2-3 times, and there were definitely more than 18 hits on those locomotives.

I'm still unconvinced that enough .50cal rounds would hit a Panther and that these rounds would have a high enough chance of penetration to give a significant chance of KOing the tank, but I think it is possible and therefore worthy of further investigation. I don't think the knockout chance needs to be very high to be worth modeling in the game - if the chance of KOing a given tank in a strafing run were higher than 1 out of every 100 strafing runs, then I think the knockout chance is significant enough to be modeled. After all, we all try to get lucky hits with Stuarts on Panthers at about these odds.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Which version of the Stuka could carry a "1000 kg" bomb? IIRC the Stuka carried a much smaller payload, on the order of 500kg or so. Can any aero-grogs illuminate my murkyness?

Stuka's were capable of carrying varying bombload weights Ie, the JU87D-1 could carry an 2,205lb, 1,102lb, or 551lb bomb under the fusalage as well as 4 110lb bombs under the wings etc.

Load was basicly determined by range to target Ie, long range meant lighter payload while short range enabled heavier payloads.

Regards, John Waters

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I'm still unconvinced that enough .50cal rounds would hit a Panther and that these rounds would have a high enough chance of penetration to give a significant chance of KOing the tank, but I think it is possible and therefore worthy of further investigation. I don't think the knockout chance needs to be very high to be worth modeling in the game - if the chance of KOing a given tank in a strafing run were higher than 1 out of every 100 strafing runs, then I think the knockout chance is significant enough to be modeled. After all, we all try to get lucky hits with Stuarts on Panthers at about these odds.

While I have been arguing strenuously against the notion of getting .50 kills on tanks using bank shots off the ground, I do not believe it beyond all possibility to get kills, or at least force abandonments, by strafing. Somebody has already mentioned getting into the engine compartment through airvents, exhaust trunking, etc. There were probably other weak spots that could get exploited with a lucky shot. But I think I would disagree with the probability you assign. It is the conviction of many players that in CMBO an entirely ahistorical percentage of kills are being scored by 37mm guns finding "weak spots" in the opposing armor. Let's not create another Frankenstein's Monster. You suggest a figure of one strafing run out of a hundred. I would counter with one out of 10,000. Probably, as usual, the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Michael

[ March 16, 2002, 02:41 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[illo]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Which version of the Stuka could carry a "1000 kg" bomb? IIRC the Stuka carried a much smaller payload, on the order of 500kg or so. Can any aero-grogs illuminate my murkyness?

Ju 87B-2

Ju 87D-1

Ju-87D-3

Ju 87D-4

Ju 87D-5

Ju 87D-7

Ju 87D-8

to name few.

[Caesar]

Yankee Dog, the locamotive is not really a good comparison as from what I've seen, they would fly low attacking the side on a slight angle walking the fire down the side. Doing this means they could hit continuously with all 8 guns (~6800 RPM in total). Small wonder it looked like a collander, you've gotta love that sort of firepower.

OTOH I do take your point that by altering the angle of the plan to the ground, they would be able to put many more bullets on target. My maths doesn't take into account the height of the vehicle either that would increase the number of bullets hitting (though these would not be diflecting off the ground to hit the weak underside). However, even with these increases I still think the odds of such a knock out would be negligible.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by illo:

Yes rocket and bomb hits could throw tanks in air.

No question of those being effective. I've seen footage where 3 t-34s are thrown in air by blast of single 1000kg bomb from Stuka. Also i bet most of us have seen pictures of even Tigers upside down after airattack.

Interestingly General der Flieger Deichmann in his 1950s monograph for the US Air Force 'Spearhead for the Blitzkrieg - Luftwaffe Operations in Support of the Army 1939-1945' says that bombs were almost useless against tanks. He is talking about 1,100lb (500kg) bombs, and states that they needed to detonate within 12ft (~4m) of the tank to incapacitate it. He also states that if the bomb did not detonate above the ground, even such a near miss was unlikely to damage the tank. So I am a bit doubtful about what exactly the footage you talk about shows. I somehow find it hard to correlate it and the statements made by Deichmann.

All this BTW led to the development of special HC cluster munitions, and Stukas with 37mm guns. Those worked, bombs did not is the conclusion by General Deichmann.

The upside down Tigers are also an interesting case, since we don't know if they were turned over by air attacks (some probably turned over when they were pushed aside after the attack), or what kind of air attack (the carpet bombing that hit the German positions south of Caen may have done that. A single bomb from a Thunderbolt probably did not.)

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

While I have been arguing strenuously against the notion of getting .50 kills on tanks using bank shots off the ground, I do not believe it beyond all possibility to get kills, or at least force abandonments, by strafing. Somebody has already mentioned getting into the engine compartment through airvents, exhaust trunking, etc. There were probably other weak spots that could get exploited with a lucky shot. But I think I would disagree with the probability you assign. It is the conviction of many players that in CMBO an entirely ahistorical percentage of kills are being scored by 37mm guns finding "weak spots" in the opposing armor. Let's not create another Frankenstein's Monster. You suggest a figure of one strafing run out of a hundred. I would counter with one out of 10,000. Probably, as usual, the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Michael

Maybe I was a little unclear in my wording. What I am saying is that if further research and data supports the idea that a strafing run by a given fighter against a given AFV has at least a 1 in 100 chance of damaging or KOing the tank, then it's a probability worth including in the game. I don't actually have any idea what a realistic kill/damage percentage would be.

Remember we have a couple of different 20mm and 37mm guns to deal with here in addition to the .50cal, and we have lots of different AFVs to look at, especially on the Eastern Front. I don't think anyone would argue that most (indeed, perhaps all) AFVs are at least somewhat vulnerable to the 37mm from above. Where the vulnerability/invulnerability line lies with the .50 cal and the 20mm is unknown at this point, at least to those of us engaging in this disucussion.

I think everyone who has posted on this thread would agree that you can't simply use the kill/damage chance for the ground version of a given weapon, multiply by the number of mounts on the plane, and use this number to resolve the attack. There are some factors such as angle of attack (i.e., chance of hitting thin top armour) and velocity of the platform which would clearly increase the kill power of an aircraft mounted MG. OTOH, there may be other factors such as range (exactly how close can a pilot get to a ground target before he has to pull up??) that would actually effetively decrease the kill power. Who knows??

I think it's interesting (and unresolved) enough to look at in more detail. I've always been very interested in military aviation. In fact, before I started playing CM:BO, I knew a fair amount about the WWII battles in the air, but knew relatively little about the ground fighting.

There's a lot of questions that would need to be answered to resolve this issue. Some of these questions are qualitative in nature, like the additional penetration afforded by the velocity of the plane, and some are quantitative, like how many tanks were actually reported as KOed or at least damaged by air attack at various times in the war, and what evidence there is as to what type of airframe-mounted weapon knocked these tanks out.

It's a complicated issue, but to me it's interesting. Any conclusions might or might not be relevant to CM.

I don't think there's much danger of creating another "Frankenstein Monster" ala unrealistic (and arguably gamey) use of Stuarts to try for weak point hits on Tigers. We've all seen gun camera footage of planes strafing tanks, and there's plenty of enecdotal evidence from both fighter pilots and tankers alike, so there's no doubt that this type of attack really happened. Since air attacks are not controllable in CM (and I am certainly NOT advocating changing this!!), the player can't force a fighter/bomber to attack a tank in the hopes of a lucky weak point hit. If the plane shows up, and If the planes actually sees and attacks the AFV, then whatever kill/damage chance there was would come in to play. Against some AFVs with thin tops, strafing kills with .50cal/20mms would probably be frequent. Against others with thicker top armour, the kill chance might be so small that it wouldn't be worth calculating. In my view, the effect on gameplay would be more like the chance of Off-Board artillery scoring a direct hit on AFVs: Sometimes it happens, usually it doesn't. What the player can do to control it is very limited.

I really doubt many players would end up buying lots of Fighter/Bombers in QBs in the hopes that they would take out the opponent's armour with strafing attacks - it's WAY too much of a gamble, even if the actual kill chance is actually significantly higher than any of us thinks.

Caesar: Point taken; strafing tanks is different than strafing locomotives. I still think more than 5-6 rounds are going to hit the tank. This, of course, would have to be researched and verified, too.

We do agree on this: I don't put much stock in the idea of an underbelly penetration by skipped .50 rounds, either - I suspect the round would just loose too much energy on the ricochet to have any chance of penetrating the underplate. I'll have to look in to it, though. Maybe there is some element of the tank's suspension or drivetrain that is particularly vulnerable to fire from this angle. In the CM world, if tanks were immobilized even temporarily by this kind of fire, the effect on gameplay would be substantial. Clearly, some pilots thought they could damage tanks this way and attacked accordingly, so it's worth looking in to.

An interesting discussion, in any event,

Cheers,

YD

[Determinant]

If strafing with HMGs was so effective then why the perceived need to fit aircraft with cannon to attack armour?

Bouncing rounds off the ground? Laughable.

Reminds me of Wilson's quote from Allied tankers along the lines of: Panthers: bounce the round off the bottom of the gun mantlet; Tigers: put the round through the driver's periscope.

Think of the Stuka variant on the Eastern Front with (if memory serves me right) a 37mm cannon and the Hurricane variant in the Western Desert(40mm gun?). In modern times of course we have the honourable example of the Warthog with the GAU-8. Not a .50 cal gatling by any means.

MMG/HMG fire from aircraft is almost always going to be ineffective against armoured targets.

All the gun camera footage that I have seen on those 'weapons of WWII' schlok TV programmes always makes me think of 'spray and pray'. There's no finesse there at all.

Aircraft are after all just soft skinned vehicles. Being fast and airborne didn't make them bullet proof - in the period even small arms fire could bring them down. Little wonder that they were mainly used to interdict LOCs rather than shooting optimistically at hard targets in the abrasive environment of the front lines.

[Michael Emrys]

FWIW, I concur with Determinant. Almost all MG fire against tanks and similarly heavily armored vehicles should be regarded as harrassment fire with almost no chance of doing significant physical damage, i.e. preventing the vehicle from completing its mission. It might have some suppressive or distracting effect against an otherwise engaged vehicle and should certainly cause it to button up. It might well cause casualties to a crew in an unbuttoned vehicle.

Battlefield analysis showed that the most effective utilization of airpower against armor was not to attack the armor directly, but the soft-skinned vehicles that supported them. These were very vulnerable to attack by almost any weapon.

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

Field manuals I have seen relate that a .50 cal round can go through one inch of steel plate at 90 degrees, inside 200 meters. I would guess an AP round would go through a bit more. AP rounds were not to my knowledge that common in ground mount .50s, but anecdotally I have heard that they were more common in aircraft, especially if you were hunting against tanks.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, an AP round is 30% more effective than ball. Now we are at about 30mm penetration. If a P-47 fired a one second burst, that is 80 rounds. If at close range, half did not miss left or right, you might have as many as 40 (50%) ricocheting under the tank. 1 in 5 rounds would be tracer, so assume 32 rounds have AP capability. Let's say that half the kinetic energy was absorbed by the ground, so we now have 32 rounds which can penetrate 15 mm, as opposed to 30mm. If the rounds are glancing against the underbelly, probably won't penetrate. If a couple bounce upward at a sharp angle, it would be close. (near 90 degree penetration against the underbelly) As few as three or four rounds zinging around in a turret could cause a lot of damage. I would say with a great deal of luck and a great deal of ammo it would be possible. Occasionally. Not the most efficient method, but possible.

I would think a high angle pass against the engine deck would be more effective, without ricochet trick shooting.

Personally, I would not go around contradicting pilots who saw things with their own eyes, years before I was born.

.50cal cartridges used today are not the same as those used during the 1940s.

I will question old veterans if there stories do not square with the stories of other veterans. I will be especially sceptical when research carried out during the war state the complete opposite to the efficacy of all types of ‘HMG to 23mm kills’ of tanks. The difficulties in killing tanks from the air drove the Germans to go to 3cm/3,7cm shooting tungsten sub calibre shot or the silly experiments with a full powered 7,5cm PaK and the eventual adoption of inaccurate 8,8cm rockets. The Russians on the other had pushed forward to 3,7ccm and 4,5cm guns while reverse engineering the German cluster bombs to anti tank bomblets and continued to use the highly inaccurate rockets.

I love the idea that if a person said its true than it must be. Interesting in the light of continued misidentification of all German tanks as tigers and all German guns as 88s throughout the war but since they were there and ‘saw it with their own eyes’ and ‘saw it before I was born’ apparently they are correct. Ambrose style history magnificent.

[Ex 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?