Saving Private Ryan - Tank Busters

[DAVIDICUS]

I can see why there is such a misconception regarding this issue. Plan_D said, "At 880 m/s with a 50% decrease in energy it would be around 400 m/s when hitting the tank."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lets go back to Ballistics 101.

If a round loses 50% of it's energy, that is not equivalent to losing 50% of its velocity. Remember this rule of thumb. Double the mass, double the energy. Double the velocity, quadruple the energy. A loss of 50% velocity is thus a much, much greater than 50% loss of energy.

As for the actual velocity of a round that has ricocheted up onto the surface of the belly of a tank, consider this:

The round will lose velocity as it travels en route to the ground. It will then lose an enormous amount more after striking the ground. The greater the angle upwards, the more velocity that will be lost. The round then, whether or not rendered flat will be deformed and no longer be flying true along its concentric axis.

This same round, now slowed down quite a bit, and which is flattened to some degree will strike "sideways" to some degree. Thus, it's remaining energy will be transmitted over a much larger area than had it just struck the tank outright.

No, several slow rounds striking at different locations at different angles in various states deformity and in various states of "sideways" flight will not penetrate 25mm of hardened armor plate.

[wmaxt]

The accounts I've read mention the rounds going into the intake and cooling systems. This was to cause fire/overheating resulting in the evacuation of the crew and allowing them to be shot at. Armor was never claimed to be penetrated.

wmaxt

[plan_D]

No one round would. Go back to basics of engineering, you lose the structure, you lose your strength. Those lumps of lead will be denting the tank with every hit. The dents weaken the structure of the armour. Many dents across the whole under-side of the tank, when another aircraft comes by and does the same it happens again, the armour weakens, another aircraft passes over the same tank and does it again, the armour weakens. So on and so forth, eventually the armour is going to collapse.

You could do it simple with a sheet of metal and get a screw driver, hold it loosely in your hand and bash the point against it. Eventually after many hits against the repeatedly dented metal will crunch.

Also, what are we considering penertration? In Soviet reports 75% of splinters would determine penertration, in German it was 50%...I don't know what Allied was.

Anyway, it's weakened....weakened....weakened....and eventually a hole appears...that hole has severely weakened the structure which will collapse after several more hits. I'm not saying this happened often, I imagine against one of Germanys Animal Tanks it would take a hell of a lot but it could happen.

[DAVIDICUS]

I assume that by "Anyway, it's weakened....weakened....weakened...." you are referring to your argument as this thread progresses.

[plan_D]

You're hilarious, Davidicus.

[Soren]

Secondly, it doesn't lose 80% of it's energy. At most it loses around 50 - 60% of it's energy.

Plan_D I repeat myself; The energy lost upon striking the hard pavement is atleast around 80%. Note that the projectiles path is totally disturbed by striking the pavement, resulting in a massive energy loss.

Thirdly, depending on the angle the round has it, it wouldn't always be flat.

Trust me, it will be virtually "flat" in shape ! Think about it, the round smashes into hard pavement with a force of around 50,000 joules ! (If that doesn't leave a round mostly blunt, then what will ? )

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

I can see why there is such a misconception regarding this issue. Plan_D said, "At 880 m/s with a 50% decrease in energy it would be around 400 m/s when hitting the tank."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Lets go back to Ballistics 101.

If a round loses 50% of it's energy, that is not equivalent to losing 50% of its velocity. Remember this rule of thumb. Double the mass, double the energy. Double the velocity, quadruple the energy. A loss of 50% velocity is thus a much, much greater than 50% loss of energy.

As for the actual velocity of a round that has ricocheted up onto the surface of the belly of a tank, consider this:

The round will lose velocity as it travels en route to the ground. It will then lose an enormous amount more after striking the ground. The greater the angle upwards, the more velocity that will be lost. The round then, whether or not rendered completly flat will be deformed and no longer be flying true along its concentric axis.

This same round, now slowed down quite a bit, and which is flattened to some degree will strike "sideways" to some degree. Thus, it's remaining energy will be transmitted over a much larger area than had it just struck the tank outright.

No, several slow rounds striking at different locations at different angles in various states deformity and in various states of "sideways" flight will not penetrate 25mm of hardened armor plate.

DAVIDICUS, while your repeating my point, you are absolutely right !

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I think it is you.

A ricochet round is unpredictable, it is not light. The rounds will not be going in at 30 degrees and coming out at 30 degrees. If you had any clue about guns you would know that a ricochet is unpredictable.

The under-side of a tank is a small area. The tracks on either side of the area I am refering to make sure that all rounds will hit the tank in some place.

Who ever stated that the round would always be hitting the ground at 30 degrees anyway. It depends on the angle the aircraft is coming in at and also that he is spraying as he goes down and pulls up.
I never stated that it would happen in one single pass, armour doesn't heal itself. On the field of battle any damage sustained will be there until the end.

Now, calm that red face down, straighten your ponytail and push up your glasses and use your grey matter.

The only one that is doing what you describe is you p_D.

My dad has a steel plate ~8" square x 1" thick that has been pounded on for at least 40 years. Guess what? There is not one hole in it and not even any spalling. Lots of very small indentations though.

The underside of a Tiger is NOT a small area being ~91sqft.

If you had a clue, it was an example of an impact angle on the tank's belly.

[Soren]

A simple illustration.

[lesofprimus]

All ur graphs and stats and theorms and equations mean jack shiit to me... A pilots opinion/belief/action report means more to me than 30 of those damn graphs...

And BTW, that one above is the gayest thing ive seen in a long long time.... 45 degree angle of attack is a dive... Most of these guys werent diving into the tank.... Gliding was the attack profile more readily used....

And lets say for arguments sake that the shell did not bounce off the road, but off the inside of the track mechanism.... At a 12 degree angle.......

Blah Blah Blah u guys just beat a topic to death.....

[DAVIDICUS]

Well, I happen to know Jack Shiit and he most certainly was not mean to you.

[lesofprimus]

U werent there in his bedroom, so how would u know???????

[DAVIDICUS]

I know Jack Shiit because he sleeps with my wife. I sleep in his bedroom.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

All ur graphs and stats and theorms and equations mean jack shiit to me... A pilots opinion/belief/action report means more to me than 30 of those damn graphs...

Go read that report I link to earlier. So much for pilots opinion/belief/action reports.

[lesofprimus]

Thats one freakin report.... Ive read 7 of em that dispute that.. And there are probably 12 more like the one u posted......

People have different opinions, and the handbook aint always right....... But u stat geeks will never understand that.........

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Ive read 7 of em that dispute that...

Got any links? Or are they more pilot reports of what they thought they seen flying by at 300 plus mph while dodging the flak.