Jump to content


The TD Archives


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

CapturedJoe #21 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 09:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,914
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 19 2016 - 21:33, said:

 

Spoiler


However they managed it, this Elefant met its end at the hands of Americans

 

Butterfly they shot it where the shells get discarded.



Zinegata #22 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 10:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 20 2016 - 15:02, said:

 

The latter is a known technique, which accepts anything from nose deformation to deflection while still retaining some effectiveness. I have never tried it, but what would bouncing off a rock do to the nose of a penetrator or its trajectory, if the rock isn't hit square?

 

I think it's less hitting a specific rock squarely and more of just hitting the ground - the rocky terrain being an indication that the ground is hard enough to support a ricochet as opposed to the shell simply burying itself into the soil.

 

Also, my general feeling is that this technique isn't relying on the nose penetrator. Rather, the kinetic energy of the shell is what does the damage - and given the relatively large (and thinly armored) surface area of the tank's bottom it is liable to do a lot of damage.

 

Basically it's like taking a powered sledgehammer to one of the most thinly armored portions of the tank. It may not necessarily penetrate with a neat hole, but it will put a big dent at the minimum and have a good chance of injuring some of the crew or wrecking part of the insides of the tank (or its tracks, which is just as bad). And a tank with an injured crew, barring the most determined of circumstances, more often than not pretty much mission-kills a tank.  


Edited by Zinegata, Oct 20 2016 - 10:29.


Bonesaw1o1 #23 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 12:24

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12404 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 20 2016 - 06:33, said:

 

Spare Parts

There was little call for replacement of spare parts in the vehicles of this battalion. Division ordnance had approximately one company in excess destroyers and as they were in need for replacements, the destroyer was replaced by another entire vehicle.

[Chieftain's Note: I can only presume that the Germans would have murdered to have so many vehicles that they could afford to have some lying around. However, from the perspective of the commander, this is an ideal setup, with a very high operational readiness rate.]

 

 

Is there any extra info on how the TD units were supplied with spare parts beyond simply switching out with the reserve company (I assume the vehicles sent to reserve were repaired to operational conditional to then be cycled back into the line units when they were needed again), was it the same or different to standard armour units?

Also if anyone has any info in general about spare parts supply for US armour its welcome



stalkervision #24 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 12:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 48153 battles
  • 7,530
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Oct 19 2016 - 15:58, said:

- This unit trained their gunners to shoot just short of the tank on rocky ground so that the round would bounce into the tank from underneath. -

 

I find a lot matters exaggerated or even perhaps made up completely  in this article. A lot of information in it is honestly very hard for me to believe.

The sentence I quoted up there seems the most vague, regardless nice read and I can understand why you would write it.

Still it seems really exaggerated to me.

 

​It appears that these people are the very same ones that took out Tiger tanks in their P-47's by bouncing 50 caliber rounds underneath them and into their thinner belly armor ! :P

YANKEE137 #25 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 13:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 5136 battles
  • 1,241
  • [SOFAT] SOFAT
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015
A bounced round usually "keyholes" or turns sideways. In pistol shooting you can demonstrate this with a piece of corrugated cardboard- after the round bounces it hits the cardboard and leaves a perfect silhouette.

Anlushac11 #26 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 13:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 32897 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
I wonder if the bouncing rounds off the ground has anything to do with the M10's use of earlier M79 solid shot AP-T rounds?  I would think a M79 projectile would hold up a lot better than a M62 APCBC projectile.

Shanzival #27 Posted Oct 20 2016 - 19:19

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9298 battles
  • 557
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View PostZinegata, on Oct 20 2016 - 04:25, said:

 

I think it's less hitting a specific rock squarely and more of just hitting the ground - the rocky terrain being an indication that the ground is hard enough to support a ricochet as opposed to the shell simply burying itself into the soil.

 

Also, my general feeling is that this technique isn't relying on the nose penetrator. Rather, the kinetic energy of the shell is what does the damage - and given the relatively large (and thinly armored) surface area of the tank's bottom it is liable to do a lot of damage.

 

Basically it's like taking a powered sledgehammer to one of the most thinly armored portions of the tank. It may not necessarily penetrate with a neat hole, but it will put a big dent at the minimum and have a good chance of injuring some of the crew or wrecking part of the insides of the tank (or its tracks, which is just as bad). And a tank with an injured crew, barring the most determined of circumstances, more often than not pretty much mission-kills a tank.  

Considering the marks they were supposedly doing that shot to I wonder if it would damage the suspension, especially all of those torsion bars on the Mk V.

 

Assuming that they were Mk Vs and VIs.



Hurk #28 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 01:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 44533 battles
  • 13,588
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

considering most of their targets would be tanks with little to no armor underneath, even a sideways shot is likely to have enough kinetic energy to smash through the belly, or spall it. 

 

remember, with real tanks, i dont need to kill the crew. just messing up the transmission, tension bars, engine, etc, is enough to make the crew abandon it. few tankers want to sit in a pill box waiting to be circled. 



Pay__2__Win #29 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 04:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 13669 battles
  • 1,435
  • [T_R_U] T_R_U
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View PostYANKEE137, on Oct 19 2016 - 13:16, said:

 

I don't know about tanks but you can shoot a bullet underneath a car or make it fly parallel to a wall by firing from less than a 45 degree angle to the pavement or wall (a hard wall like brick). I've done it. It's hard to believe until you see it. I don't see any reason a tank shell wouldn't behave the same.

less than 45 degrees gives parallel path, greater than 45 causes it to come back up at reverse angle. Kids don't try this at home.

 

Agreed, I've seen this in action, you can train to use this in a shooting scenario. 

Oagr_19D30 #30 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 05:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14134 battles
  • 214
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-15-2016

View PostBonesaw1o1, on Oct 20 2016 - 03:24, said:

 

Is there any extra info on how the TD units were supplied with spare parts beyond simply switching out with the reserve company (I assume the vehicles sent to reserve were repaired to operational conditional to then be cycled back into the line units when they were needed again), was it the same or different to standard armour units?

Also if anyone has any info in general about spare parts supply for US armour its welcome

 

I can only speak from my non WW2 experience, but yes we had parts; spare road wheels, spare tracks, etc for quick and expedient repairs we could do like a broken/thrown track.  But if something broke down and 'deadlined' (non operational) a vehicle, it was usually sent back to the field trains (Squadron/Battalion level maintenance) and then it was up to the Troop XO to work a drug deal with another Troop XO to get a replacement.  Most units maneuvered as a 2 up front, 1 in reserve concept.  So you'd have two Troops leading, one Troop in reserve... at least that was often the plan anyway.  So usually the Troop XO would talk to XO of the Troop in reserve and work a swap if your vehicle had to go to the field trains to have it's PAC pulled.

Edited by Oagr_19D30, Oct 21 2016 - 05:28.


Dirizon #31 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 06:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 25834 battles
  • 3,045
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 20 2016 - 08:02, said:

The latter is a known technique, which accepts anything from nose deformation to deflection while still retaining some effectiveness. I have never tried it, but what would bouncing off a rock do to the nose of a penetrator or its trajectory, if the rock isn't hit square?

 

l have heard of the same thing from lL-2 Sturmovik 1946. Even with heavy machine gun 12.7mm, strafing passes aiming short of lower hull underside to deflect rounds into the belly. Same thing with Russian 23, 37, 45mm anti tank cannons on planes, despite their large bore for aircraft were still near hapless in anti armour role due to the difficulty of diving, aiming, catching weaker armour, rate of fire necessary with large bore ammo capacity limits, Etc. 

The the US notes, they only talk of 12.7mm strafing, nothing on P38s or P39s with 20 and 37mm. And for British their designed AT 40mm planes saw more successful use with rockets and in anti-ship warfare rather than close support or anti-tank roles.

Seems extremely situational, as the amount of time vehicles perfectly line up with cobble, pavement, Etc is low - especially since urban areas where a tank will be on this substrate limit the effectiveness of an aircraft dive. And soil, grassland, sand, dirt roads won't deflect AP rounds. 



Anlushac11 #32 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 06:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 32897 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

P-38 used a Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon, the AP pen was about same as the .50cal (12.7mm)HMG.

 

Some British order P-39's (aka P-400's) came with the same 20mm cannon as P-38's. The 37mm cannon on P-39 was low velocity and usually fired HE rounds.



ExploratorOne #33 Posted Oct 21 2016 - 06:43

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 13060 battles
  • 151
  • [LOU1] LOU1
  • Member since:
    12-31-2015

View PostGasai__Yuno, on Oct 19 2016 - 15:58, said:

- This unit trained their gunners to shoot just short of the tank on rocky ground so that the round would bounce into the tank from underneath. -

 

When I was a scout in the Army (US) we spent a lot of time at the range working on accuracy.  The 25 yard silhouettes were a pain because the M16 round would zip through them without knocking them over; that would count as a miss.  Our solution was to fire at the dirt/pebbles a short distance in front of the target.  When you learned to hit the correct distance/spot, that guaranteed a "hit" every time.  As an aside, it was always amusing to fire at the tiny speck of a 250 yard target over the iron sites...

 

EDIT:  Hadn't read the entire thread before posting, my bad.  Noticed others learned the same trick on the range, LOL.


Edited by ExploratorOne, Oct 21 2016 - 06:49.


Blackhorse_Six_ #34 Posted Oct 22 2016 - 01:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 42672 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostJRingo20, on Oct 19 2016 - 20:16, said:

Bye! :sceptic:

 

:medal:

CaptianNemo_VA_ #35 Posted Oct 22 2016 - 05:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 293 battles
  • 1,721
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-27-2013
--- This unit trained their gunners to shoot just short of the tank on rocky ground so that the round would bounce into the tank from underneath. ---

That does not surprise me as iirc  the Division 1 or Division 2 Summary Report put out by the NDRC (1945/46) even shows how to skip different rounds on different materials and what angles. And if you can cause it to skip right infront of the vehicles... is talking about accuracy really a things? Sure it would take some practice... but if it works for them... it works for them.

ryacko #36 Posted Oct 23 2016 - 07:02

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21928 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    03-05-2011
I wish you would upload some of the original documents you find, even if the national archives overcharges on copying.

The_Chieftain #37 Posted Oct 23 2016 - 17:12

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,451
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postryacko, on Oct 23 2016 - 06:02, said:

I wish you would upload some of the original documents you find, even if the national archives overcharges on copying.

 

If you particularly wish to see the original, I can upload. I usually don't because (a) our upload system is inconvenient, and (b) by transcribing, folks can easily copy/paste and use elsewhere. On occasion I do anyway for mass information, such as the Cromwell faults list.

FrozenKemp #38 Posted Oct 23 2016 - 17:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 40952 battles
  • 3,681
  • [27PZR] 27PZR
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011
deleted post, off topic, nothing to see here. 

Edited by FrozenKemp, Oct 23 2016 - 18:35.


shredo #39 Posted Oct 24 2016 - 17:44

    Private

  • Players
  • 15426 battles
  • 7
  • [11GD] 11GD
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

yea american equipment is legendary for its reliability.

ESPECIALLY THE M16! xD xD xD



shredo #40 Posted Oct 24 2016 - 17:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 15426 battles
  • 7
  • [11GD] 11GD
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 19 2016 - 20:33, said:

 

Mechanical Failures

None.

[Chieftain's Note: OK, the reliability of US equipment is legendary,....

ESPECIALLY THE M16! BAHAHAHAHAHA xD xD xD






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users