FH2 50cal. destroys Tiger -1 reply

Please wait...

Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#51 13 years ago

Or the other way around, a rare thing was never filmed so they show a more common thing that comes "close" to it (or they don't care about making the visual and audio information match at all *shrugs* ).




The Ultimate Drifter

*Professional Drunk Driver*

50 XP

1st October 2004

0 Uploads

278 Posts

0 Threads

#52 13 years ago

That makes sense; it could be just a “placeholder” video. Maybe the point of the interview was to talk to a pilot about attacking tanks but they couldn’t find a video of a tiger so they just used whatever they could. Who knows... I don’t know if that’s a Stug, Panzer 3, or a panther…. And unless you’re a military photo annalist your guess is as good as the guy who said it was friendly fire on an American truck :)

Cool vid though!




LoyalReaperDragon

[130.Pz] Lukas

50 XP

18th March 2006

0 Uploads

239 Posts

0 Threads

#53 13 years ago

i agree that no way a 50. cal Ap bullet could take out a tiger also don't forgot somtimes the germans had dummy tanks which where a weaker tank or jeep made to look like a more powerful tank.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#54 13 years ago

If I'm not mistake the Tiger has grating on the top over the engine right? To help cool the engine. Maybe the bullets get in through the grating and really feck up the motor and gas tanks and whatnot. The drive train might also take damage. Hell the Tiger was prone to having it's overlapping road wheels freeze with mud, I bet a bunch of 50 call bullets getting in there could do some damage.

As for the video, none of those were Tigers. The very first target was, as far as I can tell, a JagdPanther. You could tell it wasn't a Stug because the main hull was raised very high above the engine deck just like the JagdPanther. Second set of targets looked to be two trucks going up in flames, I couldn't tell. But they didn't have guns at all and had thegeneral shape of a truck(a cab, and a rear cargo area) so they were either trucks of halftracks, probaly the larger halftracks(the names escape me) The third target looked armored but didn't have a big gun. But I also didn't see an open top. I suspect it was some kind of armored car, probaly machine gun armed and with extreamly light armor. Either that or a closed top halftrack.

I'v heard many stories of Tigers getting knocked out by fighter-bombers, but it's usually not from a spectacular explosion and the tanks usually arn't destroyed. The most common story I've heard has been a nice big stream of bullets hitting the commander in his open hatch and getting into the turret and kiling the gunnery crew. The driver and hull gunner still manage to get the tank out of there though.




LoyalReaperDragon

[130.Pz] Lukas

50 XP

18th March 2006

0 Uploads

239 Posts

0 Threads

#55 12 years ago

when your in the air going 400-500 miles/hour things can be pretty far from the truth




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#56 12 years ago
*TRA*NasserI doubt those 50 cals destroyed the tiget even if they ried hitting the fuel tank, they prolly just dented it, the 2 destoyed vehicles on that video probably are not tigers.

,omg are u kidding me. why would they talk about tigers. and he is giving an actuall accounts so i guess it was possible




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#57 12 years ago
USMA2010It is virtually impossible for a a .50 cal to destroy a Tiger. You can not bounce up a round from underneath, period. The Tiger had what, 30mm of armor on the bottom of the hull? Even at point blank range firing AP ammo at a perfect angle the Ma Duce couldn't get through. Now factor in a deformed round and a high richochet angle, and you have a round that wouldn't even damage a Panzer II. What was blowing up were the fuel tanks that Tigers often carried around with them later on in the war.

thats bullshit. so you basically say that fighter pilots from the second world war who destroyed tiger tanks with browning M2 .50 Cals from their airplanes by bouncing them up from the ground are basically lying to us?

if fired with the right angle and speed , its not impossible man!

and the aircraft, at least the US aircraft fired API rounds.




Idiot with a gun

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

26th March 2006

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#58 12 years ago

.50 cal rounds will most likely not penetrate a Tiger's tank armor, even when fired from all sorts of strange angles, in large volumes. There's a reason why the British quit using their .55 boys anti-tank rifle for anti-tank work, and started using them to destroy airplanes (parked airplanes, special forces style), and why the Finnish used their L-39 for anti-MG nest work (and anti-air work with the L-39/44)....You have to be pretty damn close to penetrate with those things, close enough to be a bit... scary for pilots that is.

AP seems to be the magical acronym to tack onto the end of a round's name. Tack AP onto the end of a rifle bullet's name, and magically it's a cop killing bullet. Tack AP onto the end of a .50 Caliber's name, and magically it's a tank killer. While AP would help .50 caliber rounds defeat tanks with the lighter versions, most mid to late war tanks were simply too heavy to be defeated with heavy rounds. Which is why most armies began to turn to explosives (Panzerfaust, Panzershrek, Bazookas, mines, molotov cocktails... (I'm serious)).




jumjum

Write heavy; write hard.

50 XP

11th April 2005

0 Uploads

6,827 Posts

0 Threads

#59 12 years ago
Rickyboythats bullshit. so you basically say that fighter pilots from the second world war who destroyed tiger tanks with browning M2 .50 Cals from their airplanes by bouncing them up from the ground are basically lying to us? if fired with the right angle and speed , its not impossible man!...

Did you even read the earlier posts? This is the same thing, over and over.