Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All in the Mind? The psychological effect of Tiger Tanks and 88ís

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post
    105 and 150 mm
    Absolutely.

    Ammunition expenditure confirms that.

    Further, the 88mm is relatively puny as an artillery weapon, hence its limited use in that role. It was a great direct fire weapon, not as a bombardment gun.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

      Absolutely.

      Ammunition expenditure confirms that.

      Further, the 88mm is relatively puny as an artillery weapon, hence its limited use in that role. It was a great direct fire weapon, not as a bombardment gun.
      Yet, you have sung the praises of the 87.7mm 25 pdr as an artillery piece...

      Comment


      • #93
        I remember an occasion when we, ( Foot soldiers ) came under direct fire from a cluster of 3 88s, and puny would be the last word I would use to describe the effect!! lcm1
        'By Horse by Tram'.


        I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
        " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Yet, you have sung the praises of the 87.7mm 25 pdr as an artillery piece...
          Maybe there's more than caliber. For instance, weight of the round (15%-20% heavier for the 25 pounder), quality of the explosive, or, if you are looking at units rather than individual guns, number of barrels (8 in a standard 25-pdr. battery, 4 in a standard 8.8cm battery)... maybe there's more.
          Michele

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by lcm1 View Post
            I remember an occasion when we, ( Foot soldiers ) came under direct fire from a cluster of 3 88s, and puny would be the last word I would use to describe the effect!! lcm1
            Which does not contradict what Nick wrote. He said "relatively" puny when used for artillery work, bombardment, as in, in indirect firing.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #96
              Possibly a higher muzzle velocity requires a stronger (thicker) shell casing hence less HE payload. I have read that the HE shell for the 17 pounder AT gun was less effective than HE shells fired from similar calibre weapons. All of which is somewhat academic for the individual infantryman if he happens to be the target.
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Drusus Nero View Post
                " <snip> ... A recent war picture ("Fury") featured Tiger Fever in their engagement with one of the behemoths. It's the only time that "War Daddy's" crew actually begin to panic in an engagement, and they have to work their way around to the rear of the enemy machine before they can guarantee a "kill" shot.

                Another movie featuring "Tiger Fever" is the Clint Eastwood "Kellys Heroes", as tank commander Oddball tries to explain to his crew that the only way to take on a Tiger is to "Hit it up the ass". ... <snip> "
                It's interesting how much this bull$hit gets repeated, to the point where just about everyone seems to believe it.
                Movies seem to be among the worst culprits for spreading it.
                The rear end of the Tiger tank was not, repeat NOT especially vulnerable in the way these movies try to tell us.
                If an Allied tank carried a gun capable of penetrating the Tiger's 80mm rear armour, then that same gun would be no less able - under similar conditions such as range, angle etc - to penetrate the sides of the the tank, most of which was the same 80mm thickness.
                Furthermore, the part of the Tiger's side armour that wasn't 80mm was actually thinner at 60mm; although only a relatively small portion of it and sometimes none of it, was directly exposed (depending on the angles involved). This was the area between the top of the tracks and the underside of the panniers.

                Perhaps most important of all though, a side penetration into the crew compartment would usually be far more likely to be instantaneously deadly than a rear penetration into the engine compartment.
                Kelly's Hero's was - I think - meant to be "tongue in cheek" and at least partly comedy anyway; so not to be taken so seriously.
                Fury, on the other hand, comes across as a much more "serious" movie and I for one mark it down substantially for continuing to perpetuate this "have to hit a Tiger up the ass" rubbish.


                OK, time to chill out now and get a life .... but where can I find one?

                "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                Comment


                • #98
                  I did think there were 'vents' on top and the engine (gas) was right behind the rear plate. No expert am I.
                  SPORTS FREAK/ PANZERBLITZ COMMANDER/ CC2 COMMANDER

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                    Possibly a higher muzzle velocity requires a stronger (thicker) shell casing hence less HE payload. I have read that the HE shell for the 17 pounder AT gun was less effective than HE shells fired from similar calibre weapons. All of which is somewhat academic for the individual infantryman if he happens to be the target.
                    Not so academic, I think, if he's the target of an indirect fire artillery barrage, rather than the target of a direct-fire shooting. With direct firing, the gun crew could see the target and aim at the hapless infantryman (or, more likely, to a small group of infantrymen), and accuracy in targeting (something the 8.8cm crews excelled at, especially late in the war, because of their usual employment, and also because they had good and especially suitable targeting equipment) could and would compensate for a smaller lethal radius. But with true artillery bombardment, there is no such aimed firing and what you want is a large lethal radius.
                    Michele

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michele View Post

                      Not so academic, I think, if he's the target of an indirect fire artillery barrage, rather than the target of a direct-fire shooting. With direct firing, the gun crew could see the target and aim at the hapless infantryman (or, more likely, to a small group of infantrymen), and accuracy in targeting (something the 8.8cm crews excelled at, especially late in the war, because of their usual employment, and also because they had good and especially suitable targeting equipment) could and would compensate for a smaller lethal radius. But with true artillery bombardment, there is no such aimed firing and what you want is a large lethal radius.
                      I think you have misunderstood British irony
                      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                        But with true artillery bombardment, there is no such aimed firing and what you want is a large lethal radius.
                        Indirect artillery fire directed by an artillery observers is aimed, isn't it? I mean they pick targets and direct artillery fire on them.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          Yet, you have sung the praises of the 87.7mm 25 pdr as an artillery piece...
                          You're not that uninformed. What's your real point?
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post

                            It's interesting how much this bull$hit gets repeated, to the point where just about everyone seems to believe it.
                            Movies seem to be among the worst culprits for spreading it.
                            The rear end of the Tiger tank was not, repeat NOT especially vulnerable in the way these movies try to tell us.
                            If an Allied tank carried a gun capable of penetrating the Tiger's 80mm rear armour, then that same gun would be no less able - under similar conditions such as range, angle etc - to penetrate the sides of the the tank, most of which was the same 80mm thickness.
                            Furthermore, the part of the Tiger's side armour that wasn't 80mm was actually thinner at 60mm; although only a relatively small portion of it and sometimes none of it, was directly exposed (depending on the angles involved). This was the area between the top of the tracks and the underside of the panniers.

                            Perhaps most important of all though, a side penetration into the crew compartment would usually be far more likely to be instantaneously deadly than a rear penetration into the engine compartment.
                            Kelly's Hero's was - I think - meant to be "tongue in cheek" and at least partly comedy anyway; so not to be taken so seriously.
                            Fury, on the other hand, comes across as a much more "serious" movie and I for one mark it down substantially for continuing to perpetuate this "have to hit a Tiger up the ass" rubbish.


                            OK, time to chill out now and get a life .... but where can I find one?
                            The scene from Fury is almost certainly down to a doc.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj0AzL95Weg

                            It is so wrong on so many levels it still pains me.
                            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by dgfred View Post
                              I did think there were 'vents' on top and the engine (gas) was right behind the rear plate. No expert am I.
                              Yes, there were ventilation grates on top of the engine compartment - primarily for cooling - and the fuel tanks were also in that same general area (aft of the bulkhead). Obviously, a penetration into the engine compartment would most likely KO the engine and very probably start a fire.
                              While this is extremely serious and would immobilize the tank, the crew would have a good chance of being able to bale out and possibly fight another day in another tank (if they managed to avoid being shot or fragged on exit).
                              On the other hand, a penetration from either side into the crew compartment would very likely be catastrophic to both the tank AND its crew. A dead tank containing five charred and blackened corpses is quite probable.
                              However, my main point is that a penetration to the sides is JUST AS EASY IF NOT EASIER than a penetration to the rear:
                              • The armour protection at the sides is equal to or slightly less than, the protection at the rear. Definitely not better.
                              • Either one of the sides of the Tiger offers a somewhat larger target area than the rear.
                              • There are TWO sides and only ONE rear.
                              • In most tactical situations, it would be less difficult to get at either of the sides, than the rear.
                              Last edited by panther3485; 06 Nov 18, 18:52.
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                                You're not that uninformed. What's your real point?
                                That you quickly denigrated one, while praising the other. Like it or don't, the German 8.8cm flak gun gained a fearsome reputation in WW 2. It also proved an effective AA gun, antitank gun, and artillery piece. I have little doubt that those on the receiving end of any of that thought differently.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X