@0willsy01 im done with this conversation, you were right, the .50 is a piece of shit, the Tiger is the fucking king of all tanks, there you happy now? you pathetic fucks have a good time circle-jerking about how much you love Mr Adolf's Tanks and other Nazi scum machinery. Fuck y'all, im out. ^^
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The underflooring of the tank is where the thinnist part of the armour is. Sherman crews would also fire rounds right below the tank where it could bounce up at underneath the panther and tiger tanks. P-47s also carried anti-tank rockets and Napalm.
Poor Germans. In the end they got the shit kicked out of them. They never had a chance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@0willsy01 ok then........lets just drop this......i know for a fact that a .50 will penetrate 25mm steel. my cousin owns a Nemesis Arms Windrunner, i have seen it fire through a 27,5 mm thick steel plate with Raufoss Mark 211 Multipurpose rounds. A Tigers top armor wouldn't stand a chance against a round with that much kinetic energy, especially after being hit by multiple rounds, all with tungsten cores ! maybe the .50 used back then was a peashooter, but the Raufoss Multipurpose shred it. :)
@DannyDaBaddy U are representing facts ? umm oh ok ....where are your facts ...pictures,videos,penetration tests etc.... show something to support your fairy tales.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@ViciousCritique its not knowledge from a book or a site, i witnessed the .50 BMG MK211 fired from my cousin's M96 Windrunner rifle penetrate a 27,5mm steel plate at 50 yards. lets just drop this dude
@DannyDaBaddy Read Robert111's comments like the other guy said. He already laid it all out and are you truly trying to compare a modern test with this??? Are you a fucking idiot?
@DannyDaBaddy You're not having a conversation, asswipe. You area spreading absolute bullshit from your stupid mind that could be mistakingly believed by people that don't know any better. Stupid fuck.
@Rooster1Cogburn no i didn't compare modern tests with this.......a tiger cannot be lost to a regular .50 BMG ball round......but the roof would be vulnareble to API rounds of that caliber....i don't know if they had API back then ( i said that like 2 times ) im just expressing my thoughts on the matter, and if that bothers you so much that you have to insult me, i pity you. you are either a child or really imature.
@DannyDaBaddy I've read your comments and they are full of shit. That is why I'm not the only one that you bother. Robert111 already laid it out and pointed to the records. WWII .50 BMG is FUCKING USELESS against a Tiger tank. That's it. I'm sure that today's depleted uranium or other tech would be a different story, but who the fuck cares. We're talking about the bullshit of this video.
@DannyDaBaddy any support, respect, or integrity you had was totally lost when you posted that comment. now you just sound like an arrogant, hateful little prick
@elms91 what? was he not being an asshole? is cussing someone off for no good reason not being an asshole? sure, calling him a stupid american might piss some people off, but people like him just proves my point....90 % of the americans i've come across in my life has either been rude and ignorant, or like @Rooster1Cogburn, just plain stupid.....im sure there are exceptions.....im not hateful, read the comments, i tried being rational.... sure im probably wrong, but i shouldn't be hated for it..
@Robstailey It did have external fuel tanks on the back wich were very vulnerable. A bullet "bouncing" of the ground has almost no kinetic energy left, it wouldnt even break through an inch of armor....
I love all these german war machine loving youtubers who talk about german machines like they were amazing and unstoppable. Every single piece of German war machinery was stopped and destroyed. Every Tiger was stopped in its tracks. who the hell would think a .50 BMG is a peashooter? Especially when there are 8 forward mounted firing at once. When multiple rounds land on target consecutively, holes will form even in tough armor. FACT=Nazis deserved to lose.
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half year by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. I have recorded more than 450 hours on video. My brother was assassinated on 11.7.09. I was born in ´65,my brother in ´72.My family is being openly persecuted by the BND since 1958 because they did not collaborate during the 3rd Reich.The German state and the children of the NAZIS still own the property stolen from jews and others by their ancestors.Why is that so?
@d0z3rr My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half year by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. I have recorded more than 450 hours on video. My brother was assassinated on 11.7.09. I was born in ´65,my brother in ´72.My family is being openly persecuted by the BND since 1958 because they did not collaborate during the 3rd Reich.The German state and the children of the NAZIS still own the property stolen from jews and others by their ancestors.Why is that so?
@0willsy01 he rounds were used and prehaps all u need to do is track the tiger and u basicly killed it......and maybe the commanders standin out the top...u never know....bullets find wierd places NO DOUBT it would not destroy this tank by no means but maybe disable it
@croniclone81 taking a tiger from above is like trying to crush a concrete brick with a toothpick, anything less than a 20 mill on top is just going to bounce off
I don't believe for a minute that .50 cal bullets could be bounced off of a road into the belly of a Tiger or any other tank for that matter, with enough energy left to penetrate even very thin armour plate at such a shallow angle.
On 28 June 1944, General Heinz Guderion, Inspector General of Panzer Troops reported on experiences in opposing the Allied Landing in Normandy: "... Soon the troops will demand protective armor shields be mounted over the rear decks [of tanks] because of the success of fighter-bomber attacks.” [44]The dreaded cry of Achtung! Jabos! (fighter-bombers) regularly erupted from German armored columns as the P-47 flights got to work.[38]-Wikipedia
The top of the Tiger was armoured only with 25mm steel, which can be penetrated by the .50 BMG AP/API rounds. Additionally, you do have the openings for the engine cooling system on the top, which makes any tank vulnerable from the air. Once you have the engine burning, the tank is out of action.
@kubert57 Don't be so damned stupid, read my comments from a couple months back or do som research before spilling your rubbish. The turret and hull top armor is 100mm thick, fool. Where do you get such bullshit from or are you just being an assclown?
@Vlomer missiles are pathetic, one would hit from ever 100 rockets fired, this is especielly seen from the IL-2 shiturmovik, which accurately hit with a rocket once from every 132 times, calucations made by the russians.
thats why the germans used heavy autocanons, bombs and machineguns to wipe out tanks, and since the allies "enjoyed" the shittiest collection of tanks in the entire war, the luftwaffe had an easy time taking them out, since most of their planes were armed with 20MM's
Watched this a few times. The only Tank I can make out is possibly a Jadg Panther (front of column) Top Armour poor is POOR on tanks. .5 prolly get through in my opinion. Not read all posts sorry for any repeat.
i agree with you on the jagdpanther. but for tanks like the tiger even top armor could probably withstand .50. remember shots always came in under quite an angel since the attack planes could not attack from straight above. So i guess most of them would just bounce. correct me if im wrong..
I too have wondered how .50-caliber fire could have destroyed tanks. Maybe it was the sheer number of rounds hitting the armor. Each bullet might chip a little bit of armor away like the blows of a jackhammer until finally the rounds ate through and set off fuel or ammo for a secondary explosion. Or simply killed the crew.
@0willsy01 Well, the Tiger was heavily armored, but only on the front,sides and turret. The top and rear armor plates were only about an inch thick. Wouldn't a .50 cal AP round be able to punch though an inch of steel. Even with the angle of attack taken into account?
@0willsy01 Not too bad, my friend. Not too bad at all. I see you've been around, serving the interests of history, propriety, and education. All the best you my friend.
@0willsy01 Good point. General ignorance about ballistics or a Tiger tanks contruction is understandable. What always amazes me is where idiots like this coltperc lack a basic logic and common sense to figure things out. Even where one does not know the dimensions of say Tiger tracks or the limited AP capabilities of WWII .50BMG ammo, you would think that these fools would just put 2+2 together and realize the fabled and nearly invulnerable Tiger was not going get knocked out by pea-shooter.
@Robert111 The mystical invulnerability of the Ausf. E is entirely over exaggerated
The best part about the platform was the outstanding 8.8 cm KwK 36. Unfortunately, the tank had numerous problems with transmission, road wheels, and the track system. The fuel and oil systems were also prone to leakages.
@jigglypiggly The Tiger tank was difficult and expensive to maintain and I guess you could consider that a "vulnerability" on the battlefield, but your comments here is simply irrelevant. The Tiger I may have been "vulnerable" to transmissions problems, but it certainly wasn't to the .50BMG pea-shooter. LOL.
@jigglypiggly Yes, when discussing anti-armor weapons, the .50BMG is a peashooter pure and simple. The .50BMG for this reason was NOT EVEN used or classified as an anti-armor round in WWII and was never used that way by anyone with half a brain. The 14.5X114 was an early anti-armor round but was of course ineffective against anything but light tanks and some select points of the Mark IV medium tank.
@Robert111 Regardless of classification, the M2 Browning was utilized as an effective weapon against light armored weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese. A very well-rounded weapon with a good punch for a machine gun.
Anyone who believes a .50BMG can knock out a Tiger tank needs their head examined.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@0willsy01 I've fired .50 BMG in service, and .50 AP will considerably out-penetrate 20 mm HE rounds, believe me. Now, 20 mm AP will out-penetrate .50 BMG AP., but aircraft are normally loaded primarily with 20 mm HE because it is more effective against thin-skinned, fuel-rich targets.
A burst of 50 AP from a P47 can cut the tracks in half even on a Tiger tank and immobilize it.
I've read Roberts comments, and any man calling a .50BMG a "pea-shooter" is clueless about weapons performance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@0willsy01 WW2 .50 BMG AP could penetrate 0.75-inch face-hardened armor-plate at 550 yds, and left the muzzle at 13.000+ ft/lbs of Kinetic Energy. That is NOT a "pea-shooter". A .50 BMG could punch twice as deep thru armor-plate as 20MM HE rounds normally loaded in aircraft guns. One .50 bullet might not get thru 1" armor plate, but 8 .50's firing at 80 rounds / sec from a P47 from 500 yards would!
Armor Piercing projectiles from the .50 in machine guns could not penetrate the front, side, or turret armor of Large enemy tanks like a Tiger they sometimes penetrated the engine grilles and exhaust system disabling Panzers. I'm sure they did not use plain ball ammo when they went out on strafing missions.
"they carried fuel in a trailer behind them, well most of them"
Could it be that the narrator was talking about a different tank to the one being shown? Who'd of thought that maybe there was no good footage of a tank with a fuel trailer and so the film maker decided to cut in a section of colour film showing a different tank?
@lifeforce99 The German army simply didn't use fuel trailers for tanks at all, that is the problem. The bullshit narration is also specifically talking about Tiger tanks and NEVER did a Tiger tank tow any fuel trailer. German did not have any tank fuel trailers in production or use - they didn't even have them.
with the aircraft traveling aprox 250mph or 300mph shooting at the same time..the bullets has incredible momentum ...with thinner armor being on top of the tank and the aircraft shooting downward..it was a no brainer to take out any tank like this..germans make a great tank but physics are the answer here...
British Typhoons were better than P-47 and the Soviet Strumovik were also better.... But P-47 was roughly the same as Tyhpoon in dogfighting and better than the Strumovik.....
"As the war progressed, the German air force, the Luftwaffe, found itself swept from the sky by British and American air patrols, leaving German tank battalions unsupported from the air. Tank-busting aircraft like the Russian IL-2 Stormovik, with its 23 mm cannons, the RAF's Hawker Hurricane equipped with 40 mm cannons, and Hawker Typhoons, American P-47 Thunderbolts and P-51 Mustangs, all armed with American-made 5-inch rockets, found the slow-moving tanks easy targets."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Tiger tanks can easily be taken out by .50 caliber machine guns. If the rear engine deck is hit that is. Being flat there is very little deflection occurring. Also, the engine radiatiors lay flat up against the rear deck. They are covered by a thick waffle type metal grate. The bullets coming down can easily go through the grate openings thereby puncturing the radiators and destroying the cooling fans. Being liquid cooled the engine would then overheat and die. I've worked on real Tigers
Oh by the way, I had seen and touch a real Tiger 1 tanks through my travels in the States and Europe. Does this mean I am Tiger tank expert, NOO!! I just saying the possibities are there. These brave men fought against these machines and its crew. Respect them. Notice, I didn't use any cuss words in my comments. Airborne! God Bless the Allies for winning a terrible war which my family and friends were involved.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I just pulled out a highly detail Tamiya 1/35 scale Tiger tank model, which I assembled as Michael Wittman's Tiger numbered 007 from storage. On top of the engine deck are cooling vents. The Germans would put protective sceens on these vents, so the enemy infantyman won't put hand grenades through. Won't a .50 cal round or even a splinter from the air, go through these vents and disable a Tiger? Airborne!
@Robert111 Another possibility with the narration. Tiger 1s were known for its mechanical failures and poor engine performance. This maybe confused when a Tiger was stafed with .50 cals. The crew just abandoned the tank due its breakdown. If a Tiger did caught on fire from stafing, it was probably caused by a incediary round hitting fuel from a leaking line. So, these Vets can be telling the truth. Being in the military, if there is a will, there is a way. Airborne!
@brendonsfc I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you, the WWII .50BMG was completely and utterly useless against Tiger I or Tiger II tanks. Period. That's it. I don't know what this reality is so hard for you. The narration of the vid is a complete lie - a complete bullshit. I have ZERO respect for bullshit liars. The Germans would NOT put "protective screens on Tiger Tanks and a grenade would never go through any vents. I don't know where you get such utter bullshit from.
@Robert111 Robert you really need to calm down. Any knowledge you might have on this subject has been completely pushed aside by the immature way you've tried to display it
@elms91 As a well respected and published author on WWII German armor, I am entittled to express my knowledge on youtube in the manner I see fit. Thank you very much. :) Certainly it is equally amazing to you the way in which these fools come up with just stupid and crazy claims about that which they have no clue. Even without ANY study, you would think common sense would prevail (i.e. you can't tank out Tiger tanks with bullets or by casually lobbing grenade into engine... LOL!)
@elms91 I've been asked that many times but in this forum (youtube), I simply can't say - that would be revealing my name/identity. I use this youtube account, like many others, to express opinions on many things, not just my academic study, anonymously. I cannot have my posts connected to my books, etc. I'm sure you wouldn't reveal your true name either. My books can be found in most Borders stores (the ones that haven't shut down) or of course Amazon. They are big with lots of color photos.
@Robert111 Are you a Tiger 1 expert? I do stand corrected. I fired the M903 .50 cal round which would penetrate 1.34 inches of steel. This round was not used in WWII. The Tiger 1 amored plates top and bottom were 1". The narration can be a possibilty. i.e. A M-1 tank was stopped when a RPG ricochet off the road, went under the chassis and hit a fuel cell. Any where else, the Abrams armored would of stop it. Also, ease with the names calling. Airborne!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A Lieutenant from the 3rd Armored Division during WWII. He wrote that the M4 Sherman suffered great loses from Tiger tanks, but when they called for artillery support. They could stop a Tiger with artillery shrapnel penetrating the very thin turret's roof and killing most of the crew. With enough concertrated fire power from eight .50 cal armor piercing bullets going through thin metal such as a turret roof and it can set off a secondary explosion when the Tiger's 88mm ammo ignites.
@brendonsfc You are trying, but failed. Artillery and/or airstrikes were almost always called when Tiger tanks were encountered. Why? Well because the 75mm (3.0") main gun of out tanks couldn't do much against a Tiger tank, even 1-2 shots to the tracks didn't stop it. The .50" peashooter for some reason fared even worse than the 75mm tank gun. I direct artillery hit in most places on a Tiger will take it out instantly. Average artillery was 150mm (6.0" HE shells). 1.0" rolled steel plate isn't
@brendonsfc (cont.) "thin metal". Where the fuck do you get such freaking STUPID ideas from? You can fire as many BBs as you want from your BB-gun, it AIN"T FUCKING going to go through a piece of 1/8" sheetmetal from the Home Depot. Why do you stupid fucks have so much trouble understanding simple ballistics??? Seriously, what the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN? Are you pretending to be this stupid or what??? Amazing. Many WWI tank had 1/4" armor plate, not a fucking TIGER tank, you fuckwad.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm not sure if people think their opinions substitute for fact here, but since none of us where there, it seems obvious to me we should go by what the actual pilots and soldiers had to say on the subject. And yes, by pilots accounts, they could knock out tanks with their .50 cal guns. They admit they could not penetrate some areas of the armor, but relied on getting rounds into the engine and starting fires etc, and making multiple passes. "see P-47 strafing ground targets"
@siral000 Let me help you THINK because it is obvious you fail to do so without assistance. Here we go:
1.) The deck and roof turret armor was 1.0" rolled steel plate - impervious to WWII .50BMG under any circumstances. Get that through your thick skull.
2.) I just came back from a dive in the ocean where I shot a 12' Great White shark with a spit wad and killed it with one "spit" shot. Since you weren't there, you should go by what I say. Think REAL FUCKING HARD about this.
@Robert111 On this question, an email from a well-known P-51 Ace said (but he didn't know what tank it was) that he and others strafed a G. tank caught in the open, took turns strafing it, even bouncing slugs up from below it, but it kept on going. ***HOWEVER, it was "streaming vapor" when they finally gave up. So, did some of the slugs, or frags, get through and the vapor was steam? (Maybe just steaming sweat from the tankers inside!)
@ranhat2 That account from the P-51 pilot sounds credible. The German light tanks, many TD's, and even the Panther tank could be damaged by such fire. Steaming vapor would likely point to a pierced radiator, which was very possible on almost any vehicle/tank except for the Tiger tanks and heavy tank-destroyers. The bouncing bullets off the ground came from pre-war model tanks and only when on concrete. They had essentially sheet metal on the bottom and could be damaged in that manner.
You're right Robert. Another thing (despite what others are saying) - a .50 Cal could also rip the tread off of any tank, including a Tiger or Panther. Then, it would be a sitting duck for other strafe runs featuring P47's and P-38's with Rockets, Bombs and Cannons.
@Burnsengine A .50 BMG could "rip the tread" off a Tiger tank only if someone sat there and fired at the 2.5-foot wide track link by link. It would take maybe 100-150 rounds if you hit it every single time. A straffing run from a plane could put maybe 4-5 bullets on a target that small per pass. So in theory a group of planes could make repeated passes and with the help of sheer luck, they might knock the tracks of a Tiger tank which has links that are each 1.0" of solid steel.
@Robert111 It would take 4-5 planes probably about an hour to accomplish this feat if the tank did not move. Common sense would dictate this realization for most people. On ground, maybe it was a common tactic for quick moving U.S. jeeps with .50 cals mounted on them would go around knocking off the tracks of Tiger tanks so that they would be sitting ducks? Maybe? A .50 BMG IS AN UTTERLY USELESS WEAPON AGAINST A TIGER TANK. U-S-E-L-E-S-S. That is WHY they used rockets and BOMBS.
Tigers are rare around here...... I saw Littlefield's collection some years ago, but no TIger. I'd look at Tiger's engine compartment to decide if a 4K+ fps .50--or 20-30-100 of them--would get through by spreading the slots or tearing the plates up. But how thick are Tiger's vent plates? Surely a .50 would cut thru 1" at that angle & speed.
@ranhat2 Read my earlier comments for WWII era .50 BMG ballistics. .58" penetration at 0-degrees. At angles/range fired from plane, you might get 1/8" to 3/16", 1/4" in rare circumstances. Tiger II had no grates, but 1.0" thick domes/covers. The result was that even liquid couldn't be poured down. Tiger I had 1.0" overlapping grates. Most would realize by common sense that a heavy tank will not fall victim to .50 cal pea-shooter. Multiple hits with 30mm in same spot might do it, not .5 peas.
@ranhat2 keep trying to pull that bullshit thru. what happens in the videogames your playing doesnt happen in real life, the luftwaffe were the only ones to be smart and efforting enough to equip their fighters with awesom 30MM autocannons, hence some versions of the FW190 carried 2 30MM autocannons wich gave the simple fighter a massive tank busting abillity solely using the machineguns, however, the groundattack based FW190s were commonly heavily armed with diffrent types of sheer explosives
@knight0Farabia07 Video games? What are you talking about with that and "pull that b..s...thru"? "Pull"? Luftwaffe had real tank-killers--see Rudel's book about his Stuka w/ two cannons--real destructive power when delivered onto tank tops; 100s of Russian tanks killed. An consider halfway grownup comments and style or people will think, "Retard!"
But surely people who know you see a fine, educated, sensitive, soul, despite sharp other evidence.
@ranhat2 fuckfaced retard, what did i write? i wrote that the luftwaffe were the only ones with the tank busting and powerfull airforce, what is wrong with you does your dumbo brains works backwards? your retarded concepts of 50CAL.'s destroying tigers is fucked up beyoned recognition. you can take your fucky P47 and piss on it. it cant outmenuevre a bomber. its armament was a serious issue too. only 50 calibres. you'd die from a bombers turret since you have such shitty armament.
I'v wondered about .50s hitting the engine-room vents, and suspect that a bunch of .50 slugs at 3000 fps, probably (2600+ and the acft's 300 mph) would have much power and likely do damage, though of course nothing like a 20mm or 30mm. If some high-velocity frags got into the engine & radiator, that would stop a tank and perhaps cut fuel lines.....etc.
@ranhat2 Yes, what you described was possible of Mark IV tanks and even the Panther. However, the .50 BMG was absoutely useless in any manner against the Tiger tanks. If you ever have the chance to inspect the engine deck of these tanks you'd see why.
This is so awesome, but if you think about it ... most of these pilots were drafted ... and they had no expience at all ... and now they're flying like pro's! and that's what makes it so great!
@thomasbhunter68 The pilot narrator was in the war? Maybe. If he was, like many 20-something year old at the time, he didn't know shit from shinola about German equipement then and doesn't know it now. Many U.S. pilots were also full of shit, claiming to have made "kills" on more Tiger tanks than were even deployed in the western theater of the war. Many would take out a transport truck and mark it down as a "Tiger tank destroyed".
@thomasbhunter68 Yo dude, you've been suckered. There was no such thing as towed fuel tanks at all on any Tiger tanks. See other comments, do some research, it ain't hard. Ain't no fuel tanks being towed.
@Robert111 you stupid lying faggot. you wrote that "a .50 cal wouldn't penetrate an 1.0" of wood, let alone 1.0" of armor". did you or did you not say that dummy? can you read your own quotes or are you too stupid to figure that out? so here's how i know you are the dumbest shitbag on earth.you think a 50cal round wouldn't penetrate an inch of wood.you keep directing me to read your idiotic old posts. like i give a flying shit what you've ever written(including your imaginary book) retard
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
such hostile people lol....there have been confirmed gun kills on tanks (all sides) from .50 cal and others.....heard a ww2 fighter pilot say they used to try and richocet rounds under the tank.....and i think the russians used to have a .50 cal anti tank rifle from like 40-41 for infantry (not sure on that)
@Rooster1Cogburn MR Cockburn where did i say all tanks are the same.?" tiger tank wasnt even around in 40-41......... just saying they are tons of cases of .50cal penetrate armor(tanks,light armor,aircraft)...Get a clue, kid actually read peoples post before being a prick
@BuckleyAFBpilot The reason for the confusion is probably because your comment, although not incorrect per se, is just irrelevant to this video or the discussion here. The .50BMG has been used a lot, is effective for a variety of purposes, but had no chance in hell of knocking out or immobilizing a Tiger tank in any manner. You sure as hell couldn't bounce them off a road and have them penetrate 1.0" of solid rolled steel plate. This is the issue relevant to THIS video.
@TheSemperfiusmc Yeah, and that's a tank right? You stupid fucking cunt. This country is in the shithole for uneducated corn pone shit like you that run off at the mouth shit that can only come from a fucking dolt.
@Robert111 but in the video the narrator says that pilots shoot at the fuel tank to set the armored vehicle on fire, right? that's one way to wreck a tank for a while at least?
@wetaconce No, try listening to the video again. That is not what the blowhard says at all. Did you really somehow hear "fuel tank"? Really? Second, you can't shoot at the fuel tank of a Tiger tank.
Maybe if people bothered to look at a picture of the back of a tiger tank they would realise there is no attachment for a fuel trailer. There are two hard points on either side to tow a damaged vehicle but that's it. That won't put people off from facing the truth. Read your comments, witty, cutting and most of all, accurate. Good job my man.
@baconified Thank you very much. It is digusting how videos like this will provide a revisionist history for younger people or those otherwise lacking in common sense and logic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Great footage! Excellent way to kill Krauts! Let's not forget....these Tiger tanks were the same ones that crushed children's skulls in Russia...as the soldiers would bet on how long it would take to hear the sounds of skulls cracking! This account - by way of an ex-wehrmacht soldier.
pz. III and IVs used a trailer for 2 fueldrums in N-africa and operation Barbarossa, Tigers, Panzer mark 5(Panther) & 6(Tiger) did not. .50cal could not take out a tank in that way due to overlapping wheels made out of highgrade steel maybe only damage the wheels or the tracks. .50CAL Browning M2 AP could only penetrate the bottom if the Tiger was on its side and it was aimed at 0 degree angle, but a direct impact from a HVAR would take out the tank if hit on the turrettop (25mm armor).
@poenschepper Your reasoning is in the right place, but you are incorrect on most accounts. The best WWII .50BMG AP rounds could NOT penentrate the hull floor of the Tiger I or Tiger II even if shot point-blank at 90-degrees (I don't know what you mean by "0 degree angle"). See my earlier comments regarding WWII .50BMG armor piercing capabilities. WWII HVAR were high explosive, NOT shapped charge, they would be useless against turret armor from any direction.
@Robert111 my bad about the 0 degree angle it should be 90 indeed :) but for the HVAR there were 2 types 1 high explosive and the other one was a semi-armour-piercing warhead with a nose fuse this one could have taken out the tank when hittin the turret
@poenschepper Yea, there is a reason they called it "semi-armor piercing." Cutting/pasting from Wikipedia is not a pursuasive argument and shows no knowledge of the subject at all.
@Robert111 denying the fact they excist is pretty much the same thing is it. I never said they went down by the hundreds from HVARS semi armor piercing or not but a direct hit on a vulnerable part like the hatch from the commander roughly 25mm thick could take out the crew maybe even set fire to the remaining shells in the tank, this cutting/pasting you say comes from books mate "Still, a Tiger would be lucky to escape several pases and a few P-47s with rockets. Cheers my friend", your words
@poenschepper Yep, I think our only disagreement is where a Tiger tank would be vulnerable to the HVAR. You're saying the turret, I was referring to the engine deck. I agree that certain select places on the turret could be vulnerable and cause injury or death to maybe a couple of the crew but is very unlikely to knock out the tank. An HVAR to the engine deck of the Tiger I could take it out, but less likely on the Tiger II (1.0" armor on engine deck)/few shot traps.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Tiger fan boys get over yourselfs! Look at the pics from Falise ! You will find plenty of Panthers and a few tigers that were raped by Typhoons and P47s! You want to argue about rather it was 5.0 rocketts or 8 fifty cals firing or the 200 pound bombs who cares! At the end of the day the P47 was the better weapon.
@Beeba1 The P-47 was the better weapon? Jesus fucking Christ listen to this stupid fuck. No one here that I'm aware of (minus your stupid confused fuckface) is trying to compare the airplane and tank. We are responding the false narration of the video. What you are fucking retarded or something? Stupid fucking cunt.
@0willsy01 You are exactly right, maybe you are even refering to the actual memiors of German tank crews who said that the heavy straffings sounded like hail on the roof. When rockets would hit the heavy German tanks (Panther/Tiger I/II), it would sound like dull thuds. 5.0" rockets could be dangerous to engine deck though. It was direct impact from 75/76mm rounds that would be ear-splitting and send shockwaves throughout the tank. With Tiger tanks though, even the 75/75mm did little.
@Robert111 What are you talking about? The 4.5" rockets went like straight lines in the air and could even penetrate battleships during the pacific theater. I don't think the 5" bounced off the Tiger.
.50's killing Tigers is just BS tho, I agree. And I just want to confirm to other people that what you said about those trailers is correct, only the III and IIII's had trailers sometimes
@Pagelos No, the best aircraft rockets we had during WWII were the 5.0" "Holy Moses" HVAR that was not capable of penetrating battleships in any possible way and would require immense luck to take out a Tiger tank. It may appear that the rockets went in straight lines, but they didn't. Of course the major problem is that they were "eyeball" aimed in the general target direction and unguided. Still, a Tiger would be lucky to escape several pases and a few P-47s with rockets. Cheers my friend!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You must remember that the p47 had 8 .50 cals, which if adjusted to the right position could be like a rocket hitting the tank, so the piolts and army said when they came across strafed vehicles
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@SloppybobStudios yeah dude!!! it's not like the tank is getting hit with one round when a plane strafes it...the 50 cals on airplanes were faster firing than a 50 cal mounted to a half-track or sherman...you start firing 100 armor piercing rounds at something, it's gonna have an effect...obviously it wasn't an easy kill, but i'm sure a few tigers and panthers were fucked up by strafing
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The "peashooter" BMG cal 50 (M3) had a double the cyclic rate of fire than the M2 . Times 8 with the added velocity of diving plane. would make it very effective against any WWII tanks' engine.
@USExceptionalism All I can help you with is to suggest you read the earlier comments to this video from maybe 6-8 months ago. We had another idiot making the same old tired stupid comments as you are now. No matter how many times you blow a spit wad at a 1" thick board, it ain't going to penetrate it? Get it? Try really hard to understand that concept and then apply it to the .50 cal peashooter against armor. Regardless, your stupidity is actually entertaining but pathetic.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Robert111 You are a fool. Again have you EVER fired ANY weapon? IF you fire 8 .50 cal BMGs on a 1inch thick target of nearly any material it will be riddled and eventually fail .Study physics before you finish your last year of middle school.
My Dad was a P47 pilot and quite a historian on WWII. We watched lots and lots of films on the war, and we talked about it a lot, including the awesome tanks Germany had. He never mentioned any fuel trailers being towed by German tanks, and I've never heard of that. That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
I have no intention to undermine the p 47,but this video is staged one probaly after the war with .50 cal ony foolish pilot would strife locomotives,tanks.those who won the war can do what they wanted to do ,this video is one of their post war past time foolishness.
Well I dont know what you guys see but I see a video of airplanes shooting 50 cals all over armored vehicles that look a hell of a lot like tanks, and the bullets definitely ricochet because half the bullet tracers you see at any one time are ricochets. Just watch the video closesly and you will see that they are ricochets and they are blowing vehicles up so thats proof enough 4 me.
1. This certainly sounds like a real vet. pilot. 2. This does not mean however that he is incapable of being mistaken. The ricochet .50 cal thing may have been something he was told at a briefing and just never forgot, 3. There is no Tiger in any of this footage (there is for sure a Panther or Jagdpanther). 4. It seems likely he recalls shooting up German armored vehicles (aka "Tigers") that were towing fuel, and that this so called ricochet effect worked on said "Tigers." 5. Rober111 is an ass
@BrerRabbitBDA What you said about the narrator might be true, but the facts remain as follows:
1.) No .50 cal peashooter will take out a Tiger Tank.
2.) Tiger tanks had 1.0" rolled steel plate armor underneith making them impervious to mines and bouncing .50 cal round that wouldn't penetrate 1.0" of wood, let alone steel plate.
3.) No Tiger tank EVER towed any fuel trailer ever. Never happened.
4.) Narrator of this video is a complete blowhard jackass, complete B.S.
German tanks were not armoured on thebelly and they pulled fuel bowsers! It seems like another attempt to make a small rewrite of history. Airpower did not defeat the armour in Normandy, tanks did.
I have a small question. If those 50 cal were AP rounds, how come they bounced up when hitting dirt and penetrated a tank's belly armor? If my imagination is right, they should dig themselves into the ground, not bounce up, unless the angle would be really steep. But then the same angle would be between the round bouncing up and the tank's belly, and since steel is harder then dirt, that would make the said bouncing round impossible to penetrate.
@nyctasiaselesq All your questions are answered if you realize that the narration to this video is complete and utter bullshit. Read my various comments and the discussions in the earlier pages of comments.
@Robert111 I suspected that I was right, just wanted to make sure. And yes, I did read most of your comments and they seem to be well documented (some of them offered new info, other confirmed what I already knew).
I also remember that the only time the German armor was using fuel trailers were during the invasion of Russia, due to the long distances that armor had to travel to achieve their objectives. (not fully documented on this part, thought.)
those bullets are the size of your computer screen.
Tiagor0drigues 2 months ago
@0willsy01 im done with this conversation, you were right, the .50 is a piece of shit, the Tiger is the fucking king of all tanks, there you happy now? you pathetic fucks have a good time circle-jerking about how much you love Mr Adolf's Tanks and other Nazi scum machinery. Fuck y'all, im out. ^^
DannyDaBaddy 2 months ago
it's amazing seeing how many ricochets there are
VideoRoom207 2 months ago
gotta love internet experts.
HelluvaBadShot 2 months ago
Comment removed
burnout002NL1 3 months ago
Comment removed
burnout002NL1 3 months ago
@mostly4moderate thank you!
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The underflooring of the tank is where the thinnist part of the armour is. Sherman crews would also fire rounds right below the tank where it could bounce up at underneath the panther and tiger tanks. P-47s also carried anti-tank rockets and Napalm.
Poor Germans. In the end they got the shit kicked out of them. They never had a chance.
Bamruff62 3 months ago
it's funny how the video's 47 seconds long XD
Rangerfull3 3 months ago
@0willsy01 Read Belton Cooper's book "Deathtraps".
subroaolcom 3 months ago
have you seen all them tracers bounceing around! jeasus
nipplebrady1988 3 months ago
@0willsy01 He is another delusional 50cal fanboy.....
ViciousCritique 3 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ViciousCritique im not delusional nor am i a fanboy..............why are you so hostile man ?
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ViciousCritique if you are gonna be an asshole, say out of it, we are trying to have a mature discussion.
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@0willsy01 would shred it*
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@0willsy01 ok then........lets just drop this......i know for a fact that a .50 will penetrate 25mm steel. my cousin owns a Nemesis Arms Windrunner, i have seen it fire through a 27,5 mm thick steel plate with Raufoss Mark 211 Multipurpose rounds. A Tigers top armor wouldn't stand a chance against a round with that much kinetic energy, especially after being hit by multiple rounds, all with tungsten cores ! maybe the .50 used back then was a peashooter, but the Raufoss Multipurpose shred it. :)
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
Comment removed
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy U are representing facts ? umm oh ok ....where are your facts ...pictures,videos,penetration tests etc.... show something to support your fairy tales.
ViciousCritique 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ViciousCritique But it is a fucking fact that .50 BMG has enough kinetic energy to penetrate a 25mm steel plate.........google it
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy I dont want to fucking google it ! Send me the link , or name of the Book etc.
Love it....GOOGLE IT MAN !!!! ...........
ViciousCritique 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@ViciousCritique its not knowledge from a book or a site, i witnessed the .50 BMG MK211 fired from my cousin's M96 Windrunner rifle penetrate a 27,5mm steel plate at 50 yards. lets just drop this dude
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy Ok , so u can record a video about that.
ViciousCritique 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy Read Robert111's comments like the other guy said. He already laid it all out and are you truly trying to compare a modern test with this??? Are you a fucking idiot?
Rooster1Cogburn 3 months ago 10
Comment removed
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy You're not having a conversation, asswipe. You area spreading absolute bullshit from your stupid mind that could be mistakingly believed by people that don't know any better. Stupid fuck.
Rooster1Cogburn 3 months ago 8
@Rooster1Cogburn no i didn't compare modern tests with this.......a tiger cannot be lost to a regular .50 BMG ball round......but the roof would be vulnareble to API rounds of that caliber....i don't know if they had API back then ( i said that like 2 times ) im just expressing my thoughts on the matter, and if that bothers you so much that you have to insult me, i pity you. you are either a child or really imature.
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy I've read your comments and they are full of shit. That is why I'm not the only one that you bother. Robert111 already laid it out and pointed to the records. WWII .50 BMG is FUCKING USELESS against a Tiger tank. That's it. I'm sure that today's depleted uranium or other tech would be a different story, but who the fuck cares. We're talking about the bullshit of this video.
Rooster1Cogburn 3 months ago
@Rooster1Cogburn still not an excuse to be a douchebag
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@DannyDaBaddy any support, respect, or integrity you had was totally lost when you posted that comment. now you just sound like an arrogant, hateful little prick
elms91 2 months ago
@elms91 what? was he not being an asshole? is cussing someone off for no good reason not being an asshole? sure, calling him a stupid american might piss some people off, but people like him just proves my point....90 % of the americans i've come across in my life has either been rude and ignorant, or like @Rooster1Cogburn, just plain stupid.....im sure there are exceptions.....im not hateful, read the comments, i tried being rational.... sure im probably wrong, but i shouldn't be hated for it..
DannyDaBaddy 2 months ago
Comment removed
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
Comment removed
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@0willsy01 but the krauts lost big time.........
DannyDaBaddy 3 months ago
@0willsy01 the tank is clearly on fire at the end
Robstailey 3 months ago
@Robstailey It did have external fuel tanks on the back wich were very vulnerable. A bullet "bouncing" of the ground has almost no kinetic energy left, it wouldnt even break through an inch of armor....
elvee88 3 months ago
BTW, id way rather fly a p-47 or p-51 than be in a Panzer
ashergtrrn 3 months ago
I love all these german war machine loving youtubers who talk about german machines like they were amazing and unstoppable. Every single piece of German war machinery was stopped and destroyed. Every Tiger was stopped in its tracks. who the hell would think a .50 BMG is a peashooter? Especially when there are 8 forward mounted firing at once. When multiple rounds land on target consecutively, holes will form even in tough armor. FACT=Nazis deserved to lose.
ashergtrrn 3 months ago 3
My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half year by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. I have recorded more than 450 hours on video. My brother was assassinated on 11.7.09. I was born in ´65,my brother in ´72.My family is being openly persecuted by the BND since 1958 because they did not collaborate during the 3rd Reich.The German state and the children of the NAZIS still own the property stolen from jews and others by their ancestors.Why is that so?
Martin Bott
wwwtotalitaerde 3 months ago
i dont think a bullet would have enough energy to do much damage to a tank once it hit the ground.
tunastrike11 3 months ago
If the Tiger tanks were so good, why do I speak English in America today? Lol, dumb germans - essen mein scheisse.
d0z3rr 3 months ago
@d0z3rr My brother Markus Bott had been tortured during five and a half year by the German BND which is the renamed GESTAPO. I have recorded more than 450 hours on video. My brother was assassinated on 11.7.09. I was born in ´65,my brother in ´72.My family is being openly persecuted by the BND since 1958 because they did not collaborate during the 3rd Reich.The German state and the children of the NAZIS still own the property stolen from jews and others by their ancestors.Why is that so?
wwwtotalitaerde 3 months ago
@wwwtotalitaerde tl;dr
d0z3rr 3 months ago
@d0z3rr In this case you may want to have a look at channel 18BND88
This is about German snitchers abroad undermining the local society to drain as much wealth as possible.
wwwtotalitaerde 3 months ago
@scassidy0526 HAHAAAAAAA! MADE MY DAY XD
dividednation44 4 months ago
@0willsy01 he rounds were used and prehaps all u need to do is track the tiger and u basicly killed it......and maybe the commanders standin out the top...u never know....bullets find wierd places NO DOUBT it would not destroy this tank by no means but maybe disable it
thc024 4 months ago
death from above, best way to approach a tiger from above...too slow to evade...
croniclone81 4 months ago
@croniclone81 taking a tiger from above is like trying to crush a concrete brick with a toothpick, anything less than a 20 mill on top is just going to bounce off
TheRawrber1337 4 months ago
I don't believe for a minute that .50 cal bullets could be bounced off of a road into the belly of a Tiger or any other tank for that matter, with enough energy left to penetrate even very thin armour plate at such a shallow angle.
blueskiesbob 4 months ago
On 28 June 1944, General Heinz Guderion, Inspector General of Panzer Troops reported on experiences in opposing the Allied Landing in Normandy: "... Soon the troops will demand protective armor shields be mounted over the rear decks [of tanks] because of the success of fighter-bomber attacks.” [44]The dreaded cry of Achtung! Jabos! (fighter-bombers) regularly erupted from German armored columns as the P-47 flights got to work.[38]-Wikipedia
clintonearlwalker 4 months ago
The tiger crews are laughing inside.
GERMAN STEEL!!!!!!!
mgsJager 4 months ago 3
The top of the Tiger was armoured only with 25mm steel, which can be penetrated by the .50 BMG AP/API rounds. Additionally, you do have the openings for the engine cooling system on the top, which makes any tank vulnerable from the air. Once you have the engine burning, the tank is out of action.
kubert57 4 months ago
@kubert57 Don't be so damned stupid, read my comments from a couple months back or do som research before spilling your rubbish. The turret and hull top armor is 100mm thick, fool. Where do you get such bullshit from or are you just being an assclown?
Robert111 4 months ago
Didn't P-47 have missiles? If it did, why didn't the pilot use them against this tank?
Vlomer 4 months ago
@Vlomer missiles are pathetic, one would hit from ever 100 rockets fired, this is especielly seen from the IL-2 shiturmovik, which accurately hit with a rocket once from every 132 times, calucations made by the russians.
thats why the germans used heavy autocanons, bombs and machineguns to wipe out tanks, and since the allies "enjoyed" the shittiest collection of tanks in the entire war, the luftwaffe had an easy time taking them out, since most of their planes were armed with 20MM's
dividednation44 4 months ago
Comment removed
dividednation44 4 months ago
Watched this a few times. The only Tank I can make out is possibly a Jadg Panther (front of column) Top Armour poor is POOR on tanks. .5 prolly get through in my opinion. Not read all posts sorry for any repeat.
rolandgrime 4 months ago
@rolandgrime
i agree with you on the jagdpanther. but for tanks like the tiger even top armor could probably withstand .50. remember shots always came in under quite an angel since the attack planes could not attack from straight above. So i guess most of them would just bounce. correct me if im wrong..
Akula23 4 months ago
@0willsy01 well al i know is that my grandfather fought in this war and killed some i dont care what kind of technoligy they lost
GhostRecon511 4 months ago
@0willsy01 haha they were getting attacked on all angles cause they were dumbasses
GhostRecon511 4 months ago
I too have wondered how .50-caliber fire could have destroyed tanks. Maybe it was the sheer number of rounds hitting the armor. Each bullet might chip a little bit of armor away like the blows of a jackhammer until finally the rounds ate through and set off fuel or ammo for a secondary explosion. Or simply killed the crew.
Starfish99100 4 months ago
@Starfish99100 You don't have to wonder, it NEVER HAPPENED. Can you understand that? It DID NOT HAPPEN. Get it?
Robert111 4 months ago
@0willsy01 fuck those german tanks those p47 pilots are bad ass they just told you the way they kill german tankers hahaha fuck tigers
GhostRecon511 4 months ago
@0willsy01 Well, the Tiger was heavily armored, but only on the front,sides and turret. The top and rear armor plates were only about an inch thick. Wouldn't a .50 cal AP round be able to punch though an inch of steel. Even with the angle of attack taken into account?
Lucasisgek82 4 months ago
@0willsy01 Not too bad, my friend. Not too bad at all. I see you've been around, serving the interests of history, propriety, and education. All the best you my friend.
Robert111 5 months ago
@0willsy01 Good point. General ignorance about ballistics or a Tiger tanks contruction is understandable. What always amazes me is where idiots like this coltperc lack a basic logic and common sense to figure things out. Even where one does not know the dimensions of say Tiger tracks or the limited AP capabilities of WWII .50BMG ammo, you would think that these fools would just put 2+2 together and realize the fabled and nearly invulnerable Tiger was not going get knocked out by pea-shooter.
Robert111 5 months ago
@Robert111 The mystical invulnerability of the Ausf. E is entirely over exaggerated
The best part about the platform was the outstanding 8.8 cm KwK 36. Unfortunately, the tank had numerous problems with transmission, road wheels, and the track system. The fuel and oil systems were also prone to leakages.
jigglypiggly 4 months ago
@jigglypiggly The Tiger tank was difficult and expensive to maintain and I guess you could consider that a "vulnerability" on the battlefield, but your comments here is simply irrelevant. The Tiger I may have been "vulnerable" to transmissions problems, but it certainly wasn't to the .50BMG pea-shooter. LOL.
Robert111 4 months ago
@Robert111 The .50BMG is a peashooter? Hardly, but it will not penetrate the Tiger in any way, shape or form.
How do you feel about the Russian 14.5x114mm or the German 13.2 x 92mm, are they "pea-shooters" as well?
jigglypiggly 4 months ago
@jigglypiggly Yes, when discussing anti-armor weapons, the .50BMG is a peashooter pure and simple. The .50BMG for this reason was NOT EVEN used or classified as an anti-armor round in WWII and was never used that way by anyone with half a brain. The 14.5X114 was an early anti-armor round but was of course ineffective against anything but light tanks and some select points of the Mark IV medium tank.
Robert111 4 months ago
@Robert111 Regardless of classification, the M2 Browning was utilized as an effective weapon against light armored weapons fielded by the Germans and Japanese. A very well-rounded weapon with a good punch for a machine gun.
Anyone who believes a .50BMG can knock out a Tiger tank needs their head examined.
jigglypiggly 4 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@0willsy01 I've fired .50 BMG in service, and .50 AP will considerably out-penetrate 20 mm HE rounds, believe me. Now, 20 mm AP will out-penetrate .50 BMG AP., but aircraft are normally loaded primarily with 20 mm HE because it is more effective against thin-skinned, fuel-rich targets.
A burst of 50 AP from a P47 can cut the tracks in half even on a Tiger tank and immobilize it.
I've read Roberts comments, and any man calling a .50BMG a "pea-shooter" is clueless about weapons performance.
coltperc 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@0willsy01 WW2 .50 BMG AP could penetrate 0.75-inch face-hardened armor-plate at 550 yds, and left the muzzle at 13.000+ ft/lbs of Kinetic Energy. That is NOT a "pea-shooter". A .50 BMG could punch twice as deep thru armor-plate as 20MM HE rounds normally loaded in aircraft guns. One .50 bullet might not get thru 1" armor plate, but 8 .50's firing at 80 rounds / sec from a P47 from 500 yards would!
coltperc 5 months ago
Armor Piercing projectiles from the .50 in machine guns could not penetrate the front, side, or turret armor of Large enemy tanks like a Tiger they sometimes penetrated the engine grilles and exhaust system disabling Panzers. I'm sure they did not use plain ball ammo when they went out on strafing missions.
anpmech 5 months ago
Comment removed
anpmech 5 months ago
Comment removed
anpmech 5 months ago
"they carried fuel in a trailer behind them, well most of them"
Could it be that the narrator was talking about a different tank to the one being shown? Who'd of thought that maybe there was no good footage of a tank with a fuel trailer and so the film maker decided to cut in a section of colour film showing a different tank?
lifeforce99 5 months ago
@lifeforce99 The German army simply didn't use fuel trailers for tanks at all, that is the problem. The bullshit narration is also specifically talking about Tiger tanks and NEVER did a Tiger tank tow any fuel trailer. German did not have any tank fuel trailers in production or use - they didn't even have them.
Robert111 5 months ago
Bit hard to see. They look a bit Tigerish, but could be anything really. To the Allies, every jerry tank was a tiger.
tommiatkins 5 months ago
with the aircraft traveling aprox 250mph or 300mph shooting at the same time..the bullets has incredible momentum ...with thinner armor being on top of the tank and the aircraft shooting downward..it was a no brainer to take out any tank like this..germans make a great tank but physics are the answer here...
HamTheDog 5 months ago
British Typhoons were better than P-47 and the Soviet Strumovik were also better.... But P-47 was roughly the same as Tyhpoon in dogfighting and better than the Strumovik.....
Crape101 5 months ago
"As the war progressed, the German air force, the Luftwaffe, found itself swept from the sky by British and American air patrols, leaving German tank battalions unsupported from the air. Tank-busting aircraft like the Russian IL-2 Stormovik, with its 23 mm cannons, the RAF's Hawker Hurricane equipped with 40 mm cannons, and Hawker Typhoons, American P-47 Thunderbolts and P-51 Mustangs, all armed with American-made 5-inch rockets, found the slow-moving tanks easy targets."
iexusuxei 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tiger tanks can easily be taken out by .50 caliber machine guns. If the rear engine deck is hit that is. Being flat there is very little deflection occurring. Also, the engine radiatiors lay flat up against the rear deck. They are covered by a thick waffle type metal grate. The bullets coming down can easily go through the grate openings thereby puncturing the radiators and destroying the cooling fans. Being liquid cooled the engine would then overheat and die. I've worked on real Tigers
zorpit 6 months ago
@zorpit The grates overlap, you idiot, you can't even shine light directly through. Stupid.
Rooster1Cogburn 6 months ago 3
Oh by the way, I had seen and touch a real Tiger 1 tanks through my travels in the States and Europe. Does this mean I am Tiger tank expert, NOO!! I just saying the possibities are there. These brave men fought against these machines and its crew. Respect them. Notice, I didn't use any cuss words in my comments. Airborne! God Bless the Allies for winning a terrible war which my family and friends were involved.
brendonsfc 6 months ago
Check out P-47 Strafing ground targets by toohooah. As a service member, some war stories can be stretch. Some can be dead true! Airborne!
brendonsfc 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just pulled out a highly detail Tamiya 1/35 scale Tiger tank model, which I assembled as Michael Wittman's Tiger numbered 007 from storage. On top of the engine deck are cooling vents. The Germans would put protective sceens on these vents, so the enemy infantyman won't put hand grenades through. Won't a .50 cal round or even a splinter from the air, go through these vents and disable a Tiger? Airborne!
brendonsfc 6 months ago
If I was an American grunt or tanker during WWII and a Tiger was coming my way. I will pray that P-47 take it out by any means. God Bless.
brendonsfc 6 months ago
@Robert111 Another possibility with the narration. Tiger 1s were known for its mechanical failures and poor engine performance. This maybe confused when a Tiger was stafed with .50 cals. The crew just abandoned the tank due its breakdown. If a Tiger did caught on fire from stafing, it was probably caused by a incediary round hitting fuel from a leaking line. So, these Vets can be telling the truth. Being in the military, if there is a will, there is a way. Airborne!
brendonsfc 6 months ago
@brendonsfc I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you, the WWII .50BMG was completely and utterly useless against Tiger I or Tiger II tanks. Period. That's it. I don't know what this reality is so hard for you. The narration of the vid is a complete lie - a complete bullshit. I have ZERO respect for bullshit liars. The Germans would NOT put "protective screens on Tiger Tanks and a grenade would never go through any vents. I don't know where you get such utter bullshit from.
Robert111 6 months ago 4
@Robert111 Robert you really need to calm down. Any knowledge you might have on this subject has been completely pushed aside by the immature way you've tried to display it
elms91 6 months ago
@elms91 As a well respected and published author on WWII German armor, I am entittled to express my knowledge on youtube in the manner I see fit. Thank you very much. :) Certainly it is equally amazing to you the way in which these fools come up with just stupid and crazy claims about that which they have no clue. Even without ANY study, you would think common sense would prevail (i.e. you can't tank out Tiger tanks with bullets or by casually lobbing grenade into engine... LOL!)
Robert111 6 months ago 2
@Robert111 Oh what book(s) have you written? I must pick it up
elms91 6 months ago
@elms91 I've been asked that many times but in this forum (youtube), I simply can't say - that would be revealing my name/identity. I use this youtube account, like many others, to express opinions on many things, not just my academic study, anonymously. I cannot have my posts connected to my books, etc. I'm sure you wouldn't reveal your true name either. My books can be found in most Borders stores (the ones that haven't shut down) or of course Amazon. They are big with lots of color photos.
Robert111 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Robert111 Haha wow you are so full of shit, Robert
elms91 6 months ago
@Robert111 Are you a Tiger 1 expert? I do stand corrected. I fired the M903 .50 cal round which would penetrate 1.34 inches of steel. This round was not used in WWII. The Tiger 1 amored plates top and bottom were 1". The narration can be a possibilty. i.e. A M-1 tank was stopped when a RPG ricochet off the road, went under the chassis and hit a fuel cell. Any where else, the Abrams armored would of stop it. Also, ease with the names calling. Airborne!
brendonsfc 6 months ago
Rememered, the M2 .50 cal was designed as a anti-tank weapon in the 1920's. As of today, this weapon, still can be used against thin armored.
brendonsfc 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A Lieutenant from the 3rd Armored Division during WWII. He wrote that the M4 Sherman suffered great loses from Tiger tanks, but when they called for artillery support. They could stop a Tiger with artillery shrapnel penetrating the very thin turret's roof and killing most of the crew. With enough concertrated fire power from eight .50 cal armor piercing bullets going through thin metal such as a turret roof and it can set off a secondary explosion when the Tiger's 88mm ammo ignites.
brendonsfc 6 months ago
@brendonsfc You are trying, but failed. Artillery and/or airstrikes were almost always called when Tiger tanks were encountered. Why? Well because the 75mm (3.0") main gun of out tanks couldn't do much against a Tiger tank, even 1-2 shots to the tracks didn't stop it. The .50" peashooter for some reason fared even worse than the 75mm tank gun. I direct artillery hit in most places on a Tiger will take it out instantly. Average artillery was 150mm (6.0" HE shells). 1.0" rolled steel plate isn't
Robert111 6 months ago
@brendonsfc (cont.) "thin metal". Where the fuck do you get such freaking STUPID ideas from? You can fire as many BBs as you want from your BB-gun, it AIN"T FUCKING going to go through a piece of 1/8" sheetmetal from the Home Depot. Why do you stupid fucks have so much trouble understanding simple ballistics??? Seriously, what the FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN? Are you pretending to be this stupid or what??? Amazing. Many WWI tank had 1/4" armor plate, not a fucking TIGER tank, you fuckwad.
Robert111 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm not sure if people think their opinions substitute for fact here, but since none of us where there, it seems obvious to me we should go by what the actual pilots and soldiers had to say on the subject. And yes, by pilots accounts, they could knock out tanks with their .50 cal guns. They admit they could not penetrate some areas of the armor, but relied on getting rounds into the engine and starting fires etc, and making multiple passes. "see P-47 strafing ground targets"
siral000 6 months ago
@siral000 Let me help you THINK because it is obvious you fail to do so without assistance. Here we go:
1.) The deck and roof turret armor was 1.0" rolled steel plate - impervious to WWII .50BMG under any circumstances. Get that through your thick skull.
2.) I just came back from a dive in the ocean where I shot a 12' Great White shark with a spit wad and killed it with one "spit" shot. Since you weren't there, you should go by what I say. Think REAL FUCKING HARD about this.
Robert111 6 months ago
@Robert111 On this question, an email from a well-known P-51 Ace said (but he didn't know what tank it was) that he and others strafed a G. tank caught in the open, took turns strafing it, even bouncing slugs up from below it, but it kept on going. ***HOWEVER, it was "streaming vapor" when they finally gave up. So, did some of the slugs, or frags, get through and the vapor was steam? (Maybe just steaming sweat from the tankers inside!)
ranhat2 7 months ago
@ranhat2 That account from the P-51 pilot sounds credible. The German light tanks, many TD's, and even the Panther tank could be damaged by such fire. Steaming vapor would likely point to a pierced radiator, which was very possible on almost any vehicle/tank except for the Tiger tanks and heavy tank-destroyers. The bouncing bullets off the ground came from pre-war model tanks and only when on concrete. They had essentially sheet metal on the bottom and could be damaged in that manner.
Robert111 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Robert111
You're right Robert. Another thing (despite what others are saying) - a .50 Cal could also rip the tread off of any tank, including a Tiger or Panther. Then, it would be a sitting duck for other strafe runs featuring P47's and P-38's with Rockets, Bombs and Cannons.
Burnsengine 6 months ago
@Burnsengine A .50 BMG could "rip the tread" off a Tiger tank only if someone sat there and fired at the 2.5-foot wide track link by link. It would take maybe 100-150 rounds if you hit it every single time. A straffing run from a plane could put maybe 4-5 bullets on a target that small per pass. So in theory a group of planes could make repeated passes and with the help of sheer luck, they might knock the tracks of a Tiger tank which has links that are each 1.0" of solid steel.
Robert111 6 months ago 3
@Robert111 It would take 4-5 planes probably about an hour to accomplish this feat if the tank did not move. Common sense would dictate this realization for most people. On ground, maybe it was a common tactic for quick moving U.S. jeeps with .50 cals mounted on them would go around knocking off the tracks of Tiger tanks so that they would be sitting ducks? Maybe? A .50 BMG IS AN UTTERLY USELESS WEAPON AGAINST A TIGER TANK. U-S-E-L-E-S-S. That is WHY they used rockets and BOMBS.
Robert111 6 months ago 3
Tigers are rare around here...... I saw Littlefield's collection some years ago, but no TIger. I'd look at Tiger's engine compartment to decide if a 4K+ fps .50--or 20-30-100 of them--would get through by spreading the slots or tearing the plates up. But how thick are Tiger's vent plates? Surely a .50 would cut thru 1" at that angle & speed.
ranhat2 7 months ago
@ranhat2 Read my earlier comments for WWII era .50 BMG ballistics. .58" penetration at 0-degrees. At angles/range fired from plane, you might get 1/8" to 3/16", 1/4" in rare circumstances. Tiger II had no grates, but 1.0" thick domes/covers. The result was that even liquid couldn't be poured down. Tiger I had 1.0" overlapping grates. Most would realize by common sense that a heavy tank will not fall victim to .50 cal pea-shooter. Multiple hits with 30mm in same spot might do it, not .5 peas.
Robert111 7 months ago
Comment removed
knight0Farabia07 7 months ago
@ranhat2 keep trying to pull that bullshit thru. what happens in the videogames your playing doesnt happen in real life, the luftwaffe were the only ones to be smart and efforting enough to equip their fighters with awesom 30MM autocannons, hence some versions of the FW190 carried 2 30MM autocannons wich gave the simple fighter a massive tank busting abillity solely using the machineguns, however, the groundattack based FW190s were commonly heavily armed with diffrent types of sheer explosives
knight0Farabia07 7 months ago
@knight0Farabia07 Video games? What are you talking about with that and "pull that b..s...thru"? "Pull"? Luftwaffe had real tank-killers--see Rudel's book about his Stuka w/ two cannons--real destructive power when delivered onto tank tops; 100s of Russian tanks killed. An consider halfway grownup comments and style or people will think, "Retard!"
But surely people who know you see a fine, educated, sensitive, soul, despite sharp other evidence.
Bye. Don't bother to write.
ranhat2 7 months ago
@ranhat2 fuckfaced retard, what did i write? i wrote that the luftwaffe were the only ones with the tank busting and powerfull airforce, what is wrong with you does your dumbo brains works backwards? your retarded concepts of 50CAL.'s destroying tigers is fucked up beyoned recognition. you can take your fucky P47 and piss on it. it cant outmenuevre a bomber. its armament was a serious issue too. only 50 calibres. you'd die from a bombers turret since you have such shitty armament.
knight0Farabia07 7 months ago
Isn't this from the TV show "Moving Targets"?
I'v wondered about .50s hitting the engine-room vents, and suspect that a bunch of .50 slugs at 3000 fps, probably (2600+ and the acft's 300 mph) would have much power and likely do damage, though of course nothing like a 20mm or 30mm. If some high-velocity frags got into the engine & radiator, that would stop a tank and perhaps cut fuel lines.....etc.
ranhat2 7 months ago
@ranhat2 Yes, what you described was possible of Mark IV tanks and even the Panther. However, the .50 BMG was absoutely useless in any manner against the Tiger tanks. If you ever have the chance to inspect the engine deck of these tanks you'd see why.
Robert111 7 months ago
This is so awesome, but if you think about it ... most of these pilots were drafted ... and they had no expience at all ... and now they're flying like pro's! and that's what makes it so great!
KoesKoes99 7 months ago
@thomasbhunter68 The pilot narrator was in the war? Maybe. If he was, like many 20-something year old at the time, he didn't know shit from shinola about German equipement then and doesn't know it now. Many U.S. pilots were also full of shit, claiming to have made "kills" on more Tiger tanks than were even deployed in the western theater of the war. Many would take out a transport truck and mark it down as a "Tiger tank destroyed".
Rooster1Cogburn 7 months ago
@thomasbhunter68 Yo dude, you've been suckered. There was no such thing as towed fuel tanks at all on any Tiger tanks. See other comments, do some research, it ain't hard. Ain't no fuel tanks being towed.
Rooster1Cogburn 8 months ago 2
Is he not trying to get the tracks and make it unable to move?
GenericName71 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Robert111 you stupid lying faggot. you wrote that "a .50 cal wouldn't penetrate an 1.0" of wood, let alone 1.0" of armor". did you or did you not say that dummy? can you read your own quotes or are you too stupid to figure that out? so here's how i know you are the dumbest shitbag on earth.you think a 50cal round wouldn't penetrate an inch of wood.you keep directing me to read your idiotic old posts. like i give a flying shit what you've ever written(including your imaginary book) retard
USExceptionalism 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
such hostile people lol....there have been confirmed gun kills on tanks (all sides) from .50 cal and others.....heard a ww2 fighter pilot say they used to try and richocet rounds under the tank.....and i think the russians used to have a .50 cal anti tank rifle from like 40-41 for infantry (not sure on that)
BuckleyAFBpilot 8 months ago
@BuckleyAFBpilot Yea, and all tanks are the same. Get a clue, kid.
Rooster1Cogburn 8 months ago 3
Comment removed
BuckleyAFBpilot 8 months ago
Comment removed
BuckleyAFBpilot 8 months ago
Comment removed
BuckleyAFBpilot 8 months ago
@Rooster1Cogburn MR Cockburn where did i say all tanks are the same.?" tiger tank wasnt even around in 40-41......... just saying they are tons of cases of .50cal penetrate armor(tanks,light armor,aircraft)...Get a clue, kid actually read peoples post before being a prick
BuckleyAFBpilot 8 months ago
@BuckleyAFBpilot The reason for the confusion is probably because your comment, although not incorrect per se, is just irrelevant to this video or the discussion here. The .50BMG has been used a lot, is effective for a variety of purposes, but had no chance in hell of knocking out or immobilizing a Tiger tank in any manner. You sure as hell couldn't bounce them off a road and have them penetrate 1.0" of solid rolled steel plate. This is the issue relevant to THIS video.
Robert111 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Blow up their fuel trailer and a tiger tank isn't much use
rickcain2320 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
at 0:36 you can clearly see smoke rising out of tank, so yeah it penetrated
TheSemperfiusmc 9 months ago
@TheSemperfiusmc Yeah, and that's a tank right? You stupid fucking cunt. This country is in the shithole for uneducated corn pone shit like you that run off at the mouth shit that can only come from a fucking dolt.
Robert111 9 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Robert111 You're the cunt you got the cum and pussy juice still streaming out your ass.
USExceptionalism 8 months ago
@Robert111 but in the video the narrator says that pilots shoot at the fuel tank to set the armored vehicle on fire, right? that's one way to wreck a tank for a while at least?
wetaconce 9 months ago
@wetaconce No, try listening to the video again. That is not what the blowhard says at all. Did you really somehow hear "fuel tank"? Really? Second, you can't shoot at the fuel tank of a Tiger tank.
Robert111 9 months ago
@Robert111 ohhhh, now i get it! thanks!
wetaconce 9 months ago
@Robert111
Maybe if people bothered to look at a picture of the back of a tiger tank they would realise there is no attachment for a fuel trailer. There are two hard points on either side to tow a damaged vehicle but that's it. That won't put people off from facing the truth. Read your comments, witty, cutting and most of all, accurate. Good job my man.
baconified 9 months ago 11
@baconified Thank you very much. It is digusting how videos like this will provide a revisionist history for younger people or those otherwise lacking in common sense and logic.
Robert111 9 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Great footage! Excellent way to kill Krauts! Let's not forget....these Tiger tanks were the same ones that crushed children's skulls in Russia...as the soldiers would bet on how long it would take to hear the sounds of skulls cracking! This account - by way of an ex-wehrmacht soldier.
sisco249 9 months ago
pz. III and IVs used a trailer for 2 fueldrums in N-africa and operation Barbarossa, Tigers, Panzer mark 5(Panther) & 6(Tiger) did not. .50cal could not take out a tank in that way due to overlapping wheels made out of highgrade steel maybe only damage the wheels or the tracks. .50CAL Browning M2 AP could only penetrate the bottom if the Tiger was on its side and it was aimed at 0 degree angle, but a direct impact from a HVAR would take out the tank if hit on the turrettop (25mm armor).
poenschepper 9 months ago
@poenschepper Your reasoning is in the right place, but you are incorrect on most accounts. The best WWII .50BMG AP rounds could NOT penentrate the hull floor of the Tiger I or Tiger II even if shot point-blank at 90-degrees (I don't know what you mean by "0 degree angle"). See my earlier comments regarding WWII .50BMG armor piercing capabilities. WWII HVAR were high explosive, NOT shapped charge, they would be useless against turret armor from any direction.
Robert111 9 months ago
@Robert111 my bad about the 0 degree angle it should be 90 indeed :) but for the HVAR there were 2 types 1 high explosive and the other one was a semi-armour-piercing warhead with a nose fuse this one could have taken out the tank when hittin the turret
poenschepper 9 months ago
@poenschepper Yea, there is a reason they called it "semi-armor piercing." Cutting/pasting from Wikipedia is not a pursuasive argument and shows no knowledge of the subject at all.
Robert111 9 months ago 2
@Robert111 denying the fact they excist is pretty much the same thing is it. I never said they went down by the hundreds from HVARS semi armor piercing or not but a direct hit on a vulnerable part like the hatch from the commander roughly 25mm thick could take out the crew maybe even set fire to the remaining shells in the tank, this cutting/pasting you say comes from books mate "Still, a Tiger would be lucky to escape several pases and a few P-47s with rockets. Cheers my friend", your words
poenschepper 9 months ago
@poenschepper Yep, I think our only disagreement is where a Tiger tank would be vulnerable to the HVAR. You're saying the turret, I was referring to the engine deck. I agree that certain select places on the turret could be vulnerable and cause injury or death to maybe a couple of the crew but is very unlikely to knock out the tank. An HVAR to the engine deck of the Tiger I could take it out, but less likely on the Tiger II (1.0" armor on engine deck)/few shot traps.
Robert111 9 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Tiger fan boys get over yourselfs! Look at the pics from Falise ! You will find plenty of Panthers and a few tigers that were raped by Typhoons and P47s! You want to argue about rather it was 5.0 rocketts or 8 fifty cals firing or the 200 pound bombs who cares! At the end of the day the P47 was the better weapon.
Beeba1 9 months ago
@Beeba1 The P-47 was the better weapon? Jesus fucking Christ listen to this stupid fuck. No one here that I'm aware of (minus your stupid confused fuckface) is trying to compare the airplane and tank. We are responding the false narration of the video. What you are fucking retarded or something? Stupid fucking cunt.
Robert111 9 months ago
@0willsy01 You are exactly right, maybe you are even refering to the actual memiors of German tank crews who said that the heavy straffings sounded like hail on the roof. When rockets would hit the heavy German tanks (Panther/Tiger I/II), it would sound like dull thuds. 5.0" rockets could be dangerous to engine deck though. It was direct impact from 75/76mm rounds that would be ear-splitting and send shockwaves throughout the tank. With Tiger tanks though, even the 75/75mm did little.
Robert111 9 months ago
@Robert111 What are you talking about? The 4.5" rockets went like straight lines in the air and could even penetrate battleships during the pacific theater. I don't think the 5" bounced off the Tiger.
.50's killing Tigers is just BS tho, I agree. And I just want to confirm to other people that what you said about those trailers is correct, only the III and IIII's had trailers sometimes
Pagelos 9 months ago
@Pagelos No, the best aircraft rockets we had during WWII were the 5.0" "Holy Moses" HVAR that was not capable of penetrating battleships in any possible way and would require immense luck to take out a Tiger tank. It may appear that the rockets went in straight lines, but they didn't. Of course the major problem is that they were "eyeball" aimed in the general target direction and unguided. Still, a Tiger would be lucky to escape several pases and a few P-47s with rockets. Cheers my friend!
Robert111 9 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You must remember that the p47 had 8 .50 cals, which if adjusted to the right position could be like a rocket hitting the tank, so the piolts and army said when they came across strafed vehicles
SloppybobStudios 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@SloppybobStudios yeah dude!!! it's not like the tank is getting hit with one round when a plane strafes it...the 50 cals on airplanes were faster firing than a 50 cal mounted to a half-track or sherman...you start firing 100 armor piercing rounds at something, it's gonna have an effect...obviously it wasn't an easy kill, but i'm sure a few tigers and panthers were fucked up by strafing
maciverandy 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The "peashooter" BMG cal 50 (M3) had a double the cyclic rate of fire than the M2 . Times 8 with the added velocity of diving plane. would make it very effective against any WWII tanks' engine.
USExceptionalism 10 months ago
@USExceptionalism All I can help you with is to suggest you read the earlier comments to this video from maybe 6-8 months ago. We had another idiot making the same old tired stupid comments as you are now. No matter how many times you blow a spit wad at a 1" thick board, it ain't going to penetrate it? Get it? Try really hard to understand that concept and then apply it to the .50 cal peashooter against armor. Regardless, your stupidity is actually entertaining but pathetic.
Robert111 10 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Robert111 You are a fool. Again have you EVER fired ANY weapon? IF you fire 8 .50 cal BMGs on a 1inch thick target of nearly any material it will be riddled and eventually fail .Study physics before you finish your last year of middle school.
USExceptionalism 10 months ago
My Dad was a P47 pilot and quite a historian on WWII. We watched lots and lots of films on the war, and we talked about it a lot, including the awesome tanks Germany had. He never mentioned any fuel trailers being towed by German tanks, and I've never heard of that. That doesn't sound reasonable to me.
mickeydtexas 10 months ago
Those white balls are enemy bullets coming up.
5jonesville 10 months ago
Burn german , burn ..
lostinspace013 10 months ago
I have no intention to undermine the p 47,but this video is staged one probaly after the war with .50 cal ony foolish pilot would strife locomotives,tanks.those who won the war can do what they wanted to do ,this video is one of their post war past time foolishness.
shamidfdg 10 months ago
@shamidfdg The p_47 was obsolete after war. Those sold to civilains were demiled
USExceptionalism 10 months ago
total waste of ammo...that caliber NEVER would harm a tiger tank..
1968userrgb 10 months ago
No Tiger present, more propaganda.
Scharfschutzen1 11 months ago
Dumkopf, who is this WE?? Explain in detail.
Scharfschutzen1 11 months ago
@ phoneman22
That isn't anti air, those are actually ricochets.
Sean583 11 months ago
Well I dont know what you guys see but I see a video of airplanes shooting 50 cals all over armored vehicles that look a hell of a lot like tanks, and the bullets definitely ricochet because half the bullet tracers you see at any one time are ricochets. Just watch the video closesly and you will see that they are ricochets and they are blowing vehicles up so thats proof enough 4 me.
Sean583 11 months ago
1. This certainly sounds like a real vet. pilot. 2. This does not mean however that he is incapable of being mistaken. The ricochet .50 cal thing may have been something he was told at a briefing and just never forgot, 3. There is no Tiger in any of this footage (there is for sure a Panther or Jagdpanther). 4. It seems likely he recalls shooting up German armored vehicles (aka "Tigers") that were towing fuel, and that this so called ricochet effect worked on said "Tigers." 5. Rober111 is an ass
BrerRabbitBDA 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@BrerRabbitBDA What you said about the narrator might be true, but the facts remain as follows:
1.) No .50 cal peashooter will take out a Tiger Tank.
2.) Tiger tanks had 1.0" rolled steel plate armor underneith making them impervious to mines and bouncing .50 cal round that wouldn't penetrate 1.0" of wood, let alone steel plate.
3.) No Tiger tank EVER towed any fuel trailer ever. Never happened.
4.) Narrator of this video is a complete blowhard jackass, complete B.S.
Robert111 11 months ago
German tanks were not armoured on thebelly and they pulled fuel bowsers! It seems like another attempt to make a small rewrite of history. Airpower did not defeat the armour in Normandy, tanks did.
cf80to01 1 year ago
I have a small question. If those 50 cal were AP rounds, how come they bounced up when hitting dirt and penetrated a tank's belly armor? If my imagination is right, they should dig themselves into the ground, not bounce up, unless the angle would be really steep. But then the same angle would be between the round bouncing up and the tank's belly, and since steel is harder then dirt, that would make the said bouncing round impossible to penetrate.
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago
@nyctasiaselesq All your questions are answered if you realize that the narration to this video is complete and utter bullshit. Read my various comments and the discussions in the earlier pages of comments.
Robert111 1 year ago
@Robert111 I suspected that I was right, just wanted to make sure. And yes, I did read most of your comments and they seem to be well documented (some of them offered new info, other confirmed what I already knew).
I also remember that the only time the German armor was using fuel trailers were during the invasion of Russia, due to the long distances that armor had to travel to achieve their objectives. (not fully documented on this part, thought.)
nyctasiaselesq 1 year ago