Author Topic: Bombs/rockets vs GV's  (Read 6180 times)

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #120 on: December 14, 2005, 08:21:55 AM »
Quote
after all he's got 'pictures and film'


Ahyup, a film of indisputable evidence on what happens when a bomb is dropped on a tank.

Its a hell of alot more than what you've brought to the table. Nothing more than hearsay really. Because some researcher says something 40-50-60 years after the fact, its true? Because he writes a book about it, that information is 100% correct?

I've got ocean front property in montana for sale. Do you want to buy that too?
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #121 on: December 14, 2005, 08:37:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Morpheus
Brilliant.


Bruno was answering to wipass

Usually when answering to someone you use his name :D

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #122 on: December 14, 2005, 08:46:52 AM »
Quote
Yet, you still haven't addressed that. Why? What matters is what a bomb did to armor, not what it did most of the time due to pilot error and miscalculation prior to dropping the bomb.


Sure I did, in fact I posted info directly related to the British studies the poster asked about, not irrelevant unsourced images...

Try reading it...

Quote
Do you know the difference between what a hit from a tank sabot looks like and what bomb damage looks like? Again, if you're the genious you claim to be, then you would. They are self explanatory. And again, if you need sourced explanations of those kinds of photos, then you really are the idiot I think you are.


Sure I do but what's got to do with anything posted in this thread? Do even know what sabot round is? How many WW2 tanks carried Sabots, look it up...

Quote
Wait, I know it? I never said they were lies. And if you would go back to where I said that, you'll see I was talking about your silly little write up on how panthers where destroyed. YOUR statistics son, not mine. So you're saying they where bogus now?


What you said about those 'stats' (I'll quote it again for you):

Quote
You know what you can do with those statistics don't you?


You dismissed them, either they are true or not.

They aren't my 'statistics' anyway. They were compiled by the people who needed to know this sort of thing right after the batles happened. Dr. Ian Gooderson researched this stuff and wrote several books and articles, none of them agree with you. Write him and tell him how much smarter you are...

Quote
Ahyup, a film of indisputable evidence on what happens when a bomb is dropped on a tank.


Nonsense, you can download those same news clips from Wochenschau Archiv. What you posted was an unsourced edited collection of new reels edited together.

If you have issue with the professional researchers I used as a source why don't you write your own book and set them all straight? After you are the 'real genius' of these forums, aren't you..?

However, it might be best just to stick to vulching yourself in a computer game...

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #123 on: December 14, 2005, 08:48:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Bruno was answering to wipass

Usually when answering to someone you use his name :D


Yeah, that's another example of his unquestionable intelligence...

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #124 on: December 14, 2005, 09:02:17 AM »
lol I bow down to your high level of inteligence.

As I said many posts back, like talking to a brick wall.

Cherry picking examples to support your opinion on something doesnt count.

Results count. Yet you're still going to sit there and tell me that bombs did no damage to tanks. You're still dumb enough to sit there and think I care about statistical losses rather than actuall results of what happens when a bomb hits a tank.

Guys like you dont argue to provide information, they argue just for spite. Know it alls like you are always right, and you'll google sources and cherry pick facts that are in your favor. But you're still missing the simple fact that bombs and rockets can and did destroy tanks.

Quote
Does anybody out there have any information that can support the effectiveness of bombs and rockets on tanks? Everything I am finding , surveys conducted by the British and Americans during and after the war suggests that bombs and rockets were not very successful at all. I have even found documentation on a tiger company that was bombed around the clock by over 800 allied bombers. They only lost 2 tanks. 1 drove into a crater and got stuck and another flipped over on its side. SO, if there is not any good information to support the bombs shouldn't the damage ratio be changed in AH?


There's the original post. Sure he is asking about one source of reports. And obviously you are not going to mention that bombs where often inefective in the field against armor because the pilots dropping them where hardly close to being accurrate.

The question is... Can a bomb, if it directly impacts a tank, do damage. The answer is simple, obvious and factual proven only by history and countless example. Yes.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #125 on: December 14, 2005, 09:04:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
Yeah, that's another example of his unquestionable intelligence...


You want to start nit picking mistakes in posts that have nothing to do with what's being talked about? Or keep on the topic?
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #126 on: December 14, 2005, 09:10:35 AM »
Bruno,

You want insults? Here, you are a flat out areshole.

Morph never argued against the point of tanks not being taken out more often by ground weapons than air.  You argue against Varin without any more certainty than having read another's "opinion" 30 years after the fact.  

Pick at me all you like, I could care less.  Having been around more than enough WW2 armour (I have arranged the import of over 40 seperate German pieces alone, not too mention a group of three Tigers that we were unable to get import permits on) and seen it's available OEM drawings, data, and manuals, I feel confident enough that I understand a bit about their tanks and halftracks.  

At the end the fact still remains you are a broken record who has failed to realise that no one has argued against the majority of points you brought up.

I think the Florida sun has baked your rock a bit too much and your brain suffers.  Again it is an opinon, but based on your actions, it sounds like a fair assumption.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2005, 09:13:01 AM by Bodhi »
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #127 on: December 14, 2005, 09:34:45 AM »
Quote
Results count.


They sure do, check the results of the British studies. They don't not agree with you in anyway...

Quote
Yet you're still going to sit there and tell me that bombs did no damage to tanks.


Instead of tellign me what I said tell me what I said, why don't you show me. Quote where I said that.

I'll quote myself once again just for you:

Quote
No matter what unsourced images some may have laying around on their hard drive the facts are air power was a very limtied threat against mbt's. The most effective way in stopping armor was for air power to hit the soft skin support vehicles. The amount of wehrmacht armor abandoned or destroyed by German tanks crews was far more substantial then any losses from the air.

The same was true in the east. Il2s and other VVS ground attack aircraft had little success in destroying large numbers mbts. What they did do is stop supplies and support from reaching the battlefield. the term is 'battle interdiction' and this was the primary focus of almost all ground attack aircraft. Even the Gustav series stukas only had limited success against mbts. They were a few exception pilots but for the most part the 'tank busting stuka' was as much a failure as the Hs 129. The Stukas roll in WW2 was primarily battlefield interdiction.


If you want to stay on-toic then do so and dispute the above, and the studies, with facts. You haven't come close to addressing any of that. As I said above you just offer ad hominem, strawman BS.

Quote
Guys like you dont argue to provide information, they argue just for spite. Know it alls like you are always right, and you'll google sources and cherry pick facts that are in your favor. But you're still missing the simple fact that bombs and rockets can and did destroy tanks.


My argument is supported by facts. Where are yours?

I didn't say no tank was ever destroyed by a bomb/rocket. I'll quote myself once again:

Quote
No matter what unsourced images some may have laying around on their hard drive the facts are air power was a very limtied threat against mbt's. The most effective way in stopping armor was for air power to hit the soft skin support vehicles. The amount of wehrmacht armor abandoned or destroyed by German tanks crews was far more substantial then any losses from the air.

The same was true in the east. Il2s and other VVS ground attack aircraft had little success in destroying large numbers mbts. What they did do is stop supplies and support from reaching the battlefield. the term is 'battle interdiction' and this was the primary focus of almost all ground attack aircraft. Even the Gustav series stukas only had limited success against mbts. They were a few exception pilots but for the most part the 'tank busting stuka' was as much a failure as the Hs 129. The Stukas roll in WW2 was primarily battlefield interdiction.


Bodhi,

Quote
You want insults? Here, you are a flat out areshole.


That maybe so but don't come here like a little women crying about being insulted. If 'insults' affect you so then try not to use them.

Quote
Morph never argued against the point of tanks not being taken out more often by ground weapons than air.


Where did I say he did, quote it please. Strawman nonsense by you as well?

Quote
You argue against Varin without any more certainty than having read another's "opinion" 30 years after the fact.


And you argued for Varin based on that same 'uncertainty'. In fact you went as far to use Wittman's death as evidence of the effectiveness of air power against mbts, I will quote it for you:

Quote
I really wonder what Michael Wittman thinks, wherever he is, about rockets or bombs not being effective against heavy tanks.


When Balsur pointed out to you that there is some 'uncertainty' around Wittman's loss:

Quote
Originally posted by BALSUR
ok, a couple of things to address here.
1st. Micheal Wittman's tiger was surrounded by allied tanks and destroyed. At first , it was thought that Typhoons destroyed the tanks with rockets. That was later negated.


Your reply was:

Quote
That is completely wrong.


Now where in 'that is completely wrong' is there room for uncertainty?

It's your line of arguement about Wittman...

I already explained why Varin didn't have the complete picture when he arrived at his conclusion. Once again you can accept whatever version you want but in the context on this thread Wittman's loss does not prove the effectiveness of air power vs mbts. After all there's that 'uncertainty' thing, right?

Offline BALSUR

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #128 on: December 14, 2005, 09:45:10 AM »
Thank You, Ramzey.That's one of the survey's I've read. Overall what did you get out of it? Here's my take. Sounds like most of the allied  fighter-bombers were reporting  exaggerated kills.  Sounds like very few heavy battle tanks were destroyed by the air, not with the efficiency that happens in AH.

One thing I have picked up is the differant views that people take their information from surveys/stats, pictures, witnesses and experiences. The reall answers are there when you combine all these. Sometimes, you have two conflicting views. So, how do you come to a conclusion? Which is the most reliable source? Pictures capture what is happening right there and then not what happened 2 minutes earlier. Witnesses can be unreliable, everyone doesn't see the same things all the time. News real footage at that time was mostly reenacted or staged propaganda, that why the Normandy Landing's video was so outstanding because it was real when it happened. Some of us has experience with dealing with certian aspects of a situation that we fall back on, problem is usually the experience is one sided without variables. That leaves us with surveys/stats. a numbers conclusion which gives us the highest percent of what happened, but not always factual in individual cases.

So in conclusion, instead of calling someone stupid or saying your absolutely wrong why dont you look at it from an open minded position. That is unless your too brilliant to do so.

                                          Happy Holidays Everyone!!

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #129 on: December 14, 2005, 09:57:28 AM »
Quote
Instead of tellign me what I said tell me what I said, why don't you show me. Quote where I said that.
(and you are going to criticize my writing ability?) rofl

I guess you forgot writing this.

Quote
In WW2, bombs and rockets were not busting tanks...


Which is nothing but a load of crap.


Show me one example of me disagreeing with your facts. Show me where I said that bombs took out more tanks than did oposing tanks. Those are the statistics you are showing. Im not disagreeing with them. I havent, and I wont. Because I agree. But I do disagree with you saying that bombs and rockets did not bust tanks.

You are saying bombs did not bust tanks in WW2. That statement and all of your other statements trying to support it are false.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #130 on: December 14, 2005, 10:16:46 AM »
Quote
In WW2, bombs and rockets were not busting tanks...


You need to keep the replies in the contexts of the previous ones. If you follow the discussion you will see that the reply above followed this:

Quote
The most effective way in stopping armor was for air power to hit the soft skin support vehicles. The amount of wehrmacht armor abandoned or destroyed by German tanks crews was far more substantial then any losses from the air.

The same was true in the east. Il2s and other VVS ground attack aircraft had little success in destroying large numbers mbts. What they did do is stop supplies and support from reaching the battlefield. the term is 'battle interdiction' and this was the primary focus of almost all ground attack aircraft. Even the Gustav series stukas only had limited success against mbts. They were a few exception pilots but for the most part the 'tank busting stuka' was as much a failure as the Hs 129. The Stukas roll in WW2 was primarily battlefield interdiction.


Not only that but if you read the links in my 1st reply you will see that those 'studies' show confirmed losses to bombs and rockets.

Not only that but in my reply to Karnak; Karnak wrote:

Quote
What would happen in reality to a Tiger struck by a 500lb bomb? I don't mean 50 yards away, I don't even mean one yard away, I mean the bomb lands on the tank and detonates. What would that do?


and I replied:

Quote
if the bomb hit the tank it would/should kill it.

However, as you said the odds of even landing a bomb or rocket with in 50ft of an mbt was rare.


Karnak got what I was saying:

Quote
He didn't say "never" and he is right that aircraft were not terribly successful against MBTs.


I also quoted for you several times my point. You have yet to address that and are simply clinging on to that one sentence. You can choose to take that one line out of context, despite everything that I have written and posted and construct your strawman fallacy around it if you like. However, my points have been as clear as an unmuddied lake. Clear as an azure sky of deepest summer.

There are several reason why folks take things like the above out of context.

1. They weren't part of the entire discussion.
2. They can't comprehend the subject.
3. They create a strawman argument where by they deliberately take things out of context and/or simply ignore the actual points of the discussion and substitute those points with a self-constructed misrepresented version.

Are you a strawman? or an idiot?

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #131 on: December 14, 2005, 10:20:11 AM »
Quote
Show me one example of me disagreeing with your facts.


I already several times (dismissal of stats) etc...

I will compile your quotes sometime later today as I will be gone for several hours.

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10234
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #132 on: December 14, 2005, 10:59:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bruno
I already several times (dismissal of stats) etc...

I will compile your quotes sometime later today as I will be gone for several hours.


Dismissal of facts relavant to the question. The question being, could a bomb or a rocket destroy a tank. This was covered very early on in this post.

The answer is yes. They both could and did.

Go ahead and quote me all you want. Not once did I dsagree with your stats. Rather, they are irrelivant to the main question. Further more, you have offered not a single shred of evidence proving that a bomb, when striking a tank, does no damage. Which is the stand you took when you said this....

Quote
In WW2, bombs and rockets were not busting tanks...


...on page two.

Why are you being such an arrogant jack ass? What dont you get? I am not disagreeing with history (and your cut and paste wonders), in that more tanks where lost to things other than bombs and rockets.

I am disagreeing with your ludicrous statement's that tanks went undamaged when hit by a bomb or rocket.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline ramzey

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #133 on: December 14, 2005, 12:26:05 PM »
Point is ww2 was ww2, AH is AH

We are more accurate here, more hours spend in air
we can hit targets more accurate, drop bombs more precise.
We cant simulate fear of troops, we cant cut tanks from supplies

Data from ww2 shows how inaccurate pilots was, not how ineffectiv was weapon.
I belive if you hit tank within direct or very close , tank will be destroyed or at list his electric systems will fail (as for heviest tanks)
If tank get direct hit by HVAR rocket in a top hull, elements of suspention , wheels, tank will be heavy damaged, immobilized  or destroy.

Claiming airweapon can do nothing to tanks is wrong, special according to AH word

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #134 on: December 14, 2005, 03:27:50 PM »
Quote
I am disagreeing with your ludicrous statement's that tanks went undamaged when hit by a bomb or rocket.


I never said that. Strawman it is then...

Even before I typed this sentence:

Quote
In WW2, bombs and rockets were not busting tanks...


(which is what all the studies show, statistically those mbts confrimed killed by air weapons is few) in your first reply to me you were claiming:

Quote
For some of you to sit there and say that ordnance did nothing to a tank is rediculous. To say it had little impact on armor of both sides in ww2 is just plain stupid.


You already made assumptions about about things I never said, now you are just taking a single sentence completely of context (that context is clearly established with in my other posts) as a basis for your strawman.

The context:

Quote
No matter what unsourced images some may have laying around on their hard drive the facts are air power was a very limtied threat against mbt's. The most effective way in stopping armor was for air power to hit the soft skin support vehicles. The amount of wehrmacht armor abandoned or destroyed by German tanks crews was far more substantial then any losses from the air.

The same was true in the east. Il2s and other VVS ground attack aircraft had little success in destroying large numbers mbts. What they did do is stop supplies and support from reaching the battlefield. the term is 'battle interdiction' and this was the primary focus of almost all ground attack aircraft. Even the Gustav series stukas only had limited success against mbts. They were a few exception pilots but for the most part the 'tank busting stuka' was as much a failure as the Hs 129. The Stukas roll in WW2 was primarily battlefield interdiction.


If you agree with the above statement then what is it you are carrying on about?

The original poster asked about American and British studies showing the effectiveness of air power against armor, that's what I gave him. You gave unsourced images, a dubious film, ad hominems and strawman.