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