Author Topic: Bombs/rockets vs GV's  (Read 4244 times)

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #135 on: December 14, 2005, 03:40:09 PM »
(can't believe I read the whole thing....)

so in short, yes, bombs and/or rockets could kill a tank in WW2.

(geeez... unreal that people will argue w/ each other on the bbs when they are both saying the same thing)
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #136 on: December 14, 2005, 04:08:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by WMLute
(can't believe I read the whole thing....)

so in short, yes, bombs and/or rockets could kill a tank in WW2.

(geeez... unreal that people will argue w/ each other on the bbs when they are both saying the same thing)


I tried to keep it entertaining, even throwing in some Clockwork Orange but it slipped by unnoticed...

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10149
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #137 on: December 14, 2005, 05:27:49 PM »
Entertaining? You went on more than anyone else in here arguing points that people were agreeing with all along just out of spite. Yet you still failed to grasp even the notion that someone else might be right too. Im through with you. Not this  discussion, but with you. You arent here to get to a common ground and maybe learn something, you're hear just to prove to the rest of the world that you really are just a nerd who always has to be right. Not just in this thread, but ever since you started posting under bruno.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #138 on: December 14, 2005, 06:20:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Morpheus
Entertaining? You went on more than anyone else in here arguing points that people were agreeing with all along just out of spite. Yet you still failed to grasp even the notion that someone else might be right too. Im through with you. Not this  discussion, but with you. You arent here to get to a common ground and maybe learn something, you're hear just to prove to the rest of the world that you really are just a nerd who always has to be right. Not just in this thread, but ever since you started posting under bruno.


Nonsense, you disputed the factual nature of those stastics (claimed they wre 'cherry picked'), dismissed them as irrelevant, created a strawman and acted like a general moron (which I guess is typical of you).

I repeated my point multiple times for you, I will do it 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.


If you now agree or have agreed with the quote all along then what is it you are carrying on about? That quote was in my very first reply in this thread, what else did you feel you needed to say?

With every post I make you are right there with some nonsense reply, so don't tell me about who's looking to be 'right'. I don't care anything about 'common ground' with you.

Through with me? I feel so 'used'...

If you search my posts under 'wotan' you will find there's no change in how I post. It's just that I generally ignore you and outside of your reply to me in this thread most likely I would have continued to ingore you (and will do so in the future).

fyi, my 'entertainment' statement was sarcasm, I guess I need to work on that. All though the Clockwork Orange reference is there.

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10149
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #139 on: December 14, 2005, 06:26:42 PM »
Like I said, you where an arrogant an ass, hole under wonton and you still are in the game. You are no different under bruno. The fact that you twist words around and cherry pick your own statistics off the web doesnt make you right.

Btw, you can stop quoting yourself. I know what you wrote. You still have offered nothing as to the effects of bombs and or rockets on armor. And probably will not. Like I said, Im done talking about this subject with you. It wasnt just me who is saying you're wrong for the crap you are throwing out. Which is all I will have to say to you from this point on while you continue to post you nonsense.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2005, 06:33:24 PM by Morpheus »
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #140 on: December 14, 2005, 06:37:04 PM »
Still carrying on? I guess you are 'not so done with me...'

You said:

Quote
You went on more than anyone else in here arguing points that people were agreeing with all along just out of spite.


If you agree with me, how am I 'wrong'? Battlefield studies showed that the effect of air power vrs mbts was limited in their actual destruction. If that statements is 'cherry picked' from stastics it should take nothing for you to show that.

If you agree with the above then what else needs be said..?

Those stats aren't 'off the web' (they maybe but...)  they can found in detail in:

Air Power at the Battlefront
Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45
by Ian Gooderson
ISBN 0-7146-4680-6

It's a good book, I recommend it...

Quote
Btw, you can stop quoting yourself. I know what you wrote.


No, and umm apparently you don't, else you wouldn't be attributing things to me that I didn't say..

Offline WMLute

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4512
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #141 on: December 14, 2005, 07:18:39 PM »
(mommy, please make the bad men stop)
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
— George Patton

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #142 on: December 14, 2005, 07:45:26 PM »
Leather Undies Club:

I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #143 on: December 14, 2005, 08:24:01 PM »
Dr's Moutheous or Bohdi, could one of you explain exactly what the effects of different size bombs going off at different ranges from a tank would be?  

I know that not all of us are lucky enough to have doctorates, especially in such a challenging area such as physics, so I truly believe that the AH community is lucky to have not one, but TWO doctors of physics counting amoungst its ranks.  And in the same squadron to boot!

Anyway, I hate to bother you to "do my homework", as I hate to sound like one of your students (assuming the school you work for forces you to teach, I cannot imagine the brilliance of the research that someone of your intelligence could produce) but I am fairly sure that even the ignorant Bruno would agree that if a bomb HIT a tank it would destroy it.

Again, I don't have my doctorate, nor have I ever dropped a bomb or shot a rocket at a tank, but I imagine that dropping an unguided bomb from a plane with a rather unsophisticated aiming method (or firing a rocket, for that matter) would not result in phenomenal accuracy.  I believe I've seen 2% as a hit rate for rockets, but I prefer to get my information straight from the people who know best.

So, please, enlighten this ignorant one on what effects different size bombs would have on tank crews if the bombs exploded at different ranges.  

I am eagerly awaiting your knowledge.  

Thanks in advance.

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #144 on: December 14, 2005, 08:35:04 PM »
Urchin just read their well thought out replies where by they present incontrovertible evidence of their genius.

You can hear Neal say 'I posted pics and film' and Bob gag as he fumbles to pleasure himself

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #145 on: December 14, 2005, 08:37:12 PM »
Never claimed to be a doctorate in anything Urchin.  But if you want to join the band wagon of stunninghunks, have at it.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #146 on: December 14, 2005, 08:42:08 PM »
I don't really feel like going back and quoting every single time you or Moutheous made reference to your knowledge of "physics" (apparently to demonstrate the previous posters lack thereof), so I kind of assumed you actually knew what effects different size bombs might have on crews of AFV's exploding at different ranges.  

Personally, I've got no idea, but it'd be handy.  I haven't played AH in a while, but I'd agree that funky stuff happens.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #147 on: December 14, 2005, 09:29:22 PM »
Urchin,

I'd very much appreciate you pointing out every instance of my knowing physics more than anyone else.

Never claimed to have any more formal training than any one else here in physics.  I have said that I have spent time with WW2 armour and that I have spent time looking at a good amout of the OEM drawings and manuals that were available, specifically for the purpose of future restoration projects, or to provide me the ability to assess the restorative qualities on certain vehicles that I arranged import for, for various buyers in the past.

All I have said since the get go was that:

A: WW2 rockets and bombs did kill tanks.

B: Close hits by bombs also caused numerous tanks being either totally destroyed to damaged.

C: It was with enough frequency that the Germans and Russians considered air to ground weapons a threat.

D: That Wittman died from air attack. (Since none of us were there, I am sticking to what the man who examined his tank reported.)



Based upon the the known facts of the Tiger I, we know the following.

The top armour was .98 inches / 25 mm thick.

The standard HVAR rocket available in mid '44 was capable of penetrating 1.5 inches of armour plate.

The math to me shows that IF the projectile described above hits at anywhere from 90 to 34 degrees, the weapon will penetrate.  Consider the next fact, that German tanks were gasoline powered.  If said weapon makes it into the engine compartment, and likely ignites the fuel.  Said tank is more than likely toast.  If the gasoline does ignite, the chances are also high that the resulting explosion will penetrate the crew compartment.  If that happens it will likely ignite the onboard main gun ammunition.  If that happens, the tank is going to literally explode.

Thats just a rocket.  What if a 500lb GP egg lands on the top of a tank?  While I do not know the formulas, it is likely going right on through that 1.5 inches of armour and right on inside to make the occupants extremely unpleasant.

Lets also consider a 500lb GP bomb withing 5 meters of a Tiger.  If that weapon detonates, the reulting crater is more than likely going to allow the tank to fall in.  If the tank goes over, a myriad of problems are going to arise, from dislodged internal equipment, turret crushing the turret ring, the list goes on adfinitum.  If that happens, you can consider the tank dead, unless a large amount of time will be allotted to carefully right the vehicle and go about the task of transporting the vehicle to a major overhaul facility.  That rarely happens in combat.

The risk of even more damage increases with the size of the ordinance getting bigger is a fairly reasonable assumption.  T

hose are just the physical aspects of what happens to the vehicle that I can think of.  Take into count the effects of the blasts shockwave, the over pressure, positions of the crew, and these add even more factors into it.

Seems fairly simple to just agree that the air to ground weapons used against armour were capable of "busting tanks" instead of the quoted statement by another individual.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10149
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #148 on: December 14, 2005, 09:41:22 PM »
Quote
Again, I don't have my doctorate, nor have I ever dropped a bomb or shot a rocket at a tank, but I imagine that dropping an unguided bomb from a plane with a rather unsophisticated aiming method (or firing a rocket, for that matter) would not result in phenomenal accuracy. I believe I've seen 2% as a hit rate for rockets, but I prefer to get my information straight from the people who know best.


When did I argue against the inaccurracy of bombs and or rockets from attack a/c?


Rather, I did argue that when a bomb hit a tank... There wasnt much if anything left of that tank. Man you guys are really thick headed.
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Offline Urchin

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5517
Bombs/rockets vs GV's
« Reply #149 on: December 14, 2005, 10:00:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bodhi

Based upon the the known facts of the Tiger I, we know the following.

The top armour was .98 inches / 25 mm thick.

The standard HVAR rocket available in mid '44 was capable of penetrating 1.5 inches of armour plate.

The math to me shows that IF the projectile described above hits at anywhere from 90 to 34 degrees, the weapon will penetrate.  Consider the next fact, that German tanks were gasoline powered.  If said weapon makes it into the engine compartment, and likely ignites the fuel.  Said tank is more than likely toast.  If the gasoline does ignite, the chances are also high that the resulting explosion will penetrate the crew compartment.  If that happens it will likely ignite the onboard main gun ammunition.  If that happens, the tank is going to literally explode.

Thats just a rocket.  What if a 500lb GP egg lands on the top of a tank?  While I do not know the formulas, it is likely going right on through that 1.5 inches of armour and right on inside to make the occupants extremely unpleasant.

Lets also consider a 500lb GP bomb withing 5 meters of a Tiger.  If that weapon detonates, the reulting crater is more than likely going to allow the tank to fall in.  If the tank goes over, a myriad of problems are going to arise, from dislodged internal equipment, turret crushing the turret ring, the list goes on adfinitum.  If that happens, you can consider the tank dead, unless a large amount of time will be allotted to carefully right the vehicle and go about the task of transporting the vehicle to a major overhaul facility.  That rarely happens in combat.

The risk of even more damage increases with the size of the ordinance getting bigger is a fairly reasonable assumption.  

Those are just the physical aspects of what happens to the vehicle that I can think of.  Take into count the effects of the blasts shockwave, the over pressure, positions of the crew, and these add even more factors into it.

Seems fairly simple to just agree that the air to ground weapons used against armour were capable of "busting tanks" instead of the quoted statement by another individual.



And now we are into the realm of interesting information instead of hyperbole and insults.  What if the 500 lb bomb landed 50 yards away instead of 5?  Would there be any noticable damage to the tank or crew?  25 yards?  1000 lb bomb?  

How about a rocket hitting a yard away?