Bombs/rockets vs GV's

[Octavius]

Originally posted by BALSUR
3rd, As for the concusion debate going on. Since hopefully none of us has been in a tank with ordenance dropped on we'll only have to believe what the people who have lived through say. The statements I have read describes tiger crews surviving bombardment. Karnak has stated above that he has read this and concurs with its accuracy so, why the opposition? Find a study that says differant.

Hope this wasnt for me.  But just incase, here's a reference:  http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masstrauma/explosions.asp#blast

I personally choose physics over personal accounts.  In the case of the tank crews surviving, it seems the many variables were in their favor.

[Karnak]

BALSAR,

The issue isn't about the misses it is when the pro-tank people claim the hits don't have any effect because the German tanks were so much tougher than a Yamato class battleship.

I know that 500lb bomb I hit that Tiger with should have made it look like the second of Morpheus' pictures, but it did nothing at all.

Look at what the HVAR rocket did when it hit that tank in the first picture and somebody claimed HVAR's were useless against tanks.

The best way to kill a tank in WWII, and in AH2, is with another tank.  That said, if an airplane lands a bomb really close or hits directly with a bomb or rocket that tank, in reality, would be destroyed.  In AH that is not always true.

In WWII what airpower really did to the tanks was twofold 1) wreaked absolute havoc on the lighter vehicles and soft vehicles (Typhoons and P-47s had a field day with them whenever they found them in the open) and 2) scared the bejeezus out of the German tank crews as one quote I recall froma German tanker goes "You don't know hell until you've been through a Typhoon rocket attack!"  That isn't to say that said Typhoon rocket attack would actually destroy many, if any, tanks, but it would scare the hell out of the crews.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by BALSUR

The statements I have read describes tiger crews surviving bombardment.

My former employer survived the bombardment of London. This is not to say he took a direct hit, or a near miss, and survived. The problem with trying to interpret the meanings of 50 year old texts, is that you're trying to interpret the meanings of 50 year old texts. There will be a concussive wave even if you're wearing 2 leather helmets inside your tank. You will either be asphyxiated by the fireball, or roasted, or have your head split open like a melon. This business where people claim any sort of vehicle could or would routinely survive a hit from a weapon of the sort being discussed is bordering on retarded. Hell, if a large GP bomb didn't kill anything, then surely the 50cal used by the allies and larger bore cannon used by the germans and british would be wholely ineffective against anything at all.

[BALSUR]

Nice link Oct Just wonder what the blast damage to a human being that's buckled, button up behind 100mm of rolled steel.

[MadSquirrel]

"Why do people always want everyone else to do their homework for them?

One word. Google.

Look man, I found you pictures, told you what inflicted the damage. If you dont like it, or dont beleive me, that's too dam bad. I honestly dont care. But when I see some dork saying that a bomb dropped near a tank, not on, but near a tank did nothing to the tank OR the crew inside it, it just irks me... Stupidity irks me. And I have no self control when it comes to keeping my mouth shut and not telling them how stupid they really sound. "

Hummm, seems to me that I have stated that I have looked and been unable to find a particular article.  Google?  What a concept.  As for believe you or not?   Morpheus I asked because I was interested.  And if you would read my post about the bomb "near" the tank, is stated that the it would be effected but not the way people were suggesting.  I read the comments as they would be killed by the shockwave.  If that is in error, correct me.  If you can't do this without feeling offended and trying to belittle me, I am sorry.

I don't know what your background is, obvously not a teacher, but you also do not know mine.  I would like to know more about this, that is why I posted.  And I tried to add input from my experiences.  As with the rest of us, I was never in a Tiger that had a bomb dropped on or near me.

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct hit OK, flipped crew could survive. Fix? Not a problem with uber AHII supplie Box.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you have any idea of the forces inficted on not only the tank, but to the crew inside? Again, better go do your homework."

I am curious what the forces infliced by falling off an 11,000 foot mountain are?  Those uber supplies fix that just fine.  Homework?  This forum is a form of learning . . . . except for some.

LTARsqrl  

[Morpheus]

Hvar damage.

First picture showing results from multiple impacts.



I am sorry i do not have resources for some of the pictures that I have here. I have literally thousands of pictures on my pc, with simple annotations of what the picture is showing for future reference. Short of a watermark on a picture, that's the best I can do.

[Morpheus]

An egg or cannon / MG shells setting fire to an "external fuel tank" as some have suggested will likely catch the tank itself on fire, and result in a destroyed vehicle. In case you are not aware, sustained heat of the magnitude of a fire will turn the armour brittle with no chance of repair.

A 1000 lb egg hitting near a heavy tank is likely going to kill the crew from the shock and split weld seams, and make the tank so heavily damaged that it will likely be abandoned. A direct hit is likely going to go through, or have we forgotten about inertia.

Exactly.



Even in the best of conditions tanks where very difficult to repair. Just pulling a tiger tank out of the mud was a huge task. They where/are huge, massive beasts.


Here Yet another shot of a tiger inside of a crater. But I bet the crew hopped out and had a spot of tea before they simply pushed the tank over and went about blasting the hell out of the country side.


And I would stop your whinning. This crap of insta-fix click on the box-o-new-tank is one of the gamiest features the game has. Bar none. You have guys spawn camping, with boxes upon boxes of suplies, they take a hit, click on the supplies and they're like new again?! LOL Give me a break. Where's my freakin supplies when I am being shot up in a fighter? ROTFL.  IN THE BEST OF CODITIONS RESUPLY WAS TEDIOUS AND TIME CONSUMING. Not to mention what it was like if the crew was under fire.


There is no excuse for such a gamey BS pacman feature.

[Morpheus]

For those that say rockets do nothing.

These guys say different.

Rs132 direct hit.

[Karnak]

I seem to recall that Typhoons had a 2% hit rate with rockets.  Now what that means is that if a Typhoon unit is called in to make a run on some German tanks there will probably be one or more hits scored.  A hit is a destroyed tank.

If I were a German tanker, I would not care much for those odds.

[BALSUR]

Do you have any pictures of rocket attacks on any tigers or panthers? I 've noticed the rocket attacked tanks were Panzer III's which I could see rocket penetration, they were pretty thin skinned.

A little information on that tiger you have a picture of "313 upside down caused by 1000 lbs bomb"  according to "tigers in Combat II" no tigers in Schwere SS- Panzerabteilung 102 were lost to air operations. Tiger 313 was assigned to this unit on 1 June 1944. All tigers in this unit were lost 38% to self destruction, 50% to ground combat, 12% to other non-combat lcauses.

[gatt]

Originally posted by BALSUR
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?

Balsur, some time ago I did a research about A/G attacks after D-Day on several books. It seems that allied crews largely overestimated the results of rockets and 20mm cannon attacks on german medium/heavy tanks (Pzr IV and above). Actually, the best results have been obtained by fighter-bombers using old good bombs. As far as cannons are concerned, during the war in North Africa and Russia good results have been obtained only by dedicated tank busters like the Hurry MkIID, HS-129, Stukas and IL-2s.

I remember a time (and a scenario) in AH where Spitfire MkV could bust Pzr MkIV just with their 2x20mm Hispanos ...

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by BALSUR


A little information on that tiger you have a picture of "313 upside down caused by 1000 lbs bomb"  according to "tigers in Combat II" no tigers in Schwere SS- Panzerabteilung 102 were lost to air operations. Tiger 313 was assigned to this unit on 1 June 1944. All tigers in this unit were lost 38% to self destruction, 50% to ground combat, 12% to other non-combat lcauses.

Do you read the stuff you write before you hit submit?

[BALSUR]

What are you trying to say?

[Delirium]

Information/stats can be stacked in either direction, the ONLY way to know the true score is to recreate the battle conditions with historic aircraft and tanks and that simply isn't going to happen.

Imho, the rockets could of done the damage, but I can't even imagine how hard it would of been to find and hit a tank from a manuvering platform while dodging trees and ground fire.

Regardless, it still takes a man on the ground to take territory.

I talked with a patient who is a decorated Sherman tank Commander some time ago, from what he was saying there were tanks destroyed by aircraft, but only when they were on the move. The weakest part of German military convoy was the support for the tanks, like the infantry, the fuel and armament carrying trucks, etc.

[Vad]

Originally posted by BALSUR
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?

I don't have information about effectiveness of British and Americans anti-tank bombs, but I know about effectiveness of Russian  hollow-charge PTABs (protivotankovaya aviacionnaya bomba - anti-tank aircraft bomb), the primary anti-tank weapon of Il-2. Yes, RS,  common bombs and even cannons were inefficient against tanks, and hit percentage were less than 2-3%. But PTABs were very effective, especially right after they were introduced for the first time in Kursk battle. You can find a lot of information about this weapon in Google.

GVs in AH should be happy that this weapon wasn't inroduced in AH.

The Battle of Kursk was a significant Soviet victory, and would soon lead to rolling back the Germans all along the Russian Front. The Shturmovik had made a major contribution to the success of Red arms. Il-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division in a mere 20 minutes, inflicted losses of 2,000 men and 270 tanks in two hours of attack on the 3rd Panzer Division, and effectively destroyed the 17th Panzer Division in four hours of strikes, smashing 240 vehicles out of their total of almost 300.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avil2.html