Bombs/rockets vs GV's

[BALSUR]

So Morph have you been to Sinshiem? If so, did you go to Speyer also?

[ramzey]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219&q=wwii

[Bruno]

Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results:

6 June - 7 August 1944
AP shot: 36
Hollow charge projectile: 7
HE shell: 7
Aircraft rockets: 7
Aircraft cannon: 2
Destroyed by crew: 6
Abandoned: 3
Unknown: 13

8 Aug - 31 Aug 1944
AP Shot: 11
Hollow charge projectile: 1
HE Shell: 1
Aircraft rocket: 2
Aircraft cannon: 1
Destroyed by crew: 44
Abandoned: 30
Unknown: 6

17 Dec - 16 Jan 1945
AP Shot: 16
Hollow charge projectile: 0
HE Shell: 3
Aircraft rocket: 3
Aircraft cannon: 0
Destroyed by crew: 10
Abandoned: 10
Unknown: 5

Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz IV's (yup..our panzers) nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks.

Number of German tanks knocked out by Hissos or .50 cals is 0.

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

The Effects of Allied Air Power

Here's link to a text file of Ian Gooderson's

Ian Gooderson's Air Power at the Battlefront

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.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Bodhi
That is completely wrong.

Wittman's Tiger was caught in the open by Allied air cover.  Whether it be Typhoons or any other rocket carrying jabo, the top hull penetrations were consistent with rocket penetrations causing the internal explosions that destroyed the tank.

Or maybe, the Allied hover tanks fired down onto the top deck and turret of his tank....  

Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by Canadian Firefly tanks.

Michael Wittmann

Finally, it was proven that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by fire from tanks of "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry. British Firefly crew observed advancing Tigers and opened fire at when Tigers were some 800m away. According to original War Diary of "A" Squadron, at 12:20, 3 Tigers were moving towards the Squadron and were destroyed at 12:40, 12:47 and 12:52 without any losses. After the first Tiger was destroyed at 12:40, second one returned fire but was hit and blew up in a loud explosion. Following that, third Tiger was knocked out after receiving two hits. Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed as second at 12:47 by British Sherman VC "Firefly" commanded by Sergeant Gordon (gunner - Trooper Joe Ekins) from 3rd Platoon, "A" Squadron, 33rd Armored Brigade of 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. British Sherman VC "Firefly" armed with 17 pounder gun was capable of penetrating Tiger's armor at range of 800m. The force of explosion blew off the turret, which landed upside down away from the hull. Wittmann did not know that British had Firefly in the area and felt confident in attacking their position with his Tigers, otherwise he would take different approach to the whole attack. After Wittmann failed to return from the battle, search for him by the members of the 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend" and his battalion took place during the day and on the night of 8/9th.

Sources can be obatined from the web master, just email him..

[Morpheus]

That's very nice Bruno, but you're talking stats rather than physics here. Nothing or no one can dispute the catastrophic damage that a 1000 or even 500 pound bomb has on armor. Again, that's not to mention what it does to the crew of the tank being bombed. They are not air tight, when a bomb impacts close enough to without a doubt kill the crew of a tank in real life, the tank crew in aces high dies, along with the tank.

I dont care how many were destroyed by the crew. You know what you can do with those statistics dont you?

I care about the ones that were bombed and hit. If you are going to sit there and tell me that the tiger tank, sitting upside down, in a crater was not bombed, you're crazy. If you are going to tell me that the crew of that tank went unharmed, you're even more crazy.

What you dont mention is why they needed supplies in the first place. Of course with out the much needed preventive maintenance these tanks could not and would not be kept operational. They were so heavy that their transmissions needed to be overhauled or repaired on almost a regular basis. But many also needed supplies from battle damage. Be it from a broken drive sprocket/s, tracks, you name it. Many of which where destroyed by air attacks.

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.

This is one of those times when what could happen means a hell of alot more than what happened more than the other.

[Bruno]

Again, that's not to mention what it does to the crew of the tank being bombed. They are not air tight, when a bomb impacts close enough to without a doubt kill the crew of a tank in real life, the tank crew in aces high dies, along with the tank.

A bomb dropped from a plane will hit the ground and bury just prior to dertonation. The force of the blast will be reflected  up and away by the ground. The overpressure is quickly dispersed. Research that a bit...

Do you know how big the truck bomb was that went off in OK City? Do you know how close some of the survivors were? They weren't all killed from the pressure wave, there would have been hundreds of more dead. That's just like the nonsense about 'bouncing .50 cals' off the dirt to knock a mbts 'soft under belly' and 'welding' crews in their tanks from a hail of mgs...

Most 500lbs that dropped against mbts hit no where near close enough to cause damage, let alone create enough over pressure to kill the occupants. The same goes for rockets.

I don't care one bit about AHs GVs. I don't care what rational you use to justify why killing GVs in AH is as it is. I responded to the posters originally question:

Does anybody out there have any information that can support the effectiveness of bombs and rockets on tanks?

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

[Morpheus]

Its like talking to a brick wall.

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

I can dig up a dozen films of bombs busting tanks in WW2. I showed you one in this thread. Are you friggin blind? Or just too stupid to admit when you're wrong?

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Bruno
In WW2, bombs and rockets were not busting tanks...

LOL, I guess all those dead tankers killed by air attack should be aware of this....  

[Bruno]

Give us your numbers and sources then?

How many died of what causes?

I posted in detail about several studies that looked into tanks losses by air, all you have posted is incorrent information Wittman (typhoon rockets, which was the product Mr. Varin's research and has been fully discredited) and stupid emoticons...

[Karnak]

Wotan,

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?

In AH it did nothing at all to the Tiger.

The fact is that in AH the vast, vast majority of my bombs fall well too far away from a tank to do anything to it, but in that one case it should have blown it to pieces.

I'm not arguing about percentages, just about what an actual hit would do.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by Bruno
Give us your numbers and sources then?

How many died of what causes?

I posted in detail about several studies that looked into tanks losses by air, all you have posted is incorrent information Wittman (typhoon rockets, which was the product Mr. Varin's research and has been fully discredited) and stupid emoticons...

How about the film? Was that fake too? Man you are thick.

[Bruno]

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?

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. If was just a matter of getting close to kill the crew with 'over pressure' or 'blast' they had made more bombs like that (the Germans had developed their own version of a 'fuel air bomb', if want to see what real over pressure does look for some images of Chechen's after the Russians got done).

There's a whole host of reasons why hitting tanks with bombs in AH is 'easier then real life' but this is a game, so who cares.

In AH it did nothing at all to the Tiger.

I don't care anything about AHs modeling of the 'GV war'. It's silly but I do occasionally partake.  I will say that in the past most referred to the bomb crater as an indication of where they hit. This method was proven to be inaccurate. Search the old posts.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Morpheus
An interesting film of what happens when ammo ignites in a tank.

http://www.furballunderground.com/guncam/ammo_cookoff.wmv

That is totally survivable!  Just spit on the flames!  hee hee:D

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Its like talking to a brick wall.

 

I can dig up a dozen films of bombs busting tanks in WW2. I showed you one in this thread. Are you friggin blind? Or just too stupid to admit when you're wrong?

Your stupid film is representative of anything...

The stuka propaganda film you linked is a propaganda film that has been edited, watch the tank destruction sequence again...

Follow the bomb, it jumps from 'behind tree' to a static tank to moving tanks...'

Do even know the source of that film?

You film wasn't worth mentioning...

[hubsonfire]

This got me thinking. In the war, when a Sherman got perforated, and killed the crew, but the tank wasn't absolutely torn to shreds, they would drag/drive the hull off, patch it up, clean up the crew compartment, slap some paint down, and send it off again. Are we to assume the Germans didn't do this?

The AH GV model lacks support vehicles, lacks repair/resupply crews, lacks crew vulnerability, lacks recovery vehicles, lacks disabled tanks staying on the battlefield, lacks fires in the crew compartment, lacks fuel stations, lacks infantry support, etc, etc.

Can we not just accept the compromises made in the name of gameplay? Is this thread really about what happened in WW2, or is it really about someone trying to use historical stats and situations to eliminate the aspect of gameplay that most hampers their efforts at spawncamping?