Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BALSUR on December 11, 2005, 07:25:27 PM
-
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?
-
Umm IL2 Stuka Hurri D were GV killers. Level bombing Gv in RL wasn't to good as opposed to idiots in AH. As for rockets they were used mostly on road convoys and trains.. I believe.
-
Considering the many aspects of GV battle and damage that are lacking, I think the compromise we currently have is well suited to gameplay, if not to precise simulation.
-
There was a document that I found ages ago that was a report on the effectiveness of air attacks on armor. I have since tried to find it with no luck.
What it said was in essence this: Many P-47s and Ponies claimed kills on Tigers and other German armor while strafing and attacking with rockets. What was discovered is that many times what the pilots observed and claimed as a kill, was the external fuel tanks exploding and burning. The pilots saw a large fireball and just assumed and reported the tank destroyed. Bombs were also ineffective other than a large explosion tipping the tank over or having it tip into the crater. Many pilots also claimed that strafing the top of the turret resulted in kills due to the limited armor thickness. Here again, what was discovered were fuel tank explosions. Armor thickness is thinner on top, however unless a vertical attack was done the bullets were hitting the armor at an angle, which increased the armors thickness due to angle penetration. And in spite of what occurs in AH, vertical attacks didn't occur for that purpose.
But as always occurs, there will be an outcry of "The tanks aren't modeled right cause I can't strafe a panzer with my Spit and take out his turret". This is if HT made armor react properly to bombs and bullets. This has been brought up many times in the past. I am afraid it is this way for arcade purposes, not "Realism".
LTARsqrl
-
These guys might say other wise. (http://www.furballunderground.com/guncam/ju87.m1v)
-
What would they say other wise?
That lightly armored vehicles pre-dating 1939 are the same as Tigers and Pzr IVHs? Or that Propaganda films show what actually occured on the battlefield?
The little tanks that blew up are little more than scouts. Heck, in AHII, you can bounce an 8.8cm AP round off the side of an M-3 at 90 degrees. Lets film it and send a bunch of M-3s to France as front line Armor Protection. :rofl
LTARsqrl
-
was that one tank a t34:huh
-
I'm pretty sure that the "Hardness" of GV's was upped to make gameplay better.
No tank should survive a 1k pounder going off anywhere near it.
-
No, I think the one that blew up was a Hotchkiss H35. Real top of the line in 1934. 40mm of armor at it's thickest. Not quite the 80mm of the Pzr IVH.
Hotchkiss H-35 Photo
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/france/H-35&39.jpg)
The sequence of Tanks blowing up there is a rather interesting developent. The very first frame of the tanks shows that what appears to be a Hotchkiss H35 expolde, then a more distance film shot shows what I believe are some other Hotchkiss H-35s and it looks like a bomb hits it. However if you watch, all that happens to the tank is it tips over.
This is my point. Pilots many times reported tanks destroyed when all that happened were they were tipped or looked destroyed.
The others look like light armor as well.
Anyone else have a different idea of what the tank is?
LTARsqrl
-
Actually a 1k doesn't do much damage to a heavy Tank at all. There Are documented cases of Panther's that were abandoned by thier crews with 500 lb bomb craters right next to the tank. Also if you look at the physics aspect of it. The General Purpose bombs dropped during that time were high explosive. Do you have any idea how much Direct impact HE it would take to destroy those heavy tanks? Not to mention that the explosion is like a bullet in the fact that it takes the path of the least resistance. Meaning most of the blast would go up and away from a hardened steel object.
The bottom line is during WW2 bombs could only disable not destroy an buttoned up heavy tank. Rockets couldn't destroy heavy tanks. The air power's effect was very minimal on destroying tanks. The biggest input that air power had was the effect on fuel and supplies. I have no idea why the armored vehicles in AH run forever on unlimited fuel that would be a great equalizer in the game play.
BTW nice early war film Morph, but did you notice in the end those 2 tanks bombed neither was destroyed, 1 was blown into the air and the other only caught some debris that was on fire. Those were extremely light tanks that were easily dispatched with handheld anit-tank weapons.
-
Balsur, that light tank was totally in flames... Plus just the concussion of a 250LB bomb going off NEAR a tank can render a crew useless, a 1,000 pounder nearby can leave them on the "Coloring Book and soft toys only" Christmas gift list from now on.
-
Do you have any idea what a 1000 lb bomb would do to a tank crew Balsur? They'd be less than useless.
Not to mention what happens when the ammo in the tank lights up inside from the concussion of a bomb.
-
Let me ask you this can concusion waves penetrate armor? As for fire when your cooking on the stove you usually put your food into a pan than put over a fire right? When you first put your cold food in a cold pan over the fire does the food start burning? No, it takes a while. How long do you think that fire outside that tank lasted? 2 maybe 3 secounds, hardly long enough to bake anyone inside.
In a few minutes, I am going to find a case in story. Written by a Tiger Commander, who states " only the inexperienced crews would get out of thier tanks during an air raid and they usually died" "you were usually just fine as long as you stayed buttoned up"
-
Balsur, conduct the following experiment for us. Place a friend of yours on the other side of a wall.
You be on the opposite side. Tell him to bang on the wall.
Now tell us if you feel him doing it.
Do you think now that the insides of a tank would be anything but mush after a 1k pound bomb?
-
BALSUR,
A rocket that hits really, really close to a tank should do nothing to it, but an actual hit by a HVAR rocket on a tank could very well destroy it, even an IS3 or Tiger II.
Bombs likewise, if it misses by enough to have the tank out of the crater the tank will probably be ok though the crew may be out of it for a little while. A closer hit and all bets are off. An actual strike on the tank by a GP bomb would blow the tank to pieces.
In AH I hit a Tiger I with a 500lb bomb dropped from my Mossie. I saw the hit sprite and the bomb I dropped with it exploded along side. The only result was that the tank driver exclaimed on the open channel "That was LOUD!!". There is no way a Tiger I could take a 500lb bomb and not be utterly destroyed in reality.
-
well, its not that i dont want to believe what your saying but, studies have shown that only 4% of german armor lost in WW2 was due to air strike. There are cases with direct hits to the tanks with no lost of life and in some cases minimal damage.
As for the wall trick, 1st I am not pressing myself to the wall, I am sure the tank crews didnt either. 2nd my walls aren't made of 100mm of rolled steel.
Concusion waves cannot penetrate armor, if the tank is buttoned up it has no way of getting in, thus little damage to the crew.
You have to remember the key here is penetration. If the armor was to be penetrated then ok, but if there's no projectile to allow entrance then it just doesn't happen.
There's plenty of stuff to read about this out there. Try reading "Tigers in Combat" by Wolfgang Scheider. Or just surf the web on Allied air power on german armor, gives you tons of stuff to compair too.
I am only making this point because everybody screams for reality and the gv mode in AH is nowhere near it.
-
Point being, while ground attack runs didn't often obliterate the tanks, more than a few crew died- an aspect of gameplay that simply doesn't exist. No one gets cooked from a fuel fire, or killed by spalling, or turned to pudding by a GP bomb going off nearby. No one's deafened by nearby explosions, or the hammering away of their own weapons, or a shell pinging off their hull. No one sticks their bucket up through a hatch to catch a lucky bb either.
Till such things are added to the vehicle damage model, I think wiping out roaches with ordnance is a necessary and logical compromise for the purposes of gameplay.
-
btw, wave forms do damned well penetrate metal. Everything resonates; metal especially.
-
Lets also remember that German Tank Crews were wearing leather helmets with earphones that would help to some degree protect there ears from "booms".
What I have read so far is a lot of "In My Opinion". Or the "It makes sense to me" comments. These are the same type of people that claimed the tanks were destroyed, but were not.
Please somebody post some printed, documented Facts. Like I said, there was an Official document about this. And it stated what I posted above. I haven't been able to find it and I hope that someone out there has it or can find it.
LTARsqrl
-
Originally posted by BALSUR
well, its not that i dont want to believe what your saying but, studies have shown that only 4% of german armor lost in WW2 was due to air strike. There are cases with direct hits to the tanks with no lost of life and in some cases minimal damage.
This is true, but not because the tanks had a magical ability to disobey the laws of physics but rather because 99+% of bombs and rockets missed. The ones that actually hit did the job as intended.
I have read the British reports that you refered to and it's conclusions are accurate, but tanks in AH come under much more intense and continuous air assualt than any WWII tank likely experienced.
The fact is that the Tiger I in my example should have been blown apart. It may have been able to ignore the 500lber than exploded nearby, but the one that hit it (an actual strike on the tank itself and the only one I have ever seen from me in AH) should have destroyed it.
-
Don't forget that in AH the target tanks are mid to late war heavily armored tanks.
I'm sure the HurriIID and IL2 were very effective against amored cars, half tracks, PZ IIIs and BT-7s.
-
Anybody happen to know Rudel's tank kills broken down by model? I'm curious to how many were t-34s and KV tanks.
-
Originally posted by BALSUR
You have to remember the key here is penetration. If the armor was to be penetrated then ok, but if there's no projectile to allow entrance then it just doesn't happen.
Do you think a torpedo penerates a ships hull and THEN explodes?
How do you think a torpedo does its damage?
From the concussion of the blast as it explodes in the water.
-
Suave,
Hurri IId's bagged a goodly number of Panzer IVs as well.
And no tank would take that 500lb bomb hit I have described which seems to get roundly ignored by the pro-tank people.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
From the concussion of the blast as it explodes in the water.
I'm not taking the tanker's side, but blasts in water is greatly enchanced due to the water pressure, not to mention they'd try and have the torpedo 'break the back' of the ship. Many ships also had torpedo blisters to cushion any torpedo explosions against a thin outer hull away from the main hull. A good example is the Bismark, it has been discovered that no torpedo was able to get past the torpedo blisters and actually score real damage against the ship and it was likely scuttled by the Germans.
Back to the tank argument, I have rarely, if ever hit with a bomb against a GV, and almost never with a rocket regardless.
-
Battleships have many times the armor of a tank and WWII torps designed to "break the back" of the ship were rather unsuccessful. The torps that hit, and eventually sank, the Bismark, US BBs at Pearl, Prince of Wales, Musashi and Yamato did not break any backs and had extremely thick armor to penetrate at times.
-
Not the same as bombs Morph, torpedos have shaped charges.
-
Torpedos that had magnetic detonators passed about 2 meters under the keel of the ship and exploded creating a shockwave of water that expanded around the explosion lifing and many times "Breaking the back" of the ship. A shockwave of water has a bit more "Ummphh" than a shockwave of air. And bombs didn't explode under tanks and lift them like torpedos did. Not to mention the Mass difference. And impact detonators exploded on the side of the ships creating a hole. It isn't really fair to compare the two.
Now the bomb exploding far enough away that the shockwave hits the tank. The shockwave does not effect the inside of the tank. It will pass around it like a rock. It will be effected but not in the way people are suggesting. If anything the crew would be injured by acceration and decceleration of the tank after the initial shockwave. Or from it tipping over. A direct hit by a 1000 lber here I don't think is the issue. It is the 500 lber that lands 50 yards away and the tank is destroyed.
If I can have a both tracks blown off or land upside down after rolling out of a tree or for crying out loud bouncing down a 11,000 foot mountain, supplies should fix what a 500 lber does when I am all buttoned up. :rofl
LTARsqrl
-
I really wonder what Michael Wittman thinks, wherever he is, about rockets or bombs not being effective against heavy tanks.
Flat out, a 500 lb egg landing next to a Tiger will likely stun/injure the crew from the shock and resulting bodies thrown against hard metal and render it combat ineffective. It will also likely throw a track and damage the running gear.
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.
I have studied and read extensively on WW2 armour. While I am not an expert, I do retore aircraft and vehicles. I even sat in a Tiger that was abandoned in a foreign country and sits there to this day (can not get an import permit for it). The hardness you guys claim of these vehicles is just not the case.
All in all, heavy tanks were very vulnerable to air power. If they were not, the allies would never have been able to win at Normandy, because it was the incessant allied attacks during good weather that kept the German Armour at bay. They, the German Armour, faired very well at Normandy when the weather prohibited the jabos from finding their tanks.
I will say a supportive thing for the pro armour guys here though. The US halftracks should not stop ANY round in here short of a 7.9mm fired from 500 yds. The armour is 1/4 inch thick on the whole of the vehicle with the exception being 1/2 inch think armour for the drivers FWD windscreen cover. The only other US halftracks with thicker armour were the International Harvester manufactured M5 and M9 series with 5/16 inch armour, which has homogenous steel (welded together) and not face hardened like the 1/4 inch armour on the White and Autocar versions.
-
Originally posted by BALSUR
Not the same as bombs Morph, torpedos have shaped charges.
THE POINT was my friend is shock wave. One that you just cant seem to get through you head.
Maybe you need a lesson in physics?
What do you think a bombs job is?
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Now the bomb exploding far enough away that the shockwave hits the tank. The shockwave does not effect the inside of the tank. It will pass around it like a rock. It will be effected but not in the way people are suggesting.
Are you even thinking about what you just posted? Have you EVER read any first hand accounts of what a shock wave does to a tank and more importantly it's crew?
I suggest you do, and you will quickly get rid of this notion that a shock wave passes "around a tank like a rock"!
I know you LTAR guys like GV's, but you need a dose of reality.
-
If the medium surrounding a sealed container is violently compressed, the contents inside will also see some degree of compression (depending on the rigidity of the container). If the container (tank structure) is able to displace and decrease the total volume, the pressure will increase.
We normally have ~15psi in normal conditions (reading this post near sea level). Rapidly expanding gas of the bomb blast increases that pressure to nearly 700 tons per square inch.
A bomb blast is pretty ****in violent, and that kind of pressure will initially compress and collapse lungs and nasal cavities. A moment later these areas are decompressed and are filled with a large volume of blood. Pulmonary vessels connecting the lungs to the heart are sheared off. You're gonna be O2 starved pretty fast, not to mention your sinuses have already imploded. Think of being plunged a thousand feet under water and back out almost instantaneously.
A tank is not airtight, and no matter now strong a metal the tank has, it will flex and twist when exposed to forces that accompany typical WWII era bombs. At the very least, the crew will be deaf and pretty shook up. Maybe HT can mute the sounds ingame for tankers exposed to this wonderful experience. :)
-
Was watching a show about vietnam a few months ago and a pilot said that a 750lber was more then enough to flip or distroy the NV tanks. Now lets back that up about 25 years a 500 lber landing about 50ft away from a pnzr or tiger should flip it or at least trck it if not kill it.
-
Bodhi, one thing about the burning fuel tanks. The strafing aircraft didn't stick around, they hit and moved on. I would be willing to bet that the crews didn't just sit there. If not under direct fire, they probably put the fires out. And if they had effective supplies like we have in AHII, one box would create a brand new Tiger for them with fuel. :D
But back to the theme of the post:
"Does anybody out there have any information that can support the effectiveness of bombs and rockets on tanks?"
LTARsqrl
-
Hvar Rocket impact from P47
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/pz3wreck.jpg)
What a direct hit to a panther looks like from a 1000 lb bomb.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/Deadtank.jpg)
Proxi blast estemated 50 yards
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/destroyedgermantank-345x165.jpg)
Proxi blast to tiger 1000 lb bomb.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/tiger%20over%20turned%20from%201000%20lb%20bomb.jpg)
Near direct hit with 500 lb bomb.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/panzer97%20bomb%201000%20lb.jpg)
Go ahead and tell me that ANY one of these crews in those tanks could hop out, over turn/fix/repair their tank and continue an assult.
I will go ahead and call you insane.
-
2nd picture down was not a Panther, but was instead late model Stug with the 75mm long barrel.
Not to be picky, but the egg woulda done the same thing to a Panther.
I will bring a "few" :D (Morph has seen the collection) books to work tomorrow showing some egg / rocket results on tanks. If I have time I will scan the pics in and post them.
-
Ohh, and did you notice the torsion bars sheared off on that upside down Tiger? Thats an easy fix.... LMFAO.... :rofl
-
Morpheus
Direct hit OK, flipped crew could survive. Fix? Not a problem with uber AHII supplie Box.
Back to Balsurs question:
"Does anybody out there have any information that can support the effectiveness of bombs and rockets on tanks?"
Documented information to support there effectiveness. Pictures show damage to vehicles. Now lets see the documentation of what was dropped, how many were dropped, the vehicles condition before and after the drop, the crews condition before and after the drop. BTW, nice pictures, you got a link for them? I would be interested in checking into the info you provided a bit further.
Thanks
LTARsqrl
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Now the bomb exploding far enough away that the shockwave hits the tank. The shockwave does not effect the inside of the tank. It will pass around it like a rock. It will be effected but not in the way people are suggesting.
lol.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Ohh, and did you notice the torsion bars sheared off on that upside down Tiger? Thats an easy fix.... LMFAO.... :rofl
shut up Mr I sat in an original tiger. :mad:
im going to steal your tiger book when you arent looking. That would look purdy sitting on my shelf. :D
-
Don't laugh, explain.
You may have all the answers. I don't. I am trying to understand this myself.
LTARsqrl
-
Originally posted by MadSquirrel
Morpheus
Back to Balsurs question:
"Does anybody out there have any information that can support the effectiveness of bombs and rockets on tanks?"
Documented information to support there effectiveness. Pictures show damage to vehicles. Now lets see the documentation of what was dropped, how many were dropped, the vehicles condition before and after the drop, the crews condition before and after the drop. BTW, nice pictures, you got a link for them? I would be interested in checking into the info you provided a bit further.
Thanks
LTARsqrl
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.
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.
On a different note... I think Tanks in Aces High are a freakin joke. For one they do-not-belong in this game. AT ALL. Its a flight sim. Not a road terd sim. Second, I've been straffed too many times by a spit5 and had my turret taken out in a Panzer from one pass to want to deal with that frustration on a regular basis. GV's are frustrating. Fighters are not. I can shoot a wing on a plane and it falls off. I can sit in a Panzer and shoot another panzer 8 times, he will turn around and shoot me once and blow me to hell. Where do I find these depleted uranium sabots that others have their panzers armed with?
And btw, we are talking real life. Not AH send out a box'o supplies and everything is peachy. IRL 1000 lb bomb dropped close enough to flip a tank, would cause the crew to bleed from every orifice on their person if they werent turned into hamburger from shrapnel that was flying from within the tank. They would not be running around fixing tanks after that. They would most likely crawl into a ditch and die. If they could even crawl to begin with.
-
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.
2nd, When I started this thread I asked if anyone had any information to support the bombs/rockets vs Heavy German armor. The reason I asked was I can only find stuff that supports the fact that bombs/rockets didn't have an impact on destroying German armor. I am sorry but personal experiences in AH1, WW2OL, IL2 don't carry much weight. I've posted books to read and web searched but I guess noone cares. They perfer what they think and what they watch on tv. Movies dont get it right either.
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.
-
Nice pictures Morph, you got a link, a search site or something.
-
Exactly morpheus... Another thing.... how is it GVs can be resupplied and repaired in a mission but an aircraft carrier or fleet cannot be??? Crews always had shipfitters and people capable of fixing nearly anything that didnt sink it outright... (Take the case of the USS Franklin!)
I am not trying to hijack the thread... but resupplying GVs with anything more than ammo/fuel shouldnt be allowed (If even that!). I lost a 262 the other day, it would have been mighty nice to have a "power up" button then!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nice link Oct Just wonder what the blast damage to a human being that's buckled, button up behind 100mm of rolled steel.
-
"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
-
Hvar damage.
First picture showing results from multiple impacts.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/mk4wreck%20multiple%20hvar.gif)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/hvar%20dmg.jpg)
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.
-
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.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/pzkpfw_vi_e_15.jpg)
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.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/tiger-tank-24%20in%20crater.jpg)
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.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/east32%20tiger%20resuply.jpg)
There is no excuse for such a gamey BS pacman feature.
-
For those that say rockets do nothing.
These guys say different.
Rs132 direct hit.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/Rs132damage.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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?
-
What are you trying to say?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.... :rolleyes:
-
I think the easy solution to this problem (from HTC's and both sides of the player perspective) is to make close bomb impacts to a GV cause the existing "pilot wound" effect. You dont die instantly, and you GV will still work to some degree, but you are essentially out of commision and HTC already has the effect coaded.
I dont think anyone can make a reasonable arguement that a close 500-1k bomb impact should not give GV crews a "pilot wound".
-
There is not exist, even today, a tank who can resist a straight hit from a bomb 500lbs, let 1000 lbs and more.
If the bomb hit 2-3 metres away thats a different story,
but a straight hit on his head, the tank is toast.
I am talking for today tanks, M1s ,Leopards2, T80s. Let the WII tanks.
Forget wwii HE rockets. Only anti armor rockets maybe do some damage.
In AHII take two 1000lbs, go @ 5-6k and dive straight down on his head 70-80d angle and let him wandering what have happent ;)
-
One site I looked briefly at claims Wittman's tank was destroyed by a rocket from a Tiffe:
Many sources say that it was destroyed by the "Firefly Ambush", but different units claimed to ambush and destroy Wittmann's Tiger, including those of the either 1st Polish Armoured Division, 4th Canadian Armoured Division (Canadian Shermans supposedly surrounded and shot Wittmann's Tiger to pieces) or 33rd British Independent Armored Brigade. In the memoirs of a former member Mr.F.R of sSSPzAbt 101, official version at the time stated that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by an airplane bomb. Both presented a picture of Wittmann's Tiger without its turret with the gun barrel placed on the hull which in fact is the picture of SS-Untersturmführer Alfred Günther's Tiger destroyed by an airplane bomb at Evrecy. Along with those two versions, some claims were made that units which were not even present in the area at the time, were responsible for destroying Wittmann's Tiger. Both versions were proven wrong in 1945, by Mr.Serge Varin who found Tiger #007. Mr.Varin was interested in this tank because its turret was teared away from the hull. Mr.Varin examined Wittmann's Tiger and noticed that it was not penetrated by any shells fired at it during the fighting. The only damage to the hull was a big hole in the rear, near the engine deck. further examination Mr.Varin concluded that the impact came from the air. The rocket hit Tiger's rear deck (made of 25mm thick armor), penetrated the air intakes and exploded causing the explosion in the engine compartment and fighting compartment which ignited the stored ammunition. The second explosion instantly killed the entire crew and blew off the turret into the air. Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by a rocket fired from a Royal Air Force Hawker "Typhoon" MkIB.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Wittman) gives time to both sides:
Wittmann was killed in action less than two months after Villers-Bocage, on August 8. Participating in Operation Totalise, his tank was destroyed near the town of Cintheaux, probably during a skirmish after the ambush from the rear of his company by tanks of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. His tank was hit by two shots to the right rear flank which tore the turret. The shots came from a single Sherman Firefly commanded by Sgt. Gordon and gunned by Trooper Joe Ekins, of the 3rd Platoon, A Squadron, part of the 33rd Armoured Brigade at around 1240 hours. Most researchers give credence to this version of events, as it corroborates with both the Allied and the German records and eyewitness testimony.
However, other units in the area also claimed that the hit was theirs: the 4th Canadian Armoured Division and the 2nd Polish Armoured Regiment (of the 1st Polish Armoured Division under General Maczek. There is also speculation that it was a high-explosive (RP-3) rocket from a RAF Hawker Typhoon aircraft that dealt the fatal blow to Wittmann's Tiger.
-
An interesting film of what happens when ammo ignites in a tank.
http://www.furballunderground.com/guncam/ammo_cookoff.wmv
-
well, it looks like there are a few differant stories out there how Wittmann died. Thank you Karnak, that was an excellant post. you managed to to put the information out there without trying to belittle people. unlike others who seem to act as if they should be professors at our most distiguished colleges.
-
Originally posted by BALSUR
well, it looks like there are a few differant stories out there how Wittmann died. Thank you Karnak, that was an excellant post. you managed to to put the information out there without trying to belittle people. unlike others who seem to act as if they should be professors at our most distiguished colleges.
Balsur,
When one speaks as though they are authorative with regards to what happened with regards to something along those lines, and is wrong, yeah, I get harsh. My apologies.
Let me ask you this? Have you ever seen a picture of any of Wittman's Tigers prior to his and his crew's death? Have you seen any pictures of the tank after their deaths?
Have you ever read anything at length about Wittman?
I spend a fair amount of my time studying WW2 history, and working with it. I'd say I average a minimum of 50-60 hours a week just at work doing just that. Not to mention the time I waste playing AH2 and reading at home. While I am not going to be a "professor" at a distinguished university, I will be teaching an elective class to USAFA students during the summers starting in 2007 from our new facilities.
-
5 inch american high velocity air launched rockets had a traveling speed of over 925 mph and could penitrate 1.5 inches of cold rolled metal or 3 feet of concreate. ther is no way a panzer or tiger would survive a side/rear/top hit from this.
-
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.
Better get on that morph....Go out and find first hand accounts from people who didnt survive bombardment to balance his scientific sample. DOH.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Better get on that morph....Go out and find first hand accounts from people who didnt survive bombardment to balance his scientific sample. DOH.
We're way ahead of you, murdr. We've already contacted thousands of people who didn't survive bombardment, in the hopes of confirming our position. We're just waiting to hear back from them at this point.
-
Yes Bodhi, I have seen before and after pictures of Wittmann's tigers. Yes, I also study WW2 history to the point that I went and lived in Germany for 2 years. I traced the tracks form Normandy to Kelstein Haus. I've gone to every museum and memorial I could. Hell, I was in Bastogne during the 60th reunion. I went all over Belgium and theres absolutely tons of stuff there, unlike France. I got video of an actually Panther tank running with transversing turret in Sinsheim. I've seen what remains of the ME 262 graveyard outside Stuttgard. What Iam trying to say here I don't go off 1/2 cocked. There is nothing certian in war. Anything and everything is possible so all I ask is to look at someone else's view's. If you don't agree with them there's no reason to get insulting or blunt No one forces anyone else to post a response only you can control that. Now, we can look at things from all angles or just forget it and say everyone is wrong and only what I say is right. Its up to us to decide how we are going to communicate.
-
I got video of an actually Panther tank running with transversing turret in Sinsheim
It wouldnt happen to have been this (http://www.furballunderground.com/guncam/panther-03.avi) Panther would it? :)
Small world maybe.
I also have film of a man inserting his head into the womb of another woman. That makes me one up on you. :)
-
Morph:
"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"
I would agree, it is kind of gamey-lame but it is the only thing HT has put in the game in order to simulate repair of a veh. On the same note, I have read many places that it takes a hell of a lot longer than 30 sec's to refuel AND rearm a WWII plane, and that's in good conditions.
I will also agree that bombs and rockets if properly placed would do tremendous damage to the tank and or crew. FACT: more WWII A/C were shot down by AA fire than another A/C.
The Germans were very effective with AA batteries and 88's
My 2 cents
-
On the same note, I have read many places that it takes a hell of a lot longer than 30 sec's to refuel AND rearm a WWII plane, and that's in good conditions
I see what you're trying to get at, but. Atleast you have to land a plane!
Tracked Tiger, busted turret, no engine... M3 drives up to a tiger like a dynamite truck drives up to a dead bloated beached whale and with the push of a button.. Vuallha! All better. Atleast make the supplies so they can only fix one thing at a time.
1 box of supplies = 1 new track or 1 repaired dead engine, or 1 repaired dead turret... Or resupplied ammo.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I see what you're trying to get at, but. Atleast you have to land a plane!
Tracked Tiger, busted turret, no engine... M3 drives up to a tiger like a dynamite truck drives up to a dead bloated beached whale and with the push of a button.. Vuallha! All better. Atleast make the supplies so they can only fix one thing at a time.
1 box of supplies = 1 new track or 1 repaired dead engine, or 1 repaired dead turret... Or resupplied ammo.
And on top of that make it take 30secs. for each one.
-
So Morph have you been to Sinshiem? If so, did you go to Speyer also?
-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219&q=wwii
-
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 (http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)
Here's link to a text file of Ian Gooderson's
Ian Gooderson's Air Power at the Battlefront (http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/Ian%20Gooderson.txt)
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.
-
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.... :rolleyes:
Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by Canadian Firefly tanks.
Michael Wittmann (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen3.htm)
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..
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.... :rolleyes:
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Bruno
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.
That is true, mostly due to the absolutely suicidal way in which people will attack GVs as crashing and dying doesn't have anything like the penalty in reality. Also due to the ability to release weapons at angles and speeds that would not have been safe for these aircraft to actually do so.
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.
In the one case I am refering to I dropped the two bombs out of my Mossie's bomb bay in a 60 degree dive. One of them exploded next to the Tiger and the other resulted in a hit sprite on the Tiger. After that strike the Tiger remained fully fuctional.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
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...
what the hell made the tanks jump 5 feet in the air then roll over on their turret? What? Wait wait I know. They hit one of those magic shrubs we have in Aces High that will send tons of iron flying through the air. Yes im sure of it now. Thats got to be it.
You are one ignorant, arrogant sob Bruno. Stop trolling with your slim.
No watermelon genious, it was propaganda film of acutall combat killing russian troops. But that makes it fictional? Hardly. You need to get a grasp on reality son.
-
You are one ignorant, arrogant sob Bruno. Stop trolling with your slim.
What I am is 100% correct...
No watermelon genious, it was propaganda film of acutall combat killing russian troops. But that makes it fictional? Hardly. You need to get a grasp on reality son.
It is fictional, it is pieced together from various german news reels. But that's here-nor-there. If you read everything I wrote I said:
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.
Despite all you nonsense what have you posted that contradicts that?
-
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers-02.htm)
This is about this flipped tigers
The 3rd company was caught in a bombing attack in July 1944, and all of its Tigers were destroyed or damaged. On 9 September 1944, sPzAbt 503 was completely equipped with 45 new Tiger II Bs.
-
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...
You are full of crap Bruno.
Take off the leather undies and get realistic. You honestly can not believe the caca del toro that you are trying to peddle. That tanks were never taken out from the air?
What a waste of time you are.
-
Bodhi,
He didn't say "never" and he is right that aircraft were not terribly successful against MBTs. They did destroy some, but the effort it took to per kill of an MBT was very disproportianal to the effects air power could have on the lighter vehicles. And the Il-2s, P-47s and Typhoons ripped the hell out of those. By destroying the ability to support the tanks airpower did, indirectly, heavily negate the impact of German MBTs on the Allied advances in the East and West.
-
That tanks were never taken out from the air?
Quote where I said that...
I posted battlefield studies, I gave you a reference to best researched book on the subject by Dr. Ian Gooderson, I posted a link to an article of his as well. You posted nothing but idiocy.
German Tanks found on the battlefield were examined, few were found to have been directly 'taken out by' bomb and/or rockets'. If you can't except that then disprove it Mr. 'Research'... Post something credible that disproves it.
BTW this subject has been covered to death on thsi forum. If the original poster in really interested in the answers then a search of those old threads would do some good, regardless of what Neal and Bob say...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Quote where I said that...
I posted battlefield studies, I gave you a reference to best researched book on the subject by Dr. Ian Gooderson, I posted a link to an article of his as well. You posted nothing but idiocy.
German Tanks found on the battlefield were examined, few were found to have been directly 'taken out by' bomb and/or rockets'. If you can't except that then disprove it Mr. 'Research'... Post something credible that disproves it.
BTW this subject has been covered to death on thsi forum. If the original poster in really interested in the answers then a search of those old threads would do some good, regardless of what Neal and Bob say...
Dude, listen to me very carfuly. No one here is saying that the majority of tanks where taken out by bombs. What we are saying is that they WERE infact taken out by bombs and rockets as well as ground fire. Are you that thick headed that you cannot get that through you skull?
-
Bruno.
Read this regarding Wittman's death.
After fighting the remains of Wittmann and his crew were buried beside what was left of their Tiger, without any markings. Until 1983, the destruction of Wittman's Tiger was an mystery even for crews of sSSPzAbt 101. Many sources say that it was destroyed by the "Firefly Ambush", but different units claimed to ambush and destroy Wittmann's Tiger, including those of the either 1st Polish Armoured Division, 4th Canadian Armoured Division (Canadian Shermans supposedly surrounded and shot Wittmann's Tiger to pieces) or 33rd British Independent Armored Brigade. In the memoirs of a former member Mr.F.R of sSSPzAbt 101, official version at the time stated that Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by an airplane bomb. Both presented a picture of Wittmann's Tiger without its turret with the gun barrel placed on the hull which in fact is the picture of SS-Untersturmführer Alfred Günther's Tiger destroyed by an airplane bomb at Evrecy. Along with those two versions, some claims were made that units which were not even present in the area at the time, were responsible for destroying Wittmann's Tiger. Both versions were proven wrong in 1945, by Mr.Serge Varin who found Tiger #007. Mr.Varin was interested in this tank because its turret was teared away from the hull. Mr.Varin examined Wittmann's Tiger and noticed that it was not penetrated by any shells fired at it during the fighting. The only damage to the hull was a big hole in the rear, near the engine deck. further examination Mr.Varin concluded that the impact came from the air. The rocket hit Tiger's rear deck (made of 25mm thick armor), penetrated the air intakes and exploded causing the explosion in the engine compartment and fighting compartment which ignited the stored ammunition. The second explosion instantly killed the entire crew and blew off the turret into the air. Wittmann's Tiger was destroyed by a rocket fired from a Royal Air Force Hawker "Typhoon" MkIB - attack aircraft. Typhoons were armed with HE (High-explosive) rockets and took heavy tow of German tanks during the Normandy battles (for example on August 8th of 1944, Typhoons destroyed 135 German tanks and among those Tiger #007). Michael Wittmann and his crew was killed in action on August 8th of 1944, at Gaumesnil near Cintheaux. In March of 1983, the unmarked field grave of Tiger #007's crew was discovered during the construction of the road and was excavated. It was possible to identify the remains by Wittmann's dental records and Heinrich Reimers's (driver) identification tag. Wittmann and his crew was then officially buried in the German Military Cemetery of "De La Cambe" in Normandy, France. That event had fully proven the exact location of Wittmann's Tiger and its fate as previosly suggested by Mr.Varin.
Still want to argue how his tank was taken out?
And to further what Morph said, we are not arguing that killing a tank from the air was not hard. We are arguing that it happened on a fairly common basis. I still believe it was ground combat which took out more tanks than not, but I do believe that the tanks suffered fair amounts of losses to airpower.
-
No one here is saying that the majority of tanks where taken out by bombs. What we are saying is that they WERE infact taken out by bombs and rockets as well as ground fire.
You and your girlfriend are the ones that should read more carefully, dude. I never said no tank was ever killed by a rocket or bomb. What I said was (quoted for you once again):
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.
The sources I provided clearly confirm what I said. If you now agree with that then great.
-
Bodhi,
The problem I have with that take on it is that Wittman's tank was destroyed near midnight. I have never heard of any Allied fighter-bombers using rockets in close support at night. It strikes me as an excessively suicidal thing to do.
I think it is more likely that Mr. Varin missed the damage that destroyed the tank.
-
Mr.Serge Varin who found Tiger #007.
I already pointed that Mr. Varin's version has been discredited yet here you go posting Varin...
quoting this website:
Michael Wittmann (http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/wittman.html) is hardly en example of 'indepth research'...
If you look into a bit more you will find several versions, First British Shermans, then a bomb, then Mr Varin's claim of rocket firing Typhoons then finally that Wittman's tank was destryoyed by "A" Squadron of Northamptonshire Yeomanry Canadian (mix of shermans and 1 Firefly).
The ONLY version of Wittmann's loss that can seemingly be substantiated with facts is that he WAS knocked out by 2 shots to his right rear flank by a single Sherman Firefly belonging to Sgt. Gordon (gunner; Trooper Joe Ekins), from 3.Plt., A.Sqn., 33.Arm. Bgd., 1.Northamptonshire Yeomanry. He and the other Tigers with him were caught totally unaware not realizing the British had taken up a flanking position so close by thinking the Poles ahead were their only concern.
This Firefly was hidden in a tree line with a troop of standard 75mm Shermans to Wittmann's starboard side, N.East of Gaumesnil as he moved north in command Tiger "007" (ex Heinz Von Westerhagen's, whom he had succeeded as Bttn.CO on July 10 when the former suffered complications to an earlier head wound, hence allowing Wittmann to inherit his Tiger).
Wittmann's was the last vehicle in the advance, through an open field parallel to the N158, toward the 1.Polish Arm.Div. reported to be ahead at Aignan de Cramesnil.
He did so along with 6 other Tigers, 5 of which were initially KO'd and 1 abandonned in this unexpected ambush, with the last KO'd a little later
(source: "TIC 2"; p.259 text, p.290 pic., + Agte; pp.423-433 text {p.425 in particular}, p.477 pic, + pp.182-183 "Panzers in Normandy - Then & Now {a little dated and still claiming 5 Shermans and only 4 Tigers}, + p.46-53 "After the Battle" mag no. 48 - "Michael Wittmann's Last Battle" - which even has transcripts of British I/C and radio traffic describing the incidents).
Agte's book describes the action concisely even down to recollections from Hans Höflinger who witnessed the hits into the side wall around the fuel tank area that initially lifted and displaced the turret onto the hull top, and began a fire, before ammo cooking off sent it skyward to its final resting place behind the vehicle. The penetrations and subsequent explosions instantly killed the crew (Agte p.425 & 429). The vehicle was obviously still moving when hit and the explosions have broken both tracks while it continued rolling off them till slewing to a halt some 20 metres further on.
There's pictures on the web you can find to look at for yourself.
Here's soem quotes:
On p.425 Agte ()states:
"Hans Höflinger now describes the subsequent course of the attack from his experience: 'Then we drove off, Michel (sic) right of the road and I left, four others with Michel and the brother of Heinz Von Westernhagen with me. Approximately 800 meters to Michel's right there was a small wood which struck us as suspicious and which was to prove fateful to us. Unfortunately, we couldn't keep the wood under observation on account of our mission. We drove about one to one-and-a half kilometres, and then I received another radio message from Michel which only confirmed my suspicions about the wood. We began taking heavy fire from anti-tank guns and once again Michel called, but didn't complete the message. When I looked out to the left I saw that Michel's tank wasn't moving. I called him by radio but received no answer. Then my tank received a frightful blow and I had to order my crew to get out as it had already begun to burn fiercely. My crew and I dashed toward the rear and got through. I stopped to look around and to my dismay discovered that five of our tanks had been knocked out. The turret of Michel's tank was displaced to the right and tilted down somewhat. None of his crew had got out. I climbed into Von Westernhagen's tank and, together with Heurich, whose Tiger was undamaged, tried to get to Michel's tank. We could not get through. Dr. Rabe also tried it, but in vain...I can state the exact time of the incident; it was 1255 hours, near the Falaise-Caen road in the vicinity of Cintheaux."
Agte then follows up on p.425 with the British account of the incident:
"...At 1240 hours Captain Boardman gave Sergeant Gordon's tank the order to fire. The Tigers were seven-hundred meters distant. The Firefly's gunner was Trooper Joe Ekins, who hit the rearmost Tiger of the three Tigers in his sight with two shots. The Tigers had failed to spot the well-camouflaged Shermans, and it was only after the first shots had been fired and a Tiger knocked out that Wittmann transmitted the message referred to by SS-Hauptscharfuhrer Höflinger: 'Move! Attention! Attention! Anti-tank guns to the right! - Back up!...'."
On p.425 "Höflinger described how, after it was hit, the turret of Wittmann's Tiger was displaced to the right and tilted forward. That was its condition immediately after the tank was knocked out. Furthermore it is absolutely certain that the turret was blown off shortly afterward by the force of the exploding ammunition - possibly accelerated by burning fuel in the fighting compartment - and thrown several meters away from the tank. This is confirmed by the only existing photo of 007, taken by a French civilian soon after the engagement. The Tiger therefore began to burn immediately after it was hit, which by then caused the ammunition in the turret to explode. Only the tremendous force produced by the exploding armour-piercing and high-explosive shells could have torn the turret, which weighed tonnes, from the hull and then tossed it meters through air. The crew must have been killed or incapacitated when the tank was hit. The subsequent explosion then extinguished any doubts as to the fate of the five men inside 007."
Hans Dollinger the battalion signals officer, and SS-Sturmmann Alfred Bahlo his Radio Op, also recount their experiences as the lead vehicle in the attack along a similar vein to Höflinger...and say on p.429 as they make their way back from their burning Tiger with the fatally wounded Obschf. Schott "...On the way we passed the knocked out panzer of Hauptsturmführer Wittmann; the turret was blown off."
Dr. Rabe also witnessed the hit and described it in a letter to Wittmann's wife to tell her the real story: "When the attack got rolling, I drove forward several hundred meters and covered the last stretch on foot. There was quite a lot of heavy anti-tank and artillery fire. I wanted to get to Michel's (sic) tank. When I got to within about 250 to 300 meters I saw flames suddenly shoot from the tank and the turret fly off and fall to the ground. The tank then burned out completely. I still tried to reach it, but I couldn't cross the open field as the Tommy fired at solitary me with their anti-tank guns. It is unlikely Michel got out before the hit, as I would have seen him. None of the remaining crew members came back either."
Agte sums up with the following:
After evaluating all available documents on the German and English sides and interviewing the handful of survivors of this action..., one can only assume that the tank that was hit at 1247 hours, was 007. SS-Hauptsturmführer Dr.Rabe's account and the English war diary both mention that this was the only Tiger that blew up after being hit. The eight minute time discrepancy compared to that given in Höflinger's account is of little significance as the source of the error appears to be completely genuine and time discrepancies can never be ruled out. As well, Höflinger's account was written several weeks after the events in question; it is also thoroughly possible that the error in time might lie in he English war diary."
Now the rocket firing Typhoon version is that of Mr. Varin but there's no substantial evidence to support it. You can believe whatever you want but it's clear by those who have done the research that its far more likely then not that Wittman was killed by that Firefly...
-
The problem I have with that take on it is that Wittman's tank was destroyed near midnight.
It wasn't at night. the reason Varin's claim was taken seriously for so long was that the visual evidence fit (or couldn't rule out a rocket strike). A local farmer reported that aircraft had at one point attacked the tank and (IIRC) an unexploded rocket was found near by(wellin general area of the open field.
It is believed by the experts that these rocket attacks came later after Wittman's was already dead.
But eye witness testimony supports the Firefly...
Anyway this thread done been hijacked...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
I already pointed that Mr. Varin's version has been discredited yet here you go posting Varin...
quoting this website:
Michael Wittmann (http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/wittman.html) is hardly en example of 'indepth research'...
That is all over the web, in many different sites all saying the same thing from reports on his tiger. You can only dig so deap until what's being said is the same thing everywhere you look.
Why are you being such a smart ass? Up until today you hadnt put a single bit of thought into this topic. And even now you haven not addressed the topic at hand.
It doesnt have a dam thing to do with Wittmanns tiger. This thread is dealing with the damage ordnance had/has/and can do to armor.
You seem to be quite the know-it-all genious jack of all trades. While your at it, can you solve the mystery behind the Shroud of Turin for the rest of the world?
More than 60 years later and people are still arguing over two accounts on a single incident. Some agree with one, others agree with the other. Unless you were there, and saw Wittmanns tiger take killing blow, you might as well just shut up. Because what you're arguing is honestly a lost cuase. Personally, here, in this thread, it has nothing to do with anything.
What you still cant get through your thick arrogant skull is the fact that ordnance did have a great impact damage wise on armor when the two met face to face. This is not myth, hearsay, ledgend or whatever else you can cook up with... Its a fact. And if you are as learned as you say you are, you would know this.
Again, can you please stick to the topic of this thread please? Or is that too much to ask. You say bombs had no affect on tanks. (A rediculous statement at best) Prove that bombs had no affect on armor please. Because history is saying otherwise.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I see what you're trying to get at, but. Atleast you have to land a plane!
Tracked Tiger, busted turret, no engine... M3 drives up to a tiger like a dynamite truck drives up to a dead bloated beached whale and with the push of a button.. Vuallha! All better. Atleast make the supplies so they can only fix one thing at a time.
1 box of supplies = 1 new track or 1 repaired dead engine, or 1 repaired dead turret... Or resupplied ammo.
That's a good idea, it's a bit more work and cooperation, but a good idea
-
Bruno,
You can insult all you like, but you are sill wrong.
Varin's version points out that
A: the first tank id'd as Wittman's was in fact not, but was in fact Gunther's Tank.
B: Wittman's Tiger had NO front, side, or rear armour penetrations. It did however have a large bore penetration (think rocket) on it's engine deck.
C: This is confirmed by the fact that Wittman's body and crew's was found in 83 at the location of the tank that Varin examined.
Now you are quoting eye witness accounts of people who in the heat of battle could supposedly read a turret number at ranges in excess of 100 meters? All in the heat of battle? Sorry, it doesn't cut it. Top it off with several eye witness accounts being in fact proved false as the units that claim them were not even in the area!
-
That is all over the web, in many different sites all saying the same thing from reports on his tiger. You can only dig so deap until what's being said is the same thing everywhere you look.
Huh? Your buddy quoted that site about Varin's Typhoon claim, not me.
. You say bombs had no affect on tanks
No I didn't. What's ridiculous is your strawman BS. Quote where I said that...
It's your buddies position that he:
[has] studied and read extensively on WW2 armour.
The extent of his study is 'google'?
All my points are directly on topic and related to the original posters question. You post ad hominem, strawman, nonsense.
Multiple battlefield studies have shown that air power had very little to do with the actual destruction of mbts during ww2. No one said mbts were never killed by air power or that air power wasn't a key in stopping many a German mbt advance / withdrawal. As I said the way armor was stopped by air power was destroying their support (to include standard interdiction targets such as supply, bridges etc..).
You posted unsourced images, a pieced together news reel, and name calling.
Your buddy wasn't much better. He brought up his knowledge of Wittman (which was nothing more then parroting Varin).
What you still cant get through your thick arrogant skull is the fact that ordnance did have a great impact damage wise on armor when the two met face to face. This is not myth, hearsay, ledgend or whatever else you can cook up with... Its a fact. And if you are as learned as you say you are, you would know this.
You have no idea what facts are...
Buy this book (requires actual reading skills):
Air Power at the Battlefront
Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45
by Ian Gooderson
ISBN 0-7146-4680-6
Then go read those links I provided. They are non-biased examinations of German mbts left on the battlefield. The myth is that rarely did armor or air power meet face-to-face, and when they did it air power didn't have that great an impact directly on the destruction of mbts.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Bruno,
You can insult all you like, but you are sill wrong.
Varin's version points out that
A: the first tank id'd as Wittman's was in fact not, but was in fact Gunther's Tank.
B: Wittman's Tiger had NO front, side, or rear armour penetrations. It did however have a large bore penetration (think rocket) on it's engine deck.
C: This is confirmed by the fact that Wittman's body and crew's was found in 83 at the location of the tank that Varin examined.
Now you are quoting eye witness accounts of people who in the heat of battle could supposedly read a turret number at ranges in excess of 100 meters? All in the heat of battle? Sorry, it doesn't cut it. Top it off with several eye witness accounts being in fact proved false as the units that claim them were not even in the area!
First you and your buddy started with 'insults', don't wuss out now and play victim...
Have you seen the pictures of Wittman's tiger? the 007 is rather large and can be easily read at 100 yards, especially through a tank site.
The tank Varin found was Wittman's, there's no doubt. Varin didn't have access to all the info in Agte's (1st pnzr SS) book. He didn't have access to the witnesses or to the Northamptonshire Yeomanry war diary which were gathered independent of each other. His conclusion comes from the wreckage (fyi the wreckage doesn't prove conclusively that it had to be a rocket, look up the pictures), a local reporting air attacks and an unexploded rocket.
You can believe whatever you want but its kind of silly in weighing Varin's assessment against eyewitness independent evidence.
YMMV
-
Wrong Genious. Again.
This thread is about.
What can a bomb do to armor.
Not........ What is usually didnt do in WW2... Which is directly tied to human error on the part of the pilot who is dropping the bomb or firing the rocket.
GET IT??? What is so hard to get about that? Honestly now. Please. Sit. Think. If you are the genious you make yourself out to be then this wont be too difficult to grasp.
Again. I will say it again because I know how thick your skull is.
What a bomb is capable of doing to armor.
NOT.......
What a bomb usually did or didnt do because of pilot error in dropping the bomb
Got it? Get it? Read that?
One last time son. I dont care about how many bombs DIDNT hit their target. That's not what we are talking about. That's not what this topic is based on.
It is dealing with what happens when a bomb hits on or very near a tank.
-
I find the "quoted" war diary of the British versuion slightly unbelievable,
"Agte then follows up on p.425 with the British account of the incident:
"...At 1240 hours Captain Boardman gave Sergeant Gordon's tank the order to fire. The Tigers were seven-hundred meters distant"
Even today here in the UK metres are used rarely, in 1944 it would have been yards.
If this has been changed then why not other parts of the "story"
wipass
-
ok folks som read
"Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront', London 1998, contains
a couple of cases studies.
I. Roncey Pocket.
In the wake of the Allied breakout from Normandy, Operation COBRA
which began on 25 July 1944, large German forces in the Cotentin
peninsula were forced to risk air attack by moving in daylight to
avoid being encircled by American armour. Just south of Coutances,
near Roncey, some six German divisions were cut off in what became
known as the Roncey 'Pocket'. Choking the roads, the German columns
became ideal targets for attacks by Allied fighter-bombers whose
attacks succeeded in preventing any organised breakout [...]
Some indication of the destruction caused specifically by air weapons
is provided by an RAF anti-armour operation on the same day [29 July].
Rocket Typhoons of 2nd TAF were requested by US forces to attack a
concentration of some 50 German tanks observed in the Roncey area,
near Gavray. Consequently Typhoons of No.121 Wing of No.83 Group flew
99 sorties in the area between late afternoon and dusk, and claimed
the destruction of 17 tanks with a further 27 damaged. The pilots
reported that there was little sign of life or movement during their
attacks and the area was littered with damaged and burning tanks,
making target selection difficult. There was no flak, and pilots were
able to attack at very low level. Only one Typhoon was lost, hit by
flying debris and forced to crash-land.
The Typhoon effort had been concentrated mainly against a German
column near the village of la Baleine, and shortly after the air
attacks this area was investigated by the British Army's No.2 ORS. The
column had been a formidable mix of armour and transport, including
Panther tanks. The surrounding terrain was heavily wooded and
dissected by deep, narrow valleys and the column had used a side road
which descended to la Baleine where a bridge crossed the river Sienne.
On one side of this road was a steep, wooded cliff and on the other a
sheer drop to the river; caught by fighter-bombers at this point the
vehicles had been unable to pull off the road. P-47s had attacked the
area with 500-lb bombs before Typhoons had been called for, and the
bridge over the river had been sufficiently damaged by their bombs to
prevent heavy vehicles from crossing. After examining the tanks and
vehicles the ORS outlined the causes of destruction. This is shown in
the following table:
LA BALEINE - LOSSES AND CAUSES
Destroyed Possibly Unknown Unknown Aban-
by Rockets Rockets Shells Causes Crew doned Totals
Panthers 1 - 1 - 3 3 8
Pz Mk IV 1 - - - - - 1
Armoured Cars - 1 - - - - 1
Armd. troop carr. 5 - - - - - 5
75 mm SP Guns - - - 1 - 1 2
50 mm AT Guns - - - - 1 1 2
Howitzers - 1 - - - 1 2
Rocket launchers - - - - - 1 1
Lorries - - - 8 - - 8
Cars - - - 10 - - 10
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________
Totals 7 2 1 19 4 7 40
The motor transport was so mangled that identification of the cause of
destruction was impossible and the ORS acknowledged their 'unknown
causes' table to be unduly loaded. They suggested that a more accurate
picture would be provided by the motor transport being spread over the
table in the same proportion as the other losses. Although rockets
appear as the biggest single known cause of destruction, the amount
attributed to them is small compared to the relatively high number of
Panthers destroyed by their crews or abandoned intact. How they had
been left suggested abandonment in haste, almost certainly as a result
of air attack or the threat of such attack, and possibly even before
the arrival of the Typhoons. Craters of 500-lb bombs were found in an
orchard within 50 yards of two Panthers; neither tank had been hit but
the crews obviously baled out and later set fire to the tanks, one of
the guns being destroyed by a high-explosive round left in the
chamber.
Although lack of fuel in a retreat could be expected to result in the
abandonment or destruction of tanks by their crews, this was not the
case at La Baleine; near similar bomb craters two Panthers were found
completely undamaged, their fighting ability unimpaired with full
complements of petrol and ammunition. One of the 75 mm self-propelled
guns, its armour reinforced with concrete, was found abandoned
undamaged 35 yards from a bomb crater. As it had not been set on fire
by its crew it was considered more likely to have been abandoned in
haste rather than left as a deliberate roadblock.
Possibly the tanks had been abandoned or destroyed by their crews
because they could not negotiate the damaged bridge. The ORS noted
that the German crews could have forced the river further downstream,
as American Sherman tanks later succeeded in doing, but this ignores
the fact that in their hurry to escape encirclement the Germans
probably had little time to reconnoitre the area. That all the troop
carriers discovered had been destroyed by rockets suggests the
possibility that other similar types may have escaped over the bridge,
not needing to be abandoned like the heavier tanks. At la Baleine the
most significant evidence of demoralisation was that there were no
German graves. Only one German corpse was found and local civilians,
many of whoom were interviewed, confirmed that it was of a sniper
killed after the air attacks, while no evidence could be found that
American forces had removed bodies for burial. This suggests that the
German troops may have dispersed from the column when it became
obvious air attack was imminent, which squares with the Typhoon pilots
observing little German activity during their attacks.
La Baleine was the first ORS investigation of its type, and certainly
reflects the shortcomings of air-to-ground weapons against tanks.
Despite the craters none of the tanks or self-propelled guns had been
knocked out by bombs, and the number destroyed by rockets is
unimpressive. Nevertheless, there was a good deal of evidence
discovered by the ORS at la Baleine to suggest that air attack was
responsible, even if indirectly, for the disruption and abandonment of
the column, and that the German crews preferred to abandon or destroy
their armour rather than invite further air attack by attempting to
salvage combat-worthy tanks.
-
II. Mortain
Similar evidence of German tanks being abandoned under air attack is
seen in the example of the only large-scale German armoured offensive
mounted in Normandy. Early on the morning of 7 August 1944, the strike
force of XLVII Panzer Corps, the 1st SS, 2nd SS, and 2nd Panzer
divisions, attacked positions held by the US 30th and 9th Infantry
divisions near Mortain with the ultimate objective of reaching the
Cotentin coast at Avranches and cutting off American armoured
spearheads from their supplies. Although tank strength was depleted
after weeks of heavy fighting the Germans mustered 70 Panthers, 75 Mk
IVs, and 32 self-propelled guns for the attack. By noon on 7 August
they were within nine miles of Avranches after penetrating the front
of 30th Division to a depth of about three miles. Having arrived in
Mortain only the day before, 30th Division had nothing but its 57 mm
towed anti-tank guns and 3 inch gun tank-destroyers with which to
engage the German tanks at close range. Despite its determined
defence, the credit for bringing the German attack to a decisive halt
on the afternoon of 7 August is generally regarded as belonging to
Allied fighter-bombers, particularly the RAF Typhoons, which were
called to intervene.
The response of the Allied tactical air forces to the German attack
was swift. The Typhoons of No.83 Group RAF were made available, and
plans co-ordinated directly between the headquarters of No.83 Group
and IX Tactical Air Command. Rocket Typhoons were to engage the German
tanks, while American fighter-bombers were to attack transport moving
to and from the battle area. The Ninth Air Force was also to provide a
fighter screen to intercept German aircraft, a vital task as the
Luftwaffe had planned to make an all-out effort to support the attack
with some 300 planes. The German command had relied upon fog,
prevalent on previous days and which had been forecast for 7 August,
to protect their armoured spearheads from air observation and attack,
but at about 11 am that day the fog over the battle area began to
clear.
At about midday the first Typhoons took off for the American sector
from their advanced landing grounds, and went into action just before
1 p.m. against a concentration of some 60 tanks and 200 vehicles
observed along a hedge-lined road near Mortain. The tanks, some
heavily camouflaged, were grouped closely together as if unprepared
for the rapid lifting of the fog. After overflying at low level to
confirm them as German, the Typhoons commenced dive attacks upon the
front and rear of the column, which was immediately brought to a halt.
The pilots observed that their attacks caused great confusion, and saw
German tank crews bailing out and running for cover regardless of
whether or not their tanks were left blocking the road. Also at this
time the first American fighter-bombers arrived in the area, with
P-47s, including the squadron equipped with rockets, attacking German
transport.
The weather remained clear and between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m. flights of
five or six Typhoons were taking off roughly every 20 minutes to
attack, returning to refuel and rearm before setting off again for
Mortain. As the afternoon wore on the pilots found the task of
locating the German tanks increasingly difficult due to their
dispersion and to clouds of dust and smoke in the battle area, but the
forward movement of the German attack had been halted. By the end of
the day No.83 Group had flown 294 sorties and IX Tactical Air Command
200 sorties in the Mortain area. Three Typhoons and pilots had been
lost. Though the level of flak had initially been light, it had
increased during the day with box-like patterns being put up over the
tanks, and many of the Typhoons were found to have suffered damage
from this and small-arms fire.
German accounts clearly attribute the failure of their attack on 7
August to the fighter-bombers. The commander of 2nd Panzer Division,
von Luttwitz, later recalled that his tanks had made a swift advance
of about ten miles when suddenly the fighter-bombers appeared,
They came in hundreds, firing their rockets at the
concentrated tanks and vehicles. We could do nothing
against them and we could make no further progress.
Hans Speidel, then the Chief of Staff of the German Army Group B,
later wrote of Mortain that
it was possible for the Allied air forces alone to wreck
this Panzer operation with the help of a well co-ordinated
ground-to-air communication system.
The German troops received no air support on 7 Aug. Their aircraft
attempting to reach the battle area were intercepted by strong
American fighter patrols and none reached within 40 miles of Mortain.
Although fighting continued in the area for several days, with Mortain
being recaptured by American forces on 12 August, the Germans made no
further attempt to reach Avranches after 7 August. Typhoons took no
part in the battle after that date, with responsibility for air
support reverting to the IX Tactical Air Command. The claims made by
the Allied fighter-bomber pilots for the period 7 - 10 August are
impressive, and are shown below:
ALLIED FIGHTER-BOMBER CLAIMS, 7 - 10 AUGUST 1944
Probably
Armour Destroyed Destroyed Damaged Total
2nd TAF 8 35 21 140
9th AF 69 8 35 112
Motor Ttansport
2nd TAF 54 19 39 112
9th AF 94 1 21 116
Yet these claims are misleading and cannot be substantiated. During
12 - 20 August the Mortain battle area was examined by two separate
British ORS teams; No. 2 ORS and ORS 2nd TAF. No German vehicles were
missed by the investigation as the areas was not extensive; moreover
the area was examined from an observation aircraft at low level with
no further vehicles discovered. The destruction attributed to various
weapons can be tabulated as shown in the following table, which is a
compilation of both the RAF and Army reports:
DESTRUCTION ATTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS WEAPONS,
MORTAIN AREA, AUGUST 1944
FORM OF DESTRUCTION OR NEUTRALISATION
Cannon/ Aband.
TYPE Rockets MG Bomb intact Crew US Army Unknown Total
Panther 5 - 1 6 4 14 3 33
Mk IV 2 - 1 1 - 5 1 10
SP Guns - - - - - 1 2 3
Arm.Troop Carr. 7 4 - 1 - 3 8 23
Arm.Cars 1 - - 1 - 5 1 8
Arm Recov.Veh. - - - - - 1 - 1
88 mm Guns - - - - - 1 1 2
75 mm Guns - - - - - 1 - 1
50 mm Guns - - - 1 - - - 1
Cars 2 2 - - - 4 3 11
Lorries - 6 - 1 1 2 20 30
Ambulances - 2 - 2 - - 1 5
Motor Cycles - - - 1 1 1 2 4
_____________________________ _____________________________ ___________
Totals 17 14 2 14 5 38 42 132
This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons.
It was not possible to discriminate between victims of British and
American aircraft as the latter had also fired some 600 rockets. Many
of the 'unknown causes' were found some distance from any sign of air
attack - such as cannon and machine gun strikes on the ground and
rocket or bomb craters - and could not be considered as possible air
victims. An obvious question is whether the Germans had been able to
recover any of their tanks. The presence of a German tank recovery
vehicle would seem to confirm they had but, while it is likely that
some tanks were recovered, this can hardly be an adequate explanation
for the discrepancy between air claims and the destruction found.
Armoured and motor vehicles destroyed by air weapons were invariably
burnt out, and for recovery purposes damaged and abandoned vehicles
had priority over such. German prisoners, many of whoom were
questioned on this subject, consistently stated that burnt out tanks
were never salvaged. In effect, a tank hit by a rocket or bomb was not
worth recovering and the ORS should have found what was left of it.
Another question is whether German accounts of the fighting can shed
more light on the number of tanks and vehicles destroyed by air
attack. The histories of the German divisions that fought at Mortain,
compiled post-war, stress how decisive the intervention of the
fighter-bombers had been, but are ambiguous with regard to the
question of losses. That of the 2nd Panzer Division states of the
Typhoons that they attacked with great accuracy and succeeded in
knocking out even the heaviest tanks, but the number of tanks actually
lost in this way is not given. The history of the 1st SS Panzer
Division (LAH) is similarly unclear as to the actual number of tanks
knocked out from the air, though it implies that the number was
considerable and quotes an account of the air attacks by a panzer
grenadier who recalled seeing many black oil clouds indicating the
position of destroyed tanks. Also quoted is a panzer grenadier officer
who, after describing how a fighter-bomber shot down by flak crashed
onto a tank and put it out of action, adds that most of the other
tanks and armoured personnel carriers also fell victim to the intense,
hour-long, low-level attacks. Yet such German accounts attributing
heavy tank and vehicle losses to air attack are misleading. They take
little cognizance of the losses inflicted by US ground forces which,
though almost certainly overestimated at the time in the confusion of
battle, were none the less considerable. American accounts of the
fighting indicate that, on 7 August, the forward troops of the US 30th
and 9th Divisions claimed the destruction of at least eighteen German
tanks, fourteen of them by the 30th Division's attached 823rd Tank
Destroyer Battalion alone. Moreover, the ORS confirmed that US troops
accounted for more heavy German armour than the fighter-bombers, the
destruction of twenty of the total of forty-six tanks and SP guns
found being attributed to US ground weapons.
-
The principal reason why such German accounts should be regarded with
caution, however, is that they provide no explanation as to what had
become of the tanks and vehicles destroyed by the fighter-bombers by
the time the ORS examined the battle area. Nor do they explain the not
inconsiderable number of tanks found abandoned or destroyed by their
own crews. To some extent, German attribution of tank losses to air
attack may stem from the confusion of battle, but it may also suggest
both a reluctance to acknowledge the morale effect of such attack, and
a desire to ascribe the halting of the armoured thrust, which was much
in the nature of a forlorn hope, to Allied air power rather than to
defeat at the hands of US ground forces.
Despite the toll taken of the German armour by US ground weapons, the
commanders of the US units engaged on 7 August later confirmed that it
was the fighter-bombers that brought the German thrust to a halt. At
the time of the ground survey, a member of ORS 2nd TAF visited the
headquarters of the US 9th Division's 39th Infantry Regiment. He was
told by the Commander how the German attack had cut off part of his
regiment from its headquarters and how his anti-tank guns had been
insufficient to halt such a large number of tanks. He also told how he
had remained 'vulnerable and anxious' until Typhoons arrived to attack
the German spearhead. A visit was also made to the Commander of the
30th Division's 117th Infantry Regiment, which had been in the path of
the 2nd Panzer and 1st SS Panzer Divisions on 7 August. He recalled
that when the mist lifted at about 12.30,
Thunderbolt and Typhoon aircraft came in immediately and
attacked, Typhoons attacking for what seemed to him to be
about two hours. This, added to the resistance of the ground
forces, stopped the thrust.
Such appreciation of the close air support on 7 August is significant
in view of the tendency of Allied aircraft to attack friendly
positions inadvertently in what was a very fluid ground battle. The US
30th Division recorded that the Typhoons and P-47s often attacked its
positions, the 120th Regiment alone receiving ten such attacks during
the day.
Given the lack of tank destruction by air weapons, the undoubted
effectiveness of the sustained fighter-bomber assault on 7 August must
have been largely the result of completely disrupting the German
attack by compelling tanks to seek cover or their crews to abandon
them. The level of destruction attributed to air weapons by the ORS is
too insignificant to have been decisive, and even if the unknown
causes for destruction of both armour and motor transport were added
to the air attack totals the number would not be a quarter of those
claimed. Yet no fewer than ten of the 33 Panthers found, or 30 per
cent, had been abandoned or destroyed by their own crews. This was an
important discovery at that time, and a contemporary RAF tactical
study stressing the demoralising effect of the 3-inch rocket (RP)
projectile offered this explanation for the German abandonment of
tanks and vehicles at Mortain:
Interrogation of prisoners has shown without question
that German tank crews are extremely frightened of
attacks by RP...Crews are very aware that if an RP
does hit a tank, their chance of survival is small.
It is admitted that the chances of a direct hit are
slight; nevertheless, this would hardly be appreciated
by a crew whose first thought would be of the disastrous
results if a hit was obtained.
Prisoner of war data further confirmed the demoralising effect of air
attack upon tank crews. German tank crewmen questioned for the later
joint RAF/British Army study of Typhoon effectiveness indicated an
irrational compulsion among inexperienced men to leave the relative
safety of their tank and seek alternative cover during air attack:
The experienced crews stated that when attacked from the
air they remained in their tanks which had no more than
superficial damage (cannon strikes or near misses from
bombs). They had a great difficulty in preventing the in-
experienced men from baling out when our aircraft attacked.
It is certainly plausible that tank crews under a heavy scale of air
attack would be induced to bale out, despite the interior of the tank
being possibly the safest place to be, and in this way the bombs and
rockets did not need to strike the tanks to be effective. When asked
for an opinion by the ORS on the number of abandoned tanks in the
Mortain battle area, an experienced NCO of a US anti-tank unit
replied,
There is nothing but air attack that would
make a crack Panzer crew do that.
-
III. Falaise Pocket
The retreat of the German army towards the River Seine in order to
escape encirclement in the Falaise 'Pocket' in August 1944 also
provided the Allied tactical air forces with an abundance of targets,
and great claims of destruction were made. On 18 August RAF 2nd TAF
alone claimed 1 159 vehicles destroyed and 1 700 damaged together with
124 tanks destroyed and 100 damaged. On the same day the Ninth Air
Force claimed 400 vehicles destroyed.
During the period of this retreat nearly 9 900 sorties were flown by
the RAF. Destruction was claimed of 3 340 soft and 257 armoured
vehicles or some 36 targets destroyed for every hundred sorties. The
USAAF claimed 2 520 soft and 134 armoured vehicles destroyed during
nearly 2 900 sorties, or some 91 successes per hundred. Overall claims
therefore amount to a successful strike approximately every second
sortie.
SORTIES AND CLAIMS BY ALLIED TACTICAL AIR FORCES
FALAISE POCKET, AUGUST 1944
RAF 2nd TAF US 9th AF Total
Sorties 9 896 2 891 12 787
MT destroyed 3 340 2 520 5 860
Armour destroyed 257 134 391
_____________________________ _____________________________ __
Total claims 3 597 2 654 6 251
Claims per sortie 0.36 0.91 0.49
Shortly after the pocket had been closed No.2 ORS conducted an
extensive investigation in the area to determine the German losses
caused by air attack and the effectiveness of air-to-ground
weapons.The principal roads taken by the Germans were patrolled in
three areas; the 'Pocket' itself around Falaise, the area at the mouth
of the pocket near Chambois and referred to as the 'Shambles', and the
area known as the 'Chase' which led to the Seine crossings. The result
of the investigation is shown in the following tables:
GERMAN ARMOURED AND MT VEHICLE LOSSES IN THE FALAISE 'POCKET'
AUGUST 1944
Abandonded/
TYPE Rockets Bombs Cannon/MG Destr.b.crew Total
Tanks, SP Guns, AFVs 11 4 18 100 133
Lorries, cars, mcs 4 43 278 376 701
Guns - - 1 50 51
_____________________________ _____________________________ ________
Totals 15 47 297 526 885
Percentages 1.7 5.5 33.5 59.5
Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire - a testament to the
effectiveness of this form of attack. The fact however remains that of
a total of 885 vehicles of all types lost by the Germans in the
Falaise pocket nearly 60 per cent were destroyed or abandoned by their
crews rather than as the direct result of attack from the air. The
large number of armoured and motor vehicles abandoned or destroyed by
their crews is hardly surprising in such a retreat, and it was thought
many of those destroyed by air weapons had already been abandoned. Air
attack, though, was considered responsible for much of the abandonment
as a result of causing disorganisation; moreover, destroyed vehicles
had completely blocked roads. Cannon and machine gun attacks had
proved to be extremely effective against the densely-packed motor
transport. Such vehicles hit by cannon or machine gun rounds were
invariably burnt out, and the report noted that where pock marks of
strikes appeared in the roads a burnt vehicle was usually found.
GERMAN ARMOUR LOSSES IN THE 'SHAMBLES' AREA
AUGUST 1944
Ground
Fire Rocket Crew Abandoned Unknown Total
TYPE
Pzkw VI - - 9 3 - 12
Pzkv V 3 - 8 11 - 22
Pzkv IV 2 2 12 6 - 22
Pzkv III 2 - 1 1 1 5
SP Guns 1 - 8 12 - 21
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____
Totals 8 2 38 33 1 82
Percentages 9.7 2.2 46.3 40.2 1.2
-
n the 'Shambles' so many German vehicles were found that it was
impossible to examine each in detail; they were classes either as
burnt or unburnt as an indication of wether they had been hit by air
weapons or abandoned. A total of 1 411 tanks and vehicles were classed
as burnt, and 1 380 as unburnt. Of the 187 tanks and SP guns found in
this area, 82 were examined in detail, of these only two were
destroyed by attack from the air and eight by ground fire, while all
but one of the remainder were either burnt by their crews or merely
abandoned. There was no evidence - such as rocket craters - to suggest
that any appreciable number of those burnt tanks and SP guns not
examined had been destroyed by air weapons. A sample of 330 of the
softskin vehicles, and 31 of the lightly armoured vehicles, found in
the 'Shambles' were also examined in detail. Of the softskin vehicles,
110 were found to have been destroyed by air weapons and 135 abandoned
intact, while of the lightly armoured vehicles 6 were credited to air
weapons and 13 were found abandoned intact. The effectiveness of
strafing against soft-skin and light armoured vehicles was again
confirmed, this being the greatest known cause of destruction.
GERMAN ARMOUR LOSSES IN THE 'CHASE' AREA
AUGUST 1944
Ground
Fire Crew Abandoned Unknown Total
TYPE
Pzkw VI - 7 4 - 11
Pzkv V 2 23 1 2 28
Pzkv IV 3 16 7 2 28
Other tanks - - 2 1 3
SP Guns 3 9 12 4 28
_____________________________ _____________________________ ____
Totals 8 55 26 9 98
Percentages 8.1 56.1 26.5 9.1
The 'Chase' area yielded a count of 3 648 vehicles and guns, and of
3 332 light armoured and soft-skin vehicles, 2 390 were classed as
burnt and 942 unburnt. The ORS were unable to cover every road in such
an extensive area, so the absolute number of vehicles and guns was
unknown but thought to be less than twice that recorded. Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned.
To allow for the possibility of German vehicles and guns being missed
in wooded terrain or along unchecked roads, No.2 ORS estimated that
the Germans had lost some 10 000 vehicles and guns during the retreat,
a figure not thought to be in error by more than 2 000 either way.
This was broken down as 1 500 in the 'Pocket' area, 3 500 in the
'Shambles', and 5 000 in the 'Chase'. As it was estimated that the
Germans must have had a total of some 30 000 vehicles it was
considered that two-thirds, including about 250 tanks and SP guns, had
escaped across the Seine. This was regarded as the result of the air
forces attempting general destruction rather than trying to achieve
interdiction by attacking key 'choke' points, a charge strongly
refuted by 2nd TAF as taking no account of weather, flak levels, or
bomblines set by friendly ground forces. In fact No.2 ORS
overestimated the number of German tanks that had escaped, as on 22 -
23 August the German Army Group B, reporting on the state of its eight
surviving Panzer divisions, listed only some 72 tanks.
The retreat to the Seine clearly reveals the limitations of Allied
air-to-ground weapons against tanks, particularly the 3-inch rocket.
Only ten out of 301 tanks and SP guns examined, and three out of 87
armoured troop carriers examined, were found to have been destroyed by
this weapon - these figures must be compared with 222 claims of armour
destruction made by Typhoon pilots alone. In contrast is the marked
effectiveness of cannon and machine guns, and to a lesser extent
bombs, against soft-skin transport vehicles. By destroying large
numbers of these, thus blocking roads and increasing congestion, the
fighter-bombers indirectly caused the abandonment of many tanks.
Moreover, many of the tanks and SP guns were found abandoned without
petrol, not least because trucks carrying their fuel had been shot up
from the air. German prisoners described how the threat of air attack
restricted movement to the hours of darkness until congestion and
haste compelled movement by day. They also told how whenever aircraft
appeared crews stopped to take cover and vehicles were driven off the
main roads into side roads which in turn became blocked. In effect,
the almost continuous fighter-bomber attacks in daylight, within a
restricted area upon retreating troops, caused a great deal of
demoralization and delay which prevented many tanks and vehicles
escaping.
IV. Ardennes
The influence of Allied tactical air power upon German ability to
carry out large-scale armoured operations was so great by the end of
1944 that the timing of the German Ardennes offensive was dictated by
the occurence of bad weather. In the early stages of the offensive,
which began on 16 Dec 1944, fog and low cloud protected the tank
spearheads from aerial observation and attack. Then the weather
cleared and Allied fighter-bomber pilots were presented with targets
such as they had not seen since Normandy and, as in Normandy, they
made large claims for the destruction of armour. Between 17 December
1944 and 16 January 1945 the IX and XIX Tactical Air Commands of the
Ninth Air Force and RAF 2nd TAF claimed a total of 413 German armoured
vehicles destroyed in the Ardennes salient, 324 of which were claimed
as tanks. In early January No.2 ORS began an investigation of these
claims, in the middle of the month they were joined by ORS 2nd TAF and
a joint report was produced.
Although hampered by thick snow which prevented the discovery of
rocket craters and burnt patches caused by napalm bombs, the ORS were
able to examine 101 armoured vehicles - the practice being to search
an area within 2 - 3 kilometres of each claim. The claims for
destruction within the salient are shown below:
ALLIED AIR CLAIMS FOR GERMAN ARMOUR DESTROYED
IN THE ARDENNES SALIENT
IN AREA EXAMINED BY ORS IN WHOLE SALIENT
Armor. Armor.
Tanks Vehic. Total Tanks Vehic. Total
IX TAC 62 23 85 140 69 209
XIX TAC 2 0 2 176 19 195
2nd TAF 2 1 3 8 1 9
_____________________________ _____________________
Totals 66 24 90 324 89 413
-
The air weapons used were general purpose high-explosive bombs,
fragmentation bombs, napalm fire bombs, and rockets. Many of the tanks
claimed by Ninth Air Force had also been engaged by machine guns, some
only by this means. For the 101 tanks and armoured vehicles examined,
damage was atrributed as in the following table:
Light
Tiger II Panther Mk IV SP Gun Armour Total
AIR
Bomb 1 - - - - 1
Possibly
air attack - 3 - 2* 1 6*
GROUND
AP Shot 1 16 1 9* 8 36
HE Shell - 3 - 1 4 8
Demolition 2 10 1 - 4 17
Abandoned 1 10 - 4 7 22
Other Cause - - 1 1 - 2
Unknown - 5 2 1 2 10
_____________________________ ___________________________
Total 5 47 5 18 26 101
Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this
was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front.
V. The Identification of Kills
As regards the reliability of the ORS ground surveys, one may wonder
if tanks attributed to destruction by ground weapons had in fact been
knocked out by aircraft and subsequently used as target practice by
Allied troops. However, such mistakes were very unlikely. Bombs and
rockets were harly ever, if at all, used singly, and near vehicles
destroyed by such weapons were always found the craters of near
misses. Moreover, rocket craters were distinctive, oval in shape and
usually with part of the rocket tube or fins in or near them. Parts of
the rocket were also often found in tanks or vehicles destroyed by the
weapon. In or near tanks and vehicles destroyed by their crews were
often found the metal cases that had contained German demolition
charges, these being placed in a specific part of the tank, such as
under engine hatches. Pock marks on roads or holes roughly six inches
in diameter in the ground indicated machine gun or cannon attacks, and
tanks and vehicles that had been strafed bore holes or dents on upper
surfaces. It is possible that tanks abandoned intact were subsequently
used for target practice, and attributed to a particular ground
weapon, but this has little relevance to the effectiveness of air"
weapons.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Wrong Genious. Again.
This thread is about.
What can a bomb do to armor.
Not........ What is usually didnt do in WW2... Which is directly tied to human error on the part of the pilot who is dropping the bomb or firing the rocket.
GET IT??? What is so hard to get about that? Honestly now. Please. Sit. Think. If you are the genious you make yourself out to be then this wont be too difficult to grasp.
Again. I will say it again because I know how thick your skull is.
What a bomb is capable of doing to armor.
NOT.......
What a bomb usually did or didnt do because of pilot error in dropping the bomb
Got it? Get it? Read that?
One last time son. I dont care about how many bombs DIDNT hit their target. That's not what we are talking about. That's not what this topic is based on.
It is dealing with what happens when a bomb hits on or very near a tank.
Read the first post, I'll quote it for you:
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.
Got it?
Wipass
If this has been changed then why not other parts of the "story"
The 'story' of Wittman's death has changed a few times since the war. Initially it was said that he was ambushed by British Shermans. Then it was claimed he was killed by an aircraft bomb. Then came Varin's conclusion that he died from a rocket. The most current and 'accepted by most experts' theory is that he was killed by Gordon's Firefly. The 'Firefly' version is the only that is supported by mulitple witnesses independent of each other.
Not only that but a witness wrote to Wittman's wife right after describing the event of his death just as it appears in the Northamptonshire Yeomanry War Diary. Unless you believe Dr. Rabe was a some sort spy that that had access to the Northamptonshire Yeomanry war diary and conspired with others to do soemthing, what I don't know. However, that's just to stupid to believe...
The issue is not so much how Wittman died (does anyone really care?). It's that when the roriginal poster mentioned the following:
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.
I only entered that part of the discussion because Mr Amature researcher dismissed the above claiming 'he knew more about it'... Turns out he posted nothing more then what he found in the first link of google search...
Ramzey,
Thanks for posting all that but that's the same information I linked in my first reply. However, according to Morpheus:
You know what you can do with those statistics dont you?
Those states are all lies and he knows it, after all he's got 'pictures and film'
-
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.
Read the first post, I'll quote it for you:
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.
Wipass
Brilliant.
-
Those states are all lies and he knows it
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?
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Wrong Genious. Again.
hey genius, there's no "o" in genius.
i just had to point this out after seeing it from you so often.
:aok
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Brilliant.
Bruno was answering to wipass (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=6205)
Usually when answering to someone you use his name :D
-
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...
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...
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):
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...
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 (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/index.php?logout=1). 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...
-
Originally posted by straffo
Bruno was answering to wipass (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=6205)
Usually when answering to someone you use his name :D
Yeah, that's another example of his unquestionable intelligence...
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!!
-
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.
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.
-
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?
-
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.
-
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....
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.
-
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
-
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:
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:
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:
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.
-
(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)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
Still carrying on? I guess you are 'not so done with me...'
You said:
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...
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..
-
(mommy, please make the bad men stop)
-
Leather Undies Club:
(http://www.thevegetable.net/images/pics/yapping.gif)
-
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.
-
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
-
Never claimed to be a doctorate in anything Urchin. But if you want to join the band wagon of stunninghunks, have at it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Urchin, I am guessing that at 50 yards the damage would be limited to shrapnel and concussion. Again, thats a guess.
-
Rockets, needed to hit armor to cause any noticeable damage.
Its said (and you can google 5 inch hvar) that the 5 inch hvar's had an effective blast radious of 60 ft that was capable of sending shrapnel and debris through the air. This of course would not be effective against armor. Speed on the new 5'' hvars in ww2 was 950mph compared to 800mph of the smaller 3.5 inch hvar. Take a 60lb (or 140lbs total of the entire rocket) warhead (which is what the 5 inch hvar was) and hurl it through the air at 950 mph. (this was the velocity recorded with the updated rocket motor designed for the 5 inch hvar) When it hits armor its going to do damage. How much damage depends on a great many variables naturally. AoA, where the rocket impacted, the quality or lack there of in the cast steel armor just to name a few.
There was a competition by the U.S. either in the very late war years or immediately after with the Hvar rockets by U.S. Airmen. The winner managed to put 10 rockets into a 10' radius. Now that's of course in ideal conditions with nothing shooting back at you. I read this in an old magazine atricle a long time ago, and managed to see it linked on a ww2 a/c forum somewhere not too long ago either. I would like very much, and will try to find it again.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
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.
Welllllllllllllllll WOW! while I TOTALLY agree with your take on this subject I am wondering how the hell that got past the censors and moderators?!?
LMAO I got PNG status for complaining about service from HTC!
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Welllllllllllllllll WOW! while I TOTALLY agree with your take on this subject I am wondering how the hell that got past the censors and moderators?!?
LMAO I got PNG status for complaining about service from HTC!
because you are an stunninghunk and they don't like you.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Welllllllllllllllll WOW! while I TOTALLY agree with your take on this subject I am wondering how the hell that got past the censors and moderators?!?
LMAO I got PNG status for complaining about service from HTC!
yet another one of the countless shade accounts we have here. :aok
-
I can't recall with any certainty which thread it was in (queue guppy), but there was a discussion of the US and RAF rockets some time ago on this BBs. Was dealing with either hurricane or typhoon weaponry, but there was either an article, or link to an article, regarding the weaponry, and what it was designed to do. IIRC, some of the RAF rockets were specifically designed for the anti-armor role. I can't say whether it was all, or some, but merely that I believe they had specialized weapons suited only for the task of tank busting.
If anyone remembers this discussion, or has any info on it, please slap it up.
-
Might be useful.
:)
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/index.html
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I can't recall with any certainty which thread it was in (queue guppy), but there was a discussion of the US and RAF rockets some time ago on this BBs. Was dealing with either hurricane or typhoon weaponry, but there was either an article, or link to an article, regarding the weaponry, and what it was designed to do. IIRC, some of the RAF rockets were specifically designed for the anti-armor role. I can't say whether it was all, or some, but merely that I believe they had specialized weapons suited only for the task of tank busting.
If anyone remembers this discussion, or has any info on it, please slap it up.
anty ship RP
hvars equiped planes carry HE warehead
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about702-0-asc-80.html
read what Tony Williams wrote
BK's what you try to prove now? cuz im lost
-
BK's what you try to prove now? cuz im lost
What are you talking about? And what do the Bk's have to do with anything?
I've read through Williams' website many times. It has alot of useful information on cannons and such. Did you read what I wrote about the hvar rockets and the efectiveness on armor? I said several posts back that they needed to directly impact a tank to cause any significant damage.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
How about a rocket hitting a yard away?
I recently read a great article about rocket-firing Typhoons during the D-Day landings, decribing the effects of rockets on enemy tanks.
They said the rockets very VERY inaccurate, giving an estimate accuracy of 150 yards from the target.
It also said the hit impact was 2% for 8 rockets (all the Typhoon could carry)
But when it did it! It was amazing what it could do...
The best effect the rockets had, was degrading enemy morale! The German tank crews were so frightened by the rocket-firing aircraft, that some (inexperienced) crews would abandon their tanks!
It did say that you'd need to land the rocket within 25 yards of the target to do any serious damage though (the explosive charge was only 16lbs)
-
Originally posted by ramzey
anty ship RP
hvars equiped planes carry HE warehead
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/about702-0-asc-80.html
read what Tony Williams wrote
BK's what you try to prove now? cuz im lost
I was just reminded of that prior post. There was discussion of the 2 rocket types, warhead weight, effectiveness against particular types of targets, etc. I didn't think the US rockets would be effective against hardtargets, not being shaped charges or whatever, but I'd seen an interview where a naval pilot said the 5" HVAR would cut through anything you could manage to hit.
-
As a former infantry officer, I can make some comments based on training and first hand experience:
1) .303's would have minimal impact on anything but the lightest armored vehicles. I have personally seen quarter inch aluminum armor on a M113 hull be penetrated but still capture the 7.62mm round from an M60 machinegun not letting it completely through. Fired from above into open toped halftracks would of course wound or kill the crew.
2) .50's were originally designed during the first world war as anti-armor weapons against lightly armored vehicle of the period (for Geneva Convention reasons it is still classified to this day as an anti-vehicular weapon not for use against dismounted troops) and I have personally seen a .50 API round go completely through a modern armored personnel carrier hull but bounce off a derelict tank turret.
3) WWII 20mm and 30 mm cannons were designed to do damage from their explosive charge and not kinetic energy like the machineguns cited above. They would damage vision blocks and could damage running gear on a tank but probably not penetrate the armor of the hull or turret. Today's 30mm cannon in the A-10 is designed to use both HE and kinetic energy depleted uranium armor piercing rounds. I have seen films of the gun being tested back in the early '70s where the uranium round was fired into the top of an M48 tank laid on its side. The round went completely through the top and bottom armor as well as a 10 foot dirt berm erect behind the tank. (Awsome fire power but not available during WWII).
4) While training in the use of explosives, we were taught how to use relatively small charges (40 pounds and under) to defeat Soviet armor. 40 pound shaped charges were most effective in actually penetrating all but the thickest frontal armor. Hovever, a 25 pound satchel charge placed against the tank would disable the turret from traversing...not blow it off. Some of these devices also used small amounts of fuel to set fire to the wiring in the engine comparments. A large external fuel can or drum could easily set fire to a modern tank's wiring in the engine compartment. In fact, the Soviets mounted two 55 gallon drums on the rear deck some of their tanks but rigged them to drop off before going into combat to avoid the huge risk of them being ignited.
5) The artillery uses a round for the 105mm howitzers called HEAP-T (high explosive armor piercing tracer) which fires about ten pounds of HE agains the side of a tank and detonates it. Its designed to kill or disable the crew through concussion (rings the tank like a bell) or spalling (flaking pices of the armor off the internal wall of the tank like shrapnel or sending equipment flying across the internal space. These were not available during WWII but the effect is worth noting.
6) During the first Gulf War, I heard stories, supported by gun camera films, of 500 lb GP bombs with laser designator kits being used to kill Iragi tanks because they were cheaper than Maverick missles (less than $100,000 vs. $250,000 or more was cited). Turrets were seperated from hulls and I believe this would have killed both tanks and crews. Here again the level of accuracy mentioned was not achievable in WWII but the effect is well worth noting.
Based on the points outlined above, I'd say that WWII machine guns and cannons would NOT be effective against a buttoned up Tiger. Aerial rockets, which have warheads not much bigger than a bazooka round probably would damage the running gear but might bounce off or detonate without effect against the more heavily armored areas. The larger HVAR rockets could have effects similar to the HEAP-T round I mentioned above. A direct hit with a 500 or 1000 pound GP bomb would probably kill the Tiger. Near misses with bombs depending, on the distance from the Tiger, would have varying degrees of impact on the vehicle's combat effectiveness. Close in detonations would probably damage running gear, disable turrets, concuss but not necessarily kill the crew and even overturn the Tiger.
I don't think that this settles the debate by any means but it is more annecdotal information for the grinder.
-
During the first Gulf War, I heard stories, supported by gun camera films, of 500 lb GP bombs with laser designator kits being used to kill Iragi tanks because they were cheaper than Maverick missles (less than $100,000 vs. $250,000 or more was cited). Turrets were seperated from hulls and I believe this would have killed both tanks and crews. Here again the level of accuracy mentioned was not achievable in WWII but the effect is well worth noting.
That was going to be my point exactly. Those 500 pound bombs were simply high explosives, with nearly if not exactly, the same explosive effect. Those fairly modern heavily armoured MBT's were destroyed with nothing more than high explosives. A hit is a hit is a hit - whether it's a laser guided hit....or a dumb bomb hit. As far as documentation from WWII, all I can find are sketchy accounts. As far as AH gv's I have been on the bombing end & gv end of it, I have dropped three 4,000 pounders on a tiger with direct hit crater surrounding it with no effect (can't say he had supplies-no one is that quick on the draw) & then I hit a tiger with a 1,000 pounder from a dive bombing 38 & killed it. I have been killed with IL-2 guns in a tiger & been killed by "one ping" hits from panzers that I was hammering repeatedly from 800 out (hit sprites & richochets). I have bounced 88's off of every gv in the game from as close as 200. Inconsistent is all I can say it is. Rubber bullets - my connection - their connection w/e the cause it happens.
Cheers everyone & good hunting
-
Not to long ago on the center island of Ozkansas I was flying a spitfire w/ a 500lb bomb incase I came across a flak or panzer before I met an enemy plane
When I got over an enemy Vehicle base I heard a bunch of guys talking about a tiger that was giving them trouble so I nosed down and droped it right on his head. I didn't expect to kill him, or even disable him but to my amazment I got the kill message.
BTW, I have also killed tigers with HVARs and 40mm from Hurr IID:D
-
Got here a little late to be involved in this one when it was hot, but just in case anyone is still interested...
I've personally watched over 1000 close air support attacks with my former employer. All were in a training environment, and included just about every type of conventional ordnance in the inventory.
1. On a hot summer day in Camp Lejeune, NC, I saw an M-60 tank hulk hit directly in the turret with an 155mm howitzer round (90+lbs of HE plus whatever kinetic energy). The turret flipped end over end up about 50 feet in the air and came back down. I have no idea about the integrity of the assembly before the hit.
2. I've watched countless number of .50 cal and 20mm ammo ricochet all over the place when hitting a sloped section of tank armor. I've seen the 20mm get good effects on tracks, suspension components, etc. Soft vehicles would be swiss cheese.
3. I saw a 500lb GP bomb direct hit an M-60 hulk at 29 Palms. Entire hulk disintegrated, leaving small chunks of the undercarriage laying around. Turret was in very small pieces. Barrel detached from turret laying 30 feet away.
4. Saw 2 1000 lb bombs land about 250 meters away from a group of about 40 Marines (standing) and a couple of Humvees in the open (bad drop). No injuries at all, and none of the vehicles caught any shrapnel. Go figure...
I think mobility kills would be extremely common when bombs landed within 25-50 meters. Crews could possibly walk away, with the mother of all headaches, and blasted eardrums. Direct hits would be catestrophic kills, no question.
With respect to fuel drums burning...There was an M1A1 in Iraq that got an RPG in a fuel bladder strapped above the power pack. The whole back end of the tank burned out, and the vehicle was a loss. Crew got out just fine, but the vehicle was wrecked.