P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, reality or fiction?

[[email protected]]

Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole
lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated
incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate
tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western
allies attack planes?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>reality or fiction?
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 8/5/03 8:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>What's really at play here is the fact that even today, tanks and
>armored vehicles are hard on the sides and soft on the top/bottom.
>Their most likely threat is from other armor or anti-armor ground
>forces. When a compromise needs to be made for overall gross weight
>reduction it takes place on the top and underside. For this reason,
>strafing armor at high angles (dive angles, not lead angles) the
>aircraft can be effective against tanks even though the armor of a
>tank is usually characterized as being capable of resisting that
>caliber of weapon.
>
>

Since I never attacked a tank in a fighter I am giving you hearsay from
fighter pilots who did. They described the attack this way. They would
appproach the tank and their first aim point is behind the tank. They then
walk their fire to the main body of the tank. The assumption is that the fire
that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly
where armor is very thin. It worked better if the tank was on a hard surface
rather than earth At least that is the way the story was told back then. But as
I say, I have never attacked a tank in a fighter. I am just giving what pilots
who did had to say at the time.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:

> The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
> ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Dave

[Walt BJ]

I was taught by WW2/Korean War fighter pilots to attack a tank in two
ways - one was to strafe the side and try to knock a track pin loose,
disconnecting the track and disabling the tank. A P80 pilot told me it
worked. The second method was to aim at the rear deck of the tank in
about a 30 degree dive and try to shoot through the cooling air
grilles. They warned me that some tanks would turn the turret 180
degrees so the planes would waste ammo shooting at the thick armor
glacis on the front of the tank. But if you get low enough you can
tell front from rear. I did just this in an F4E and blew up a T54 tank
south of the DMZ in 1972. Didn't have a gun camera but it looked just
like the films from WW2, except in color. A hard yank got us over the
fireball and debris. Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
bulkhead, too. Too bad for them. (G)
Walt BJ

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>reality
>From: Dave Holford
>Date: 8/5/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
>> ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.
>
>
>Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
>target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?
>
>Dave
..
As I said I never flew those missions. I am just quoting P-47 pilots who did,
as they told their stories to me.
..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[MLenoch]

>Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
>compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
>at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
>bulkhead, too. Too bad for them.

Displayed at Nellis, there is a disabled T-62 that is a bit gruesome when one
looks inside. It took a kill through the armour on the side; looked like a
single shot. The tank interior was described like a convective oven for its
killing effect.
VL

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>reality or fiction?
>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
>Date: 8/5/03 3:16 PM Pacific

>Apparently more tanks were abandoned undamaged than were
>actually destroyed by the fighter-bombers. So the main effect
>appears to have been a moral one. The strafing and bombing
>scared the tank crews so much that they drove the tanks into
>cover and often jumped out and hid in the nearest ditch. And
>perhaps did not survive the attack.
>

I'd call that a pretty effective attack. Wouldn't you? (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Bill Shatzer]

On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

Dave Holford

> >Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
> >target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Anti-tank mines were principally intended to immobilize a tank by blowing
off a tread or detaching a bogie wheel, not by actually penetrating the
armor.

Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
happened. But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
lot of ordinance to no particular effect.


Cheers and all,

[The Enlightenment]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> om...
>

> The gist is that WWII fighter-bombers were very poor tank
> destroyers. They stopped the tank divisions by wreaking havoc
> among soft-skinned supply vehicles and the supporting infantry
> and artillery units -- a German WWII panzer division was really
> a mixed mobile unit, not a unit purely equipped with tanks.
> (Incidentally, the same was true of the Stuka's; de Gaulle reported
> in 1940 that they did his tanks little harm but destroyed his
> fuel trucks, which could not seek cover by leaving the road.)
>
> These aircraft did not have a weapon that was both sufficiently
> powerful and sufficiently accurate against tanks. (Rockets were
> devastating, but the hit probability was only 0.5%.) On some
> occasions when the Allies were left in possesion of the battlefield,
> investigation teams were able to compare the claims for destroyed
> armoured vehicles of the fighter-bombers with the wrecks left
> behind. Very few were disabled by aircraft, less than a tenth of
> what the air forces claimed.
>


A number of aircaft field heavey cannon, up to 75mm especialy for
German aircraft. (Henschel Hs 293, some Ju88s, )

30mm cannon (Mk103 ? ) firing tungsten cored amunition mounted on a
FW190 could penetrate 140mm I believe and the 37mm cannon on some
Stukas had similar penetraion. This is enough for anything but the
front of a WW2 tank.

While the British tried 40mm cannon on their Hurricane I find it odd
that the P47 wasn't fitted with twin 30mm-40mm cannon. By sacrificing
6 of the 8 0.5" MG the massive P47 would have sufferd less performace
drop than smaller aircraft.

At least his way there would be a powerfull AND accurate weapon.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Emmanuel Gustin
> writes
>The gist is that WWII fighter-bombers were very poor tank
>destroyers. They stopped the tank divisions by wreaking havoc
>among soft-skinned supply vehicles and the supporting infantry
>and artillery units -- a German WWII panzer division was really
>a mixed mobile unit, not a unit purely equipped with tanks.

General Bayerlein tried to move Panzer Lehr the short distance by road
from Vire to Le Beny-Bocage (it's a short trip, I've passed the junction
several times). As he put it,

"...by the end of the day I had lost 40 petrol wagons and 90 other
trucks. Five of my tanks had been knocked out, as well as 84
half-tracks, prime movers and SP guns."

>Apparently more tanks were abandoned undamaged than were
>actually destroyed by the fighter-bombers. So the main effect
>appears to have been a moral one. The strafing and bombing
>scared the tank crews so much that they drove the tanks into
>cover and often jumped out and hid in the nearest ditch. And
>perhaps did not survive the attack.

To say nothing of the problems of keeping tanks fuelled when the bowsers
are burning wrecks some miles behind...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>reality or fiction?
>From: )

>Therefore the
>conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only
>assumed that this technique worked. I

I think we might say that you are "assuming" that the pilots telling these
stories" assumed" this technique worked. right?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John S. Shinal]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

>Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
>bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
>at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
>where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
>greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
>penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
>happened.

These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,
but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
rebounds from the target area.

It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
accurate. All that is pretty understandable considering the
circumstances (ground fire, 400 mph, low altitude, smoke).


> But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
>lot of ordinance to no particular effect.

The film attests that this is prett much spot on.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:29:07 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> I don't doubt this too much, I've seen lots of tracer
>ricocheting from the sea surface. We used to fire Browning .303's
>from Lancaster nose turrets and likely 10 percent of our tracer
>would bounce. Hell, we used to see bits and pieces of jacket
>sticking into the rubber strip around the windscreens
>occasionally.
>--
>
>-Gord.

I've fired countless thousands of rounds through M2HB BMGs and
richocets do occur even on seemingly soft ground (there are rocks and stones in
most topsoil layers).

However, the problem of geometry can't be overlooked. Any decent billiard
player understands the angles problems involved. So, I find it extremely
unlikely that rounds fired would:
A) Recochet at the correct angle.
B) The utter lack of energy retention due to bullet deformity.

Oh, and the tanker's terror associated with hearing and seeing Jugs in one's
immediate area is most likely the realization that those P-47s may be hauling
a pair of 1,000 pound bombs and a wing full of HVARs.

Sounds like wishful thinking at best.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
>tanks,reality
>From: (John S. Shinal)
>Date: 8/6/03 12:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>>Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
>>bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
>>at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
>>where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
>>greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
>>penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
>>happened.
>
> These color gun camera films I've seen lately are instructive.
>A lot of what I've seen are grass & dirt airfields, unimproved graded
>(but not hard-surfaced) roads, etc. Not conducive to ricochets, right?
>But in fact (to my surprise) there are a BUNCH of ricochets, some of
>which are apparently tracers, some probably flying spall and debris,

It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.


>but all of it hot & glowing, bouncing all over the place and clearly
>rebounds from the target area.
>
> It also impressed upon me that many of the pilots strafing
>weren't particularly accurate - in many cases, not even remotely
>accurate.

The again there were many pilots who were deadly accurate


>
>> But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
>>lot of ordinance to no particular effect.

Not true,
>
> The film attests that this is prett much spot on.

Spot on my ass. Look at more films.

>
>

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Enlightenment]

) wrote in message >...
> As usual I mixed up terminology. Sorry about that. Therefore the
> conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only
> assumed that this technique worked. If anything worked in that attack,
> it was something else. And please do not birng in other craft and
> calibers. P-47/51 were not armed with 20/30/40/75 mm cannons.

There would have been experiments presumably.

>
> There's a very interesting article about the effectiveness of Il-2
> against heavy armor. Even though when anyone says Il-2 people
> automatically think tank-buster, the effectiveness was nearly
> negligent. If they got any, it was by massive application of firepower
> or luck. They were excellent against soft targets with rockets, bombs
> and guns though. That article could be found at www.batllefield.ru
> somewhere. Unfortunately, I could not find it just now. The site is
> mostly armor oriented.

The favoured method for FW190s attacking soviet heavy armour over the
steppes was to fly over the top of the tank and release a 250KG bomb.
This would slide along the ground and impact on the tank. It was
considered an accurate method.

[[email protected]]

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:29:07 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>> I don't doubt this too much, I've seen lots of tracer
>>ricocheting from the sea surface. We used to fire Browning .303's
>>from Lancaster nose turrets and likely 10 percent of our tracer
>>would bounce. Hell, we used to see bits and pieces of jacket
>>sticking into the rubber strip around the windscreens
>>occasionally.
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>I've fired countless thousands of rounds through M2HB BMGs and
>richocets do occur even on seemingly soft ground (there are rocks and stones in
>most topsoil layers).
>
>However, the problem of geometry can't be overlooked. Any decent billiard
>player understands the angles problems involved. So, I find it extremely
>unlikely that rounds fired would:
>A) Recochet at the correct angle.
>B) The utter lack of energy retention due to bullet deformity.
>

Yes, I agree, I doubt that the ricochetting rounds would be too
worrisome to tanks, although I'm certainly no tank expert...just
doesn't 'feel' too dangerous to me.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

>
> I think we might say that you are "assuming" that the pilots telling these
> stories" assumed" this technique worked. right?
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:

I don't assume anything. That's what the people have been saying so far.

[Tony Williams]

(John S. Shinal) wrote in message >...
> aartamen wrote:
>
> >Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole
> >lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated
> >incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate
> >tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western
> >allies attack planes?
>
> No firsthand knowledge but plausible. Recent gun camera
> footage of strafing attacks shows a tremendous number of tracers on
> ricochet trajectories from low angle strafing passes on dirt
> airfields.

By definition, the angle at which the bullets would strike the
underside of the tank would be the same as when they hit the road in
front. If the bullets would bounce off something as soft as a dirt
track, why should they be able to penetrate 10mm of armour plate at
the same angle? For this to work, it would first be essential for the
road to be harder than the armour...

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Tony Williams]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
> >From: Bill Shatzer
> >Date: 8/5/03 10:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:
> >
> >Dave Holford
> >
> >> >Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
> >> >target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?
> >
> >Anti-tank mines were principally intended to immobilize a tank by blowing
> >off a tread or detaching a bogie wheel, not by actually penetrating the
> >armor.
> >
> >Though I must admit, I find the "ricochet theory" a bit (OK, a whole
> >bunch!) unbelievable. On most surfaces, MG bullets would not ricochet
> >at all - they would simply bury themselves in the ground. On the surfaces
> >where they -might- ricochet, they would be badly deformed, tumbling
> >greatly, lost considerable energy, and with just about zero
> >penetration. I suppose once, somewhere, sometime, it might have
> >happened. But as a standard tactic, it seems a way to shoot off a
> >lot of ordinance to no particular effect.
> >
> >
> >Cheers and all,
>
>
> Too bad we have no actual P-47 pilots in this NG to give us actual experience
> in this matter. It would save us a lot of conjecture. But I did meet some
> German tankers in various Munich bierstubes after the war and they said they
> dirtied their pants when they heard the distinctive sound (R-2800's) of P-47's
> overhead.

There is no doubt that the P-47 pilots made such attacks, and that
they believed that they worked. They weren't necessarily correct in
that belief, however; as has been pointed out, the claims from RAF and
USAAF fighter-bomber units were about ten times greater than the
actual number of tanks destroyed. Some of the possible reasons for
this are included in 'Flying Guns: World War II':

"Given these unpromising circumstances, why did the fighter-bomber
pilots believe that they were achieving such success against tanks?
There can be no doubt that they genuinely thought that they were
destroying them in large numbers. There appear to be several reasons
for that. First, problems with identification. Flying a vibrating
aircraft, with restricted visibility, at low level and high speed and
under the stress of combat, are hardly ideal circumstances for
accurate observation. Add to that the natural tendency for the size
and strength of the opposition to appear magnified, and it becomes
less surprising that any vaguely tank-sized object was classified as a
tank – and usually a Tiger tank! Many of the "tanks" claimed destroyed
were actually armoured cars, troop carriers, armoured recovery
vehicles and soft-skinned transport.

The second problem was the difficulty in observing the effect of
attacks. The cannon shells and HMG bullets fired in strafing attacks
generally carried incendiary or explosive chemicals and caused flames
and smoke to erupt wherever they hit. A tank revving up its engine to
get out of the way can also generate a lot of smoke. Tanks apparently
covered in flames and smoke were confidently reported as "flamers" or
"smokers" and claimed as destroyed, whereas in most cases they would
not have suffered serious damage. The blast effect of rockets and
bombs threw up enough dust and smoke to obscure the entire area, and
pilots frequently believed that it would have been impossible for
anything to survive. They were usually wrong. Large bombs could
disable tanks with a near-miss, but RPs required a direct hit.

Finally, there was the problem of duplicated claims. A disabled tank
seen from the air may not appear damaged, and multiple air attacks
were therefore sometimes launched against tanks which had already been
knocked out."

It is certainly true, however, that many German tankers suffered from
a fear of the fighter bombers and some baled out of their vehicles
when they arrived, even if, logically, a buttoned-up tank was the
safest place to be.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Bill Shatzer]

On 6 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

-snips-

> It depends on theangle of incidence. If the angle is too steep on a soft
> surface there wil be little ricochet. But if the angle is shallow there will
> be a lot more. Think of skipping stones across a lake.

The rocks I selected for stone skipping on lakes were shaped rather
differently than .50 cal MG rounds. And, were imparted a rather different
rotation.

I never tried to skip an elongated rock with a rotation at right
angles to, rather than parallel to, the water surface but I can't believe
that would work at all well.

Certainly not sufficiently well to penetrate tank armor, even the
relatively thin undersurface armor.

But, you could probably scare the hell out of the folks inside.

Cheers and all,

[Blair Maynard]

On 6 Aug 2003 22:07:01 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

(John S. Shinal) wrote in message >...
>> aartamen wrote:
>>
>> >Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole
>> >lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated
>> >incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate
>> >tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western
>> >allies attack planes?
>>
>> No firsthand knowledge but plausible. Recent gun camera
>> footage of strafing attacks shows a tremendous number of tracers on
>> ricochet trajectories from low angle strafing passes on dirt
>> airfields.
>
>By definition, the angle at which the bullets would strike the
>underside of the tank would be the same as when they hit the road in
>front. If the bullets would bounce off something as soft as a dirt
>track, why should they be able to penetrate 10mm of armour plate at
>the same angle? For this to work, it would first be essential for the
>road to be harder than the armour...
>
>Tony Williams
>Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
>Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

I could only see this as being a successful killing technique if the
crew left the underside escape hatch open, assuming the tank had one.
Otherwise, the bullets will not penetrate armor because:

1. They will not be striking "nose first" with the same vector to
drive the tungsten core into the plate.
2. Probably be tumbling.
3. The angle will not be perpendicular to the base of the tank
(probably glancing), exact angle would depend on the angle of the
aircraft's dive.
4. Energy lost after striking the ground/road.

Maybe the pilots who reported this technique as being successful
didn't notice that the tank crews had left a roof hatch open, and that
was how the bullets destroyed the tanks.

[Blair Maynard]

On 6 Aug 2003 22:17:45 -0700, (Tony
Williams) wrote:


>It is certainly true, however, that many German tankers suffered from
>a fear of the fighter bombers and some baled out of their vehicles
>when they arrived, even if, logically, a buttoned-up tank was the
>safest place to be.
>

With fingers firmly planted in ears.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>From: (Tony Williams)
>Date: 8/6/03 10:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>pilots made such attacks, and that
>they believed that they worked. They weren't necessarily correct in
>that belief, however; as has been pointed out, the claims from RAF and
>USAAF fighter-bomber units were about ten times greater than the
>actual number of tanks destroyed

Well if they destroyed 10% of what they claimed then we know for a fact that
the P-47's destroyed one hell of a lot of tanks. The problem is with the
accuracy of the reporting, not the ability of the P-47's to destroy tanks. If
that were the case no tanks would have been destroyed. But 10% of what was
reported is still on hell of a lot of tanks. So we must conclude that the
P-47's did a damn good job. And a few thousand German tankers would agree with
that assessment.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
>tanks,reality
>From: Bill Shatzer
>Date: 8/6/03 11:13 PM Pacific

>I never tried to skip an elongated rock with a rotation at right
>angles to, rather than parallel to, the water surface but I can't believe
>that would work at all well.

Try it and get back to us. There is no substitute for experience.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

> (John S. Shinal) wrote in
message >...
> > aartamen wrote:
> >
> > >Saw this mentioned several times. Sounds somewhat implausible. A whole
> > >lot implausible actually. Was this a common practice, an isolated
> > >incident blown out of proportions or a myth? Is there an approximate
> > >tally of German heavy armor (Pz IV and up) destroyed by the western
> > >allies attack planes?
> >
> > No firsthand knowledge but plausible. Recent gun camera
> > footage of strafing attacks shows a tremendous number of tracers on
> > ricochet trajectories from low angle strafing passes on dirt
> > airfields.
>
> By definition, the angle at which the bullets would strike the
> underside of the tank would be the same as when they hit the road in
> front. If the bullets would bounce off something as soft as a dirt
> track, why should they be able to penetrate 10mm of armour plate at
> the same angle? For this to work, it would first be essential for the
> road to be harder than the armour...

Ricochets have three independant variables:
angle
relative hardness of the bullet vs surface
velocity

Makes it a bit more of a chore deciding if something will ricochet.

Any (trained) cop can tell you that a .45 will often ricochet off
automotive glass where a 9mm (traveling at about 50% greater
speed) will penetrate.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tony Williams]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
> >tanks,reality
> >From: Bill Shatzer
> >Date: 8/6/03 11:13 PM Pacific
>
> >I never tried to skip an elongated rock with a rotation at right
> >angles to, rather than parallel to, the water surface but I can't believe
> >that would work at all well.
>
> Try it and get back to us. There is no substitute for experience.

I recall being told, in my target-shooting days, of a range which had
a lake between the firing point and the targets. On a calm day with no
ripples, they found that if they aimed at the reflection of the target
the bullets would ricochet off the water and hit the target. Of
course, the angle was very shallow.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Tony Williams]

Bill Shatzer > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> > Well if they destroyed 10% of what they claimed then we know for a fact that
> > the P-47's destroyed one hell of a lot of tanks.
>
> I seem to recall that the British did a battlefield survey of
> disabled/destroyed German armor. The numbers which could be attributed to
> aerial weapons was quite small, as I recall in the 2% range.
>
> Perhaps someone with access to a printed reference to this survey
> or a better memory could provide firmer numbers.

This is what I wrote in 'Flying Guns: World War II':

"The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great
courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK
which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units
(one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month
period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as
good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank
killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British
operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised
for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. As the Allies
were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a
battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered
causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian
Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue
in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During
the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched
sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six
hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500
sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a
total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just
46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air
attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from
the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391
armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was
examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of
which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the
retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left
behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only
thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out
by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101
knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack,
compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing
circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the
German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions,
in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks
abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were
lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign.
In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence
of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air
Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no
surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not
suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and
20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but
insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance.
The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks
but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Tony Williams]

) wrote in message >...
> As usual I mixed up terminology. Sorry about that. Therefore the
> conclusion so far is that the pilots telling these stories only
> assumed that this technique worked. If anything worked in that attack,
> it was something else. And please do not birng in other craft and
> calibers. P-47/51 were not armed with 20/30/40/75 mm cannons.

More's the pity; the USA had an excellent 37mm aircraft gun in the
inventory - the high-velocity M9 - but never used it. A pair of those
slung under a P-47's wings would have transformed their tank-killing
ability.

> There's a very interesting article about the effectiveness of Il-2
> against heavy armor. Even though when anyone says Il-2 people
> automatically think tank-buster, the effectiveness was nearly
> negligent. If they got any, it was by massive application of firepower
> or luck. They were excellent against soft targets with rockets, bombs
> and guns though. That article could be found at www.batllefield.ru
> somewhere. Unfortunately, I could not find it just now. The site is
> mostly armor oriented.

The Il-2 3M was equipped with a pair of high-velocity 37mm NS-37
cannon, which were capable of penetrating just under two inches of
armour plate at normal firing range - plenty against the side or rear
armour. However, they were difficult to use as the recoil of this
weapon was severe enough to push the nose down on firing. The main
tank-killing weapon of the Il-2 was the PTAB 'cluster bomb'; they
could shower an area with bomblets, to great effect, and they demanded
much less accuracy from the pilot.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Keith Willshaw]

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Do you happen to know what the real kill rate was at Falaise? The
> > Typhoons were supposed to have just about wiped out every bit of useful
> > armour
>
> The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
> that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
> USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
> total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
> battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
> the German had, as they lost almost everything.
>
> You have to keep in mind that the number of German tanks
> at Falaise was rather low. No more than about 30 tanks and
> armoured vehicles per worn-out 'Panzerdivision' seems to
> have been the norm.
>
> > - was that the only big, verifiable success for rockets?
>
> Depends on what you call a success. No large numbers of
> tanks were destroyed, but the German stopped their movement
> and hid under cover when the sky cleared. Their mobility was
> restricted to times when there was a fog or in the dark of the night.
> (No moonlight!) As a force they were extremely vulnerable
> to air attack. Much of their mobility depended on horses, not
> armour.
>

And even more depended on horses, my father reported that
it was the number of dead horses at Falaise that shocked him
most when they finally secured the pocket.

Keith

[steve gallacci]

John Halliwell wrote:
>
> In article >, Tony
> Williams > writes
> >I recall being told, in my target-shooting days, of a range which had
> >a lake between the firing point and the targets. On a calm day with no
> >ripples, they found that if they aimed at the reflection of the target
> >the bullets would ricochet off the water and hit the target. Of
> >course, the angle was very shallow.
>
> There's a scene in The Dam Busters where the guy playing Barnes Wallis
> explains that in Nelson's day the RN gunners used to bounce cannon balls
> off the water to improve their effectiveness. No idea if correct or why
> though?
>
To get a hit right at the water line. The solid shot punched a hole only
so big, and a waterline hit was the most effective way to get the
opposition's attention.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>reality or fiction?
>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

> Do you happen to know what the real kill rate was at Falaise? The
>> Typhoons were supposed to have just about wiped out every bit of useful
>> armour

>The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
>that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
>USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
>total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
>battlefield, and probably also about three times the number

The battlelfield examination team was made up of ground forces with a vested
interest in minimising the effectiveness of air attack vs artillery. According
to them air attack was near worthless. And we know that not to be true. Don't
believe everything you read.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
>>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>>From: (Tony Williams)
>>Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
>>were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
>>Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
>>from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). Dur
>
>Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground forces and had a
>strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air

Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
chief-of-staff level. The whole point of OA was to try to get a bias-free,
scientific look at what was actually happening which was as free as
possible from any bias. It was actually one of the effective tools which
Britain introduced which - in some cases at least, like routing atlantic
convoys - made a real difference to the way the war went.

OA would have been going well out of its way to try not to bring any
bias or baggage to the investigation. IIRc the conclusion was that
fighter-bombers were not effective at destroying tanks, but were very
effective at destroying tank formations, advances and distupting retreats
by destroying the supporting soft-skin vehicles, though I'd have to check
that to be sure. This, of course, meant that they were effective enough
to be going on with, though improved methods of attacking the tanks
themselves were (again, IIRC) recommended for research..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[steve gallacci]

German vehicles on the move commonly had extra fuel and ammo stowed
outside, and reports of burning tanks may well have come from that kind
of thing. Something the German tanks did have a problem with was
strafing attacks that wreaked the cooling systems, and many late war
machines had improvised shields to keep bullets out of the cooling
inlets. Such a hit wouldn't have a dramatic reaction (no immediate fire
or explosions), but would quickly disable the tank all the same. And
there was a psychological effect, the volume of fire must have been
terrible to witness at the receiving end. Even if a tanker was largely
safe while buttoned up, it would be difficult to really believe it, and
at the same time his supporting troops and supplies were being
destroyed, which would still put him out of the fight. Finally,
considering the "accuracy" of a strafing run (and the the tales fighter
jocks would tell) and the known facts of armor and ballistics, it may
have simply been a matter of getting the shot pattern on the column of
vehicles at all, and then claiming miracle marksmanship. I have no doubt
that the pilots thought they were doing what they claimed, but my
experience with them was that they had a rather inflated opinion of
themselves and their prowess.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
>Date: 8/8/03 7:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

> article >,
>ArtKramr > wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>>>From:

(Tony Williams)
>>>Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>>>he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
>>>were destroyed by air attack. A

>ritish War Office analysis of 223
>>>Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
>>>from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). Dur
>>
>>Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground

>rces and had a
>>strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air

>Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
>responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to

All the more reason. Buck privates didn'l give a damn. High level officers had
their careers at stake


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Stephen Harding]

ANDREW ROBERT BREEN wrote:

> ArtKramr > wrote:
>
> >Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground forces and had a
> >strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air
>
> Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
> responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
> chief-of-staff level. The whole point of OA was to try to get a bias-free,
> scientific look at what was actually happening which was as free as

That may have been the goal but I wonder how well it was pursued. Elimination
of "bias" can be a tricky effort.

Isn't the Strategic Bombing Survey done after WWII, considered somewhat
suspect as well? The survey basically concluded that strategic bombing
didn't accomplish much. Apparently all done by ground officers with the
alleged goal of undermining air power in favor of grunt power.

Certainly not saying air power won the war as many upper echelon AF
people might claim, but definitely a power force in shaping the battlefield
and warfare.


SMH

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
>>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>>From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
>>>>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>>>>From:
>
(Tony Williams)
>>>>Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>
>>>>he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
>>>>were destroyed by air attack. A
>>Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
>>responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
>
>All the more reason. Buck privates didn'l give a damn. High level officers had
>their careers at stake

Not officers, and IIRC not even service. OA was handled through other
channels, with a lot of the analysis being civilian (IIRC) for
precisely that reason. They had to be able to trample heavily on very
senior toes without fear of comeback (example: E.J. Williams, who'd
been head of Physics here, was IIRC the guy who told the Admiralty their
entire convoy signal code was compromised - and could back it up with
OA evidence: that must have trampled some toes in the signals branch)

-- Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 8/8/03 9:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>sn't the Strategic Bombing Survey done after WWII, considered somewhat
>suspect as well? The survey basically concluded that strategic bombing
>didn't accomplish much. Apparently all done by ground officers with the
>alleged goal of undermining air power in favor of grunt power.
>
>Certainly not saying air power won the war as many upper echelon AF
>people might claim, but definitely a power force in shaping the battlefield
>and warfare.
>
>
>SMH
>



Not just suspect but by now quite discredited. Remember it was not a military
report, it was an economic one.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Emmanuel Gustin
> writes
>The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
>that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
>USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
>total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
>battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
>the German had, as they lost almost everything.

I'm unfamiliar with the battle, but if air attack only got 33, what got
the rest (assuming about 130 vehicles were destroyed from the above
numbers)?

--
John

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
> >reality or fiction?
> >From: John Halliwell
> >Date: 8/8/03 4:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >, Emmanuel Gustin
> > writes
> >>The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
> >>that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
> >>USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
> >>total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
> >>battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
> >>the German had, as they lost almost everything.
> >
> >I'm unfamiliar with the battle, but if air attack only got 33, what got
> >the rest (assuming about 130 vehicles were destroyed from the above
> >numbers)?
> >
> >--
> >John
>
> Now there is a truly interesting question. (grin)
>
> Arthur Kramer



The first page I found on the battle has a photo of U.S. infantrymen,
backed by a column of M10 tank destroyers.

Do you suppose they might have got some?

Dave

[David Lesher]

From what I read here, the usual suspects were not that useful on tanks.

a) What air assets were, in that era?

b) Moving ahead, what later weapons were more sucessful? (Assume we
can stop when we reach the GAU-8 but before?)

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[steve gallacci]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
> >reality
> >From: steve gallacci
>
> >German vehicles on the move commonly had extra fuel and ammo stowed
> >outside, and reports of burning tanks may well have come from that kind
> >of thing. Something the German tanks did have a problem with was
> >strafing attacks that wreaked the cooling systems, and many late war
> >machines had improvised shields to keep bullets out of the cooling
> >inlets. Such a hit wouldn't have a dramatic reaction (no immediate fire
> >or explosions), but would quickly disable the tank all the same. And
> >there was a psychological effect, the volume of fire must have been
> >terrible to witness at the receiving end. Even if a tanker was largely
> >safe while buttoned up, it would be difficult to really believe it, and
> >at the same time his supporting troops and supplies were being
> >destroyed, which would still put him out of the fight. Finally,
> >considering the "accuracy" of a strafing run (and the the tales fighter
> >jocks would tell) and the known facts of armor and ballistics, it may
> >have simply been a matter of getting the shot pattern on the column of
> >vehicles at all, and then claiming miracle marksmanship. I have no doubt
> >that the pilots thought they were doing what they claimed, but my
> >experience with them was that they had a rather inflated opinion of
> >themselves and their prowess.
>
> Then again they were those who did as they claimed. Many paid for it with their
> lives. Any comment about that?
>
There is no reason to get defensive here. Ground attack was a
particularly dangerous mission, and I have no intention of questioning
their brave and honorable efforts. However, it has also been my
experience, having served in the AF, that while they might be officers
and gentlemen and skilled pilots, not many were dispassionate observers
or knew jack about anything outside rather narrow interests. Inflated
and erroneous claims, friendly fire incidents, and any number of just
dumb stunts/bad ends were done by guys who would have sworn they knew
what they were doing as they did them. No doubt any number thought they
were really doing the ricochet tank killing stunt, but I'd be very
surpise/interested in any factual support of it actually succeeding.

[[email protected]]

>steve gallacci > wrote:

>However, it has also been my experience, having served
>in the AF, that while they might be officers and gentlemen
>and skilled pilots, not many were dispassionate observers
>or knew jack about anything outside rather narrow interests.

Huh?

-Mike (huh?) Marron

[Bill Shatzer]

On 8 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

> I
> have flown over battle grounds where underneath us we saw P-47's leaving
> German tanks smoking and burning.

At what altitude? >8,000 feet certainly? I wonder just how easy it
is to distinguish a tank from a similar sized soft-side vehicle at
distances of a mile and half and up. Particularly, one that is "smoking
and burning" and presumably at least partially obscured thereby.
Particularly by air crew which should, theoretically, be keeping their
collective eyes pealed for enemy fighters and flak rather than
grandstanding the ground action below.

> The ineffectiveness of air power is a persuit
> that the ground forces persue endlessly.

While the air forces continually pursued the doctrine of
air power as the ultimate wonder weapon which made all else
unnecessary and redundant.

> And of course without success.

Air power is not ineffective in all circumstances. But it is
more effective in some than in others and ultimately victory,
even in the current PGW-era, requires putting boots on the ground.

Ground attack in WWII was a marvelous means of disrupting the
enemy. It could destroy trucks, troops in formation, and
morale in general. What it could not do, on any sort of consistant
basis, was destroy heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.

Cheers and all,

[Tony Williams]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "steve gallacci" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > John Halliwell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >, Tony
> > > Williams > writes
> > > >I recall being told, in my target-shooting days, of a range which had
> > > >a lake between the firing point and the targets. On a calm day with no
> > > >ripples, they found that if they aimed at the reflection of the target
> > > >the bullets would ricochet off the water and hit the target. Of
> > > >course, the angle was very shallow.
> > >
> > > There's a scene in The Dam Busters where the guy playing Barnes Wallis
> > > explains that in Nelson's day the RN gunners used to bounce cannon balls
> > > off the water to improve their effectiveness. No idea if correct or why
> > > though?
> > >
> > To get a hit right at the water line. The solid shot punched a hole only
> > so big, and a waterline hit was the most effective way to get the
> > opposition's attention.
>
> Maybe but standard RN tactic of the day were to kill the maximum
> numbers of the enemy crew before boarding and
> capturing the ship. Prize money was a very popular addition
> to the income of all on board.

I've just been reading about Gertman artillery in WW1, and they
developed a technique with delay-action fuzed HE shells at short
range. They would fire the shells to glance off the ground - this
would set the fuze, which would then detonate when the shell had
ricocheted back into the air, over the target.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Halliwell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Emmanuel Gustin
> > writes
> >The battlefield examination team found 33 armoured vehicles
> >that had been the victim of air attack. The original RAF and
> >USAF claim was for 391 -- about three times as much as the
> >total number of wrecked tanks and other vehicles on the
> >battlefield, and probably also about three times the number
> >the German had, as they lost almost everything.
>
> I'm unfamiliar with the battle, but if air attack only got 33, what got
> the rest (assuming about 130 vehicles were destroyed from the above
> numbers)?
>

Looking through the photos in Panzers in Normandy, then and now,
a lot were clearly simply abandoned as they ran out of gas.
Others were clearly disabled by mines (tracks and road wheel blown off)
while some showed clear signs of beink knocked out by gunfire (single
penetration of armor)

A few seem to have been hit by rockets as the damage was on the
upperside of the vehicle, probably the most spectacular wreck is
the Mk IV that seems to have been hit by a heavy shell from NGFS ,
the largest piece of wreckage left is the engine block.

Keith

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Grantland > wrote:
>John Halliwell > wrote:
>
>>In article >, Tony
>>Williams > writes
>>There's a scene in The Dam Busters where the guy playing Barnes Wallis
>>explains that in Nelson's day the RN gunners used to bounce cannon balls
>>off the water to improve their effectiveness. No idea if correct or why
>>though?
>
>Those bouncing bombs were just too whacky. Why didn't they use
>torpedos? Big ones.

Because there were anti-torpedo nets across the lakes in front of the
dams. Big ones.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, David Lesher
> writes
>
>From what I read here, the usual suspects were not that useful on tanks.
>
>a) What air assets were, in that era?

Guns worked fairly well - the German 37mm and British 40mm, on Stukas
and Hurricanes respectively - until the armour got too thick for them. I
seem to recall the Russians using an early version of a cluster bomb,
dispensing armour-piercing bomblets.
>
>b) Moving ahead, what later weapons were more sucessful? (Assume we
>can stop when we reach the GAU-8 but before?)

I'm not sure there were really any thoroughly successful airborne
anti-tank weapons until you get into cluster bombs like Rockeye and
BL755, and PGMs like Maverick. Remember, one of the primary roles of a
tank is "not being easy to destroy"...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Keith Willshaw]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Grantland > wrote:
> >John Halliwell > wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, Tony
> >>Williams > writes
> >>There's a scene in The Dam Busters where the guy playing Barnes Wallis
> >>explains that in Nelson's day the RN gunners used to bounce cannon balls
> >>off the water to improve their effectiveness. No idea if correct or why
> >>though?
> >
> >Those bouncing bombs were just too whacky. Why didn't they use
> >torpedos? Big ones.
>
> Because there were anti-torpedo nets across the lakes in front of the
> dams. Big ones.
>

Not to mention the fact that no airplane on earth could have lifted
a torpedo with the size of warhead needed.

Keith

[Bill Shatzer]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Keith Willshaw wrote:


-snips-

> Not to mention the fact that no airplane on earth could have lifted
> a torpedo with the size of warhead needed.

Didn't the US Navy take out a rather large hydroelectric dam in Korea with
torpedoes slung under AD-1s?

-Single- engined aircraft although, admittedly, one honkin' big single
engine.

Cheers and all,

[Tony Williams]

steve gallacci > wrote in message >...
>
> Inflated
> and erroneous claims, friendly fire incidents, and any number of just
> dumb stunts/bad ends were done by guys who would have sworn they knew
> what they were doing as they did them.

Sadly, each conflict we get involved in nowadays proves that such
mistakes still happen.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Grantland]

John Halliwell > wrote:

>In article >, Grantland
> writes
>>A shaped charge would be different. 'Moot though, if there were nets.
>
>The whole of the Upkeep charge was effectively a 'shaped charge' though,
>pressed right up against the dam wall with hundreds of millions of tons
>of water behind it. The whole operation depended on the ability to keep
>it pressed against the wall.
>
>--
>John

You're confusing Monroe effect with containment.

Grantland

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
> In article >,
> ArtKramr > wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
>>>From: (Tony Williams)
>>>Date: 8/7/03 11:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>>>he evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks
>>>were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223
>>>Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted
>>>from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). Dur
>>
>>Of course these investigating teams belonged to the ground forces and had a
>>strong vested interest in elevating the effectiveness of ground fire vs air
>
> Doubt it - operational analysis teams were pretty high-level affairs,
> responsible (without checking Dyson, who was OA for bomber command) to
> chief-of-staff level. The whole point of OA was to try to get a bias-free,
> scientific look at what was actually happening which was as free as
> possible from any bias. It was actually one of the effective tools which
> Britain introduced which - in some cases at least, like routing atlantic
> convoys - made a real difference to the way the war went.
>
> OA would have been going well out of its way to try not to bring any
> bias or baggage to the investigation. IIRc the conclusion was that
> fighter-bombers were not effective at destroying tanks, but were very
> effective at destroying tank formations, advances and distupting retreats
> by destroying the supporting soft-skin vehicles, though I'd have to check
> that to be sure. This, of course, meant that they were effective enough
> to be going on with, though improved methods of attacking the tanks
> themselves were (again, IIRC) recommended for research..

Don't be so certain about that - I've an example in one of my OR texts
("OR in World War 2, Operational Research against the U boat", CH
Waddington, Elek Science, London, 1973, conveniently enough) that
includes one of the more interesting exercizes in "Book-Cooking" to
come down the road. One of the studies involves aircraft selection
for ASW patrol. The types included are the PBY (Catalina), the
Sunderland, the Liberator, Halifax II, the Wellington XIV, and the
as-yet unbuilt Warwick. The Warwick numbers assume lethality (Pk) and
availability niumbers (Flight hrs/day) that are better than any other
British aircraft by a factor of 2, and a "Conversion Factor" that
supposedly has something to do with operating economy, but which bears
no relationship to airpcraft and equipment complexity (The biggest
driver in that situation) Looked upon with the cynical eye of a
participant and evaluator of OR studies, the document is clarly a
thinly veiled justifiacation for proceeding with Warwick production.
(As it turned out, the Warwick never reached the standards named in
the report, and in real-life service worked out to be about the same
as the Wellington, in the ASW role.)

The F-111/TFW selection fiasco is an excellent USAnian example of this
fudging of reports as well. The inital selection studies, and the
services that were to use the aircraft, indicated that the best choice
would be the Boeing design with Rolls Spey derivative engines.
Robert S. MacNamara, Kennedy adn Johnson's Secretary of Defence, and
Harold Brown, his Secretary of teh Air Force, didn't want teh Boeing,
and kept requesting more and more tilted studies until they got the
one they wanted - the General Dynamics proposal with the Pratt &
Whitney TF30 engine. While the F-111 eventually turned into a damned
good Medium Bomber, it never came close to living up to its promises
for fighter performance, Aircraft Carrier compatability, or
commonality between versions. (And I don't think that anybody regards
the TF30 as a successful fighter engine)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "steve gallacci" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > John Halliwell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >, Tony
> > > Williams > writes
> > > >I recall being told, in my target-shooting days, of a range which had
> > > >a lake between the firing point and the targets. On a calm day with no
> > > >ripples, they found that if they aimed at the reflection of the target
> > > >the bullets would ricochet off the water and hit the target. Of
> > > >course, the angle was very shallow.
> > >
> > > There's a scene in The Dam Busters where the guy playing Barnes Wallis
> > > explains that in Nelson's day the RN gunners used to bounce cannon balls
> > > off the water to improve their effectiveness. No idea if correct or why
> > > though?
> > >
> > To get a hit right at the water line. The solid shot punched a hole only
> > so big, and a waterline hit was the most effective way to get the
> > opposition's attention.
>
> Maybe but standard RN tactic of the day were to kill the maximum
> numbers of the enemy crew before boarding and
> capturing the ship. Prize money was a very popular addition
> to the income of all on board.

I guess that depends on whether you're after a merchant or
ship of the line.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Keith Willshaw]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
..
> >
> > Maybe but standard RN tactic of the day were to kill the maximum
> > numbers of the enemy crew before boarding and
> > capturing the ship. Prize money was a very popular addition
> > to the income of all on board.
>
> I guess that depends on whether you're after a merchant or
> ship of the line.
>

The main difference was that merchantmen could usually be persuaded
to heave to without having a broadside fired at them. Prize money
was assessed on ship and cargo and in the case of a ship of
war that ajudication was done by a vice-admiralty court.

if the source I just found is right prize money before 1808
was distributed as follows

12.5% -- to the flag officer commanding
25.0% -- to the commander of the capturing vessel
12.5% -- distributed to the master and lieutenants
12.5% -- distributed to the other warrant sea officers
12.5% -- distributed to the inferior and petty officers
25.0% -- distributed to the "private men", seamen, and marines

Merchant ships and their cargos had ready markets so usually
paid better than warships but a 72 gun ship of the line could
still be worth several thousand pounds, a colossal sum in the 18th century

Keith

[Chris Mark]

Bruce Gamble's "Black Sheep" recounts an incident where an F4U strafed a PT
boat, knocking out an engine and killing three sailors. The twin .50 mount
gunner returned a "brief burst" shooting down the F4U. Effective weapon.


Chris Mark

[funkraum]

[...]
>the Mk IV that seems to have been hit by a heavy shell from NGFS ,
>the largest piece of wreckage left is the engine block.
>

Could also have been a 50Kg demolition charge.