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

Tony Williams wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just
shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through the
top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor) or
more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire
or at least put the engine out of action.

[much good info snipped]

Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no
doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of
the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units,
it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the
tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often.

That's my reading as well.

Guy

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/4/03 7:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Tony Williams wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message
t...

Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just
shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through
the
top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor)
or
more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire
or at least put the engine out of action.

[much good info snipped]

Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no
doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of
the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units,
it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the
tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often.

That's my reading as well.

Guy



Your reading might have been different had you flown over a field in which
Panzers had been caught in the open by P-47's and you could see the planes
swarming around the tanks as they smoked, burned and exploded.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/4/03 7:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Tony Williams wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message
t...

Well, for one thing, they'd be far more likely to be successful just
shooting at the engine decking and getting a round in directly through
the
top plate (even though this is generally thicker than the bottom armor)
or
more likely the gratings/air intakes, which CAN cause an engine/fuel fire
or at least put the engine out of action.

[much good info snipped]

Good post, Guy. I have no argument with your figures, and there is no
doubt that some tanks were knocked out by aerial gunfire. However, of
the hundreds of knocked-out German tanks examined by Allied OR Units,
it seems that only a handful could be attributed to this cause, so the
tactic doesn't seem to have worked all that often.

That's my reading as well.

Guy


Your reading might have been different had you flown over a field in which
Panzers had been caught in the open by P-47's and you could see the planes
swarming around the tanks as they smoked, burned and exploded.

And had anyone ever found, examined, photographed and documented such a field of
late war _Panzers_ knocked/burned out by .50 cal. MG hits scored by P-47s or any
other a/c, I'd be convinced. Since no one ever did, but they did examine,
photograph and document lots of soft-skinned vehicles, SP howitzers, halftracks
and armored cars which had been so knocked out, results which accord with the
known penetration capability of the .50 cal. and the armor protection of those
targets, I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the
ground.

Guy

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala

I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the
ground.

Guy


Yes by ground personell (infantry, artillery) who had an agenda in down playing
the effectiveness of air attack. I can either believe you or my own lying eyes.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala

I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the
ground.

Guy


Yes by ground personell (infantry, artillery) who had an agenda in down playing
the effectiveness of air attack. I can either believe you or my own lying eyes.

And the air force commanders were disinterested spectators who didn't have an
agenda in claiming increased effectiveness for air attack? While we're on the
subject of your eyes, please tell us the recognition features that distinguish
between a PzKw IV, a Marder II, a Nashorn, a Wespe, an SPW 251/1, and an SdKfz
234. Once you've done that, tell us at what range each of these features becomes
distinguishable, under combat conditions.

Given the large number of attacks by allied a/c on allied ground vehicles and
aircraft, are you seriously claiming that the average allied airman was able to
tell the difference between the various flavors of German AFVs from the air (even
assuming they knew them, which is unlikely), when they were sometimes unable to
tell the difference between say, the distinctive M4 Sherman and _any_ German
armored vehicle? This is a trivial exercise for someone who is on the ground
nearby and isn't being shot at, but rather more difficult from several hundred or
thousand yards away while having to fly and avoid being shot down or crashing into
the ground. Hell, ground combat troops were unable to make these distinctions - to
virtually any U.S. or British ground troops, every German tank was a Tiger, every
artillery piece an 88. If that had been true it certainly would have surprised
Albert Speer, as the production figures show that these types made up small
fractions of the total tank and artillery production.

Guy

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/4/03 2:30 PM Pacific

While we're on the
subject of your eyes, please tell us the recognition features that
distinguish
between a PzKw IV, a Marder II, a Nashorn, a Wespe, an SPW 251/1, and an
SdKfz
234. Once you've done that,

You are right. We who flew could tell nothing from nothing, knew nothing, saw
nothing and what we did see we got all wrong. Your point is made.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Hi folks,
I have been unable to get a DVD copy of this video that I uploaded, so I went
back to the VHS copy and *sharpened* it a little bit with a digital video
editor. I have now uploaded it to the Web (link below) and you can clearly see
a tiger tank (they show 3 passes). I know the first one is a Tiger Tank and I
am pretty sure the last one is, as well. Watch as the pilot strafes it...you'll
notice the tank practically "blowing up" with black smoke on the 3rd pass.

When the pilot says "we'd hit the trailer and put him on fire" you'll see a
Tiger Tank with some burning vehicle behind it (a trailer or another Tiger
Tank?).

A side note: In the last months of WWII, General Hap Arnold, head of the U.S.
Army Air Force, ordered the making of a color film on his forward strike crews,
particularly the P-47 Thunderbolts fighter groups flying close air support to
the army's infantry and armor units. From March 1 to May 8, 1945, 16 camera
crews shot 86 hours of film. But after the war, General Arnold decided not to
release the footage. We tracked down four original pilots from the 362nd
Fighter Group who narrate the story we see on the screen.

I recently spoke with the director of this HISTORY CHANNEL documentary and I
asked him about the validity of "bouncing" bullets under the Tiger Tank to hit
its "thin" belly. This is what he had to say:

"The German Tiger tanks used so much fuel they used to tow their own extra fuel
supply behind them and the pilots told me they went for the fuel trailer first
then the tank where they would bounce up the .50 cal from the road because they
could not get through the armorplate. Ken Bullock talks about this in the film,
we was a captain and won the DFC and a lot of the combat footage in the film is
from Ken's guncamera. He died a year ago, his son now works at NASA in
Washington. Other pilots in the 362nd FG told me they did it too. I was
surprised since I didn't know that either."

Whatever your conclusions are, please pay a visit to the Texas Air Museum Web
site--and if you're in Texas anytime soon, pay them a visit! Their URL is:
http://www.texasairmuseum.com

The URL to the VIDEO is he http://www.texasairmuseum.com/temp/p47bust.wmv
(it's a little over 7megs).

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala
Date: 9/4/03 2:30 PM Pacific

While we're on the
subject of your eyes, please tell us the recognition features that
distinguish
between a PzKw IV, a Marder II, a Nashorn, a Wespe, an SPW 251/1, and an
SdKfz
234. Once you've done that,

You are right. We who flew could tell nothing from nothing, knew nothing, saw
nothing and what we did see we got all wrong. Your point is made.

Why yes, my point _is_ made, although as usual it's not the one you claim I was
making.

Guy

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala

I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the
ground.

Yes by ground personell (infantry, artillery) who had an agenda in down playing
the effectiveness of air attack. I can either believe you or my own lying eyes.

I've seen what .50" does to steel plate of the thicknesses we're
discussing (with newer ammunition, under better conditions). It leaves a
scar, but doesn't penetrate. This is why it stopped being used as the US
Army's primary anti-tank weapon and they bought bigger guns for the job
- and it was failing with clean direct hits, not ricochets.

I and the test team didn't care what worked, as long as we got a good
weapon for the job.

I can believe hearsay, or trust my own eyes.


(Of course, if everyone on the ground is lying to do down airpower, the
flyboys certainly wouldn't exaggerate in self-defence... if you get into
the agendas of observers, then aircrew are _certainly_ not disinterested
either. Personally, I don't like to accuse servicemen of deliberate
lying.)


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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , ArtKramr
writes
Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German
tanks,reality
From: Guy Alcala

I'll stick with the evidence that actually exists, gathered on the
ground.

Yes by ground personell (infantry, artillery) who had an agenda in down playing
the effectiveness of air attack. I can either believe you or my own lying eyes.

(Of course, if everyone on the ground is lying to do down airpower, the
flyboys certainly wouldn't exaggerate in self-defence... if you get into
the agendas of observers, then aircrew are _certainly_ not disinterested
either. Personally, I don't like to accuse servicemen of deliberate
lying.)

I'm sure they weren't lying. I have read first-hand accounts by P-47
pilots trying this tactic; there is no doubt that they tried it, and
they believed it worked. I have every respect for their honesty as
well as their courage, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that
they were mistaken - either in identifying the target, or in wrongly
interpreting the effect of their gunfire.

As for the bias of the Army Operational Research teams: the British
and American air forces much preferred strategic bombing, and got
involved in close support of troops with great reluctance (except for
a creditable few leaders), partly because it was very expensive due to
high loss rates, but also because it subordinated the air forces
priorities to the armies'. OTOH, the armies were desperate to get them
to provide as much close support as possible because (apart from the
specific issue of knocking out tanks) it was highly effective and
greatly valued by the troops. So the armies had every motivation to
encourage their air forces to keep on with close support work, rather
than denigrating their activities.

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