If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: 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/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
) wrote in message . com...
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/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|