(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: 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/