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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
ArtKramr wrote: Subject: 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) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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: 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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
ArtKramr wrote: Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks, From: (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) Subject: 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) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: 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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
ArtKramr wrote: Subject: 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|