A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old August 10th 03, 07:53 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #52  
Old August 11th 03, 05:54 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) writes:
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..


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
  #53  
Old August 11th 03, 07:51 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #54  
Old August 11th 03, 08:26 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #55  
Old August 13th 03, 06:58 AM
Chris Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #56  
Old September 13th 03, 06:39 PM
funkraum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[...]
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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.