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

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?

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction?
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 8/5/03 8:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

What's really at play here is the fact that even today, tanks and
armored vehicles are hard on the sides and soft on the top/bottom.
Their most likely threat is from other armor or anti-armor ground
forces. When a compromise needs to be made for overall gross weight
reduction it takes place on the top and underside. For this reason,
strafing armor at high angles (dive angles, not lead angles) the
aircraft can be effective against tanks even though the armor of a
tank is usually characterized as being capable of resisting that
caliber of weapon.



Since I never attacked a tank in a fighter I am giving you hearsay from
fighter pilots who did. They described the attack this way. They would
appproach the tank and their first aim point is behind the tank. They then
walk their fire to the main body of the tank. The assumption is that the fire
that they lay in behind the tank will ricochet up into the soft underbelly
where armor is very thin. It worked better if the tank was on a hard surface
rather than earth At least that is the way the story was told back then. But as
I say, I have never attacked a tank in a fighter. I am just giving what pilots
who did had to say at the time.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:

The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Dave

I was taught by WW2/Korean War fighter pilots to attack a tank in two
ways - one was to strafe the side and try to knock a track pin loose,
disconnecting the track and disabling the tank. A P80 pilot told me it
worked. The second method was to aim at the rear deck of the tank in
about a 30 degree dive and try to shoot through the cooling air
grilles. They warned me that some tanks would turn the turret 180
degrees so the planes would waste ammo shooting at the thick armor
glacis on the front of the tank. But if you get low enough you can
tell front from rear. I did just this in an F4E and blew up a T54 tank
south of the DMZ in 1972. Didn't have a gun camera but it looked just
like the films from WW2, except in color. A hard yank got us over the
fireball and debris. Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
bulkhead, too. Too bad for them. (G)
Walt BJ

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality
From: Dave Holford
Date: 8/5/03 1:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


ArtKramr wrote:

The assumption is that the fire that they lay in behind the tank will
ricochet up into the soft underbelly where armor is very thin.


Seems kind of stupid to have a soft underbelly in a vehicle which is the
target for anti-tank mines? Is this really true?

Dave
..
As I said I never flew those missions. I am just quoting P-47 pilots who did,
as they told their stories to me.
..

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Apparently the bulkhead between the engine
compartment and the crew compartment is only structural, not armored
at all. A lot of tanks store their ammo on the front side of that
bulkhead, too. Too bad for them.

Displayed at Nellis, there is a disabled T-62 that is a bit gruesome when one
looks inside. It took a kill through the armour on the side; looked like a
single shot. The tank interior was described like a convective oven for its
killing effect.
VL

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality or fiction?
From: "Emmanuel Gustin"
Date: 8/5/03 3:16 PM Pacific

Apparently more tanks were abandoned undamaged than were
actually destroyed by the fighter-bombers. So the main effect
appears to have been a moral one. The strafing and bombing
scared the tank crews so much that they drove the tanks into
cover and often jumped out and hid in the nearest ditch. And
perhaps did not survive the attack.


I'd call that a pretty effective attack. Wouldn't you? (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

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,

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message ...
wrote in message
om...


The gist is that WWII fighter-bombers were very poor tank
destroyers. They stopped the tank divisions by wreaking havoc
among soft-skinned supply vehicles and the supporting infantry
and artillery units -- a German WWII panzer division was really
a mixed mobile unit, not a unit purely equipped with tanks.
(Incidentally, the same was true of the Stuka's; de Gaulle reported
in 1940 that they did his tanks little harm but destroyed his
fuel trucks, which could not seek cover by leaving the road.)

These aircraft did not have a weapon that was both sufficiently
powerful and sufficiently accurate against tanks. (Rockets were
devastating, but the hit probability was only 0.5%.) On some
occasions when the Allies were left in possesion of the battlefield,
investigation teams were able to compare the claims for destroyed
armoured vehicles of the fighter-bombers with the wrecks left
behind. Very few were disabled by aircraft, less than a tenth of
what the air forces claimed.



A number of aircaft field heavey cannon, up to 75mm especialy for
German aircraft. (Henschel Hs 293, some Ju88s, )

30mm cannon (Mk103 ? ) firing tungsten cored amunition mounted on a
FW190 could penetrate 140mm I believe and the 37mm cannon on some
Stukas had similar penetraion. This is enough for anything but the
front of a WW2 tank.

While the British tried 40mm cannon on their Hurricane I find it odd
that the P47 wasn't fitted with twin 30mm-40mm cannon. By sacrificing
6 of the 8 0.5" MG the massive P47 would have sufferd less performace
drop than smaller aircraft.

At least his way there would be a powerfull AND accurate weapon.

In message , Emmanuel Gustin
writes
The gist is that WWII fighter-bombers were very poor tank
destroyers. They stopped the tank divisions by wreaking havoc
among soft-skinned supply vehicles and the supporting infantry
and artillery units -- a German WWII panzer division was really
a mixed mobile unit, not a unit purely equipped with tanks.

General Bayerlein tried to move Panzer Lehr the short distance by road
from Vire to Le Beny-Bocage (it's a short trip, I've passed the junction
several times). As he put it,

"...by the end of the day I had lost 40 petrol wagons and 90 other
trucks. Five of my tanks had been knocked out, as well as 84
half-tracks, prime movers and SP guns."

Apparently more tanks were abandoned undamaged than were
actually destroyed by the fighter-bombers. So the main effect
appears to have been a moral one. The strafing and bombing
scared the tank crews so much that they drove the tanks into
cover and often jumped out and hid in the nearest ditch. And
perhaps did not survive the attack.

To say nothing of the problems of keeping tanks fuelled when the bowsers
are burning wrecks some miles behind...

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

Paul J. Adam