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

ArtKramr wrote:

Subject: P-47/51 deflection shots into the belly of the German tanks,
reality
From: steve gallacci

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.

Then again they were those who did as they claimed. Many paid for it with their
lives. Any comment about that?

There is no reason to get defensive here. Ground attack was a
particularly dangerous mission, and I have no intention of questioning
their brave and honorable efforts. However, it has also been my
experience, having served in the AF, that while they might be officers
and gentlemen and skilled pilots, not many were dispassionate observers
or knew jack about anything outside rather narrow interests. Inflated
and erroneous claims, friendly fire incidents, and any number of just
dumb stunts/bad ends were done by guys who would have sworn they knew
what they were doing as they did them. No doubt any number thought they
were really doing the ricochet tank killing stunt, but I'd be very
surpise/interested in any factual support of it actually succeeding.

steve gallacci wrote:

However, it has also been my experience, having served
in the AF, that while they might be officers and gentlemen
and skilled pilots, not many were dispassionate observers
or knew jack about anything outside rather narrow interests.

Huh?

-Mike (huh?) Marron

On 8 Aug 2003, ArtKramr wrote:

I
have flown over battle grounds where underneath us we saw P-47's leaving
German tanks smoking and burning.

At what altitude? 8,000 feet certainly? I wonder just how easy it
is to distinguish a tank from a similar sized soft-side vehicle at
distances of a mile and half and up. Particularly, one that is "smoking
and burning" and presumably at least partially obscured thereby.
Particularly by air crew which should, theoretically, be keeping their
collective eyes pealed for enemy fighters and flak rather than
grandstanding the ground action below.

The ineffectiveness of air power is a persuit
that the ground forces persue endlessly.

While the air forces continually pursued the doctrine of
air power as the ultimate wonder weapon which made all else
unnecessary and redundant.

And of course without success.

Air power is not ineffective in all circumstances. But it is
more effective in some than in others and ultimately victory,
even in the current PGW-era, requires putting boots on the ground.

Ground attack in WWII was a marvelous means of disrupting the
enemy. It could destroy trucks, troops in formation, and
morale in general. What it could not do, on any sort of consistant
basis, was destroy heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.

Cheers and all,

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"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've just been reading about Gertman artillery in WW1, and they
developed a technique with delay-action fuzed HE shells at short
range. They would fire the shells to glance off the ground - this
would set the fuze, which would then detonate when the shell had
ricocheted back into the air, over the target.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

"John Halliwell" wrote in message
...
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)?


Looking through the photos in Panzers in Normandy, then and now,
a lot were clearly simply abandoned as they ran out of gas.
Others were clearly disabled by mines (tracks and road wheel blown off)
while some showed clear signs of beink knocked out by gunfire (single
penetration of armor)

A few seem to have been hit by rockets as the damage was on the
upperside of the vehicle, probably the most spectacular wreck is
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.

Keith

In article ,
Grantland wrote:
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Tony
Williams writes
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?

Those bouncing bombs were just too whacky. Why didn't they use
torpedos? Big ones.

Because there were anti-torpedo nets across the lakes in front of the
dams. Big ones.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

In message , David Lesher
writes

From what I read here, the usual suspects were not that useful on tanks.

a) What air assets were, in that era?

Guns worked fairly well - the German 37mm and British 40mm, on Stukas
and Hurricanes respectively - until the armour got too thick for them. I
seem to recall the Russians using an early version of a cluster bomb,
dispensing armour-piercing bomblets.

b) Moving ahead, what later weapons were more sucessful? (Assume we
can stop when we reach the GAU-8 but before?)

I'm not sure there were really any thoroughly successful airborne
anti-tank weapons until you get into cluster bombs like Rockeye and
BL755, and PGMs like Maverick. Remember, one of the primary roles of a
tank is "not being easy to destroy"...

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

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Grantland wrote:
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Tony
Williams writes
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?

Those bouncing bombs were just too whacky. Why didn't they use
torpedos? Big ones.

Because there were anti-torpedo nets across the lakes in front of the
dams. Big ones.


Not to mention the fact that no airplane on earth could have lifted
a torpedo with the size of warhead needed.

Keith

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Keith Willshaw wrote:


-snips-

Not to mention the fact that no airplane on earth could have lifted
a torpedo with the size of warhead needed.

Didn't the US Navy take out a rather large hydroelectric dam in Korea with
torpedoes slung under AD-1s?

-Single- engined aircraft although, admittedly, one honkin' big single
engine.

Cheers and all,

steve gallacci wrote in message ...

Inflated
and erroneous claims, friendly fire incidents, and any number of just
dumb stunts/bad ends were done by guys who would have sworn they knew
what they were doing as they did them.

Sadly, each conflict we get involved in nowadays proves that such
mistakes still happen.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/