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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|