BoBP - Tank Busting

[KatieLuna]

With the introduction of aircraft like the tempest (the British p47) and the P47, do you think they'll model tank busting via 50's and 20mms? The roof armour of the Tiger is too thick for rounds to penetrate generally, but....

 

 

The planes could carry an assortment of bombs (for the Tempest up to around 2000lbs, and for the P47N) and RP-3 rockets (both AP and HEAT were available), all of which would naturally ruin any tank they saw.

 

Additionally the series has already shown to us the great power of the P38L, where it could carry gunpods, rockets, bombs, the works (as shown in the attached screenshots). It's centreline guns will also give it an edge in precision fire against those tiny officer cars, and the combination of 20s and 12.7s will be sure to leave a hole in any train you attack. It could also "comfortably" fly on 1 engine, and the other could be feathered. According to 1 account, it could land in any good field (according to this account, which I believe has been on the forum before)

 

 

 

Also, personal message to Jason; If I don't get the beer bomber, I'm not gonna be a happy pilot

 

 

 

[Legioneod]

I'm sure tank busting will be a thing, just don't expect to destroy them with 50cal or 20mm cannons, it could happen but it was extremely extremely rare. Your better off using rockets or bombs and even they werent that effective unless they got a direct hit.

 

Also, the tank in the 1st vid looks like a Panther not a tiger.

[Gambit21]

Cue post stating .50's didn't really take tanks out - and me having to post data from 9th Air Force pilots saying otherwise.

 

That said no I don't expect the team to get that involved with the tank damage models. If they do - great...not an expectation of mine though.

[KatieLuna]

4 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Also, the tank in the 1st vid looks like a Panther not a tiger.

I didn't name the video :D

I agree though. The first one looks like a Panther, I can't tell what the others are.

Edited March 26, 2018 by TheTacticalCat

[Danziger]

All you need is a good Stang or Jug and bounce them .50s up off the ground right through the bottom of the tanks.

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

All you need is a good Stang or Jug and bounce them .50s up off the ground right through the bottom of the tanks.

 

Well documented by 8th and 9th Air Force pilots - over and over again. Yeager talked about it, and there's a good accounting of it by Jug pilots in Hell Hawks - the 365th history. I've also personally talked with a 352nd pilot about it. Hitting the rear engine compartment/underneath.

 

Everyone here should read that book.

 

Yes someone will say "it's still not true!"

 

Don't know what to tell you buddy.

I'm going with the guys who were there.

 

"They didn't know what they were seeing!"

Uh...OK.

Heard it all on forums.

It happened - get over it.

 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

INB4 Banter

[69th_chuter]

Wow - I forgot about the gunpods in 1946.  In reality those were a joke, intended for otherwise unarmed photo recon Lightnings but they had such a negative effect on performance they weren't used.  So somehow they wound up in the game for any old P-38L with little detrimental effect. 

 

:/

 

AS for tank busting in this game I can attest to the suicide like nature of driving a tank here.

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/

[ATAG_Flare]

Wasn't it actually discovered that aircraft were not very effective at all against tanks using rocket and bomb attacks?

 

Pilots during the Normandy campaign overclaimed tanks by a huge margin. During the Mortain counteroffensive, American planes claimed 69 tanks killed, when in reality only 13 were knocked out by air power. Typhoons firing RPs were just as bad at overclaiming. During Operation Goodwood, about 3% of the tanks claimed by Typhoons were actually killed. In some cases more tanks were claimed than were actually participating in the battle at all!

 

Soviet IL2s and German Hs-129s and Stukas suffered the same overclaiming problems as well.

 

As for strafing attacks, the chances of 20mm or .50 cal fire actually penetrating a tank were so close to zero that it should not even be considered. .50 cal would cause at most superficial damage to the 12-15mm of armour on the top of a Pz. IV, and would have no chance against the 15-20mm of armour on a Panther or Tiger. 20mm would have similar results. That guncam video of the P-47 strafing runs just proves that tanks were attacked, the tank does not appear to take any damage from this attack, and most bullets are seen to miss.

 

I'm sure that pilots would think they caused much more damage than they actually did. When you're strafing a tank, smoke, tracers, sparks, and dirt are getting thrown up all around, one could easily think that the tank was damaged. However these pilots had a glimpse of the tanks for a few seconds at long distances. I would not trust them to give an accurate description on damage done to a tank.

 

The fact is air attack on tanks during WWII, whether it be by rocket, bomb, antitank gun, cannon, or machine guns, were not very effective.

 

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000010.html

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/myth-of-combat-aircraft-destroying-tanks.27496/

Edited March 26, 2018 by ATAG_Flare

[Danziger]

19 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Well documented by 8th and 9th Air Force pilots - over and over again. Yeager talked about it, and there's a good accounting of it by Jug pilots in Hell Hawks - the 365th history. I've also personally talked with a 352nd pilot about it. Hitting the rear engine compartment/underneath.

 

Everyone here should read that book.

 

Yes someone will say "it's still not true!"

 

Don't know what to tell you buddy.

I'm going with the guys who were there.

 

"They didn't know what they were seeing!"

Uh...OK.

Heard it all on forums.

It happened - get over it.

 

Umm... Where exactly did I say anything about "it's still not true!"? What am I supposed to be getting over?

 

Did I trigger something here?

[ATAG_Flare]

32 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

All you need is a good Stang or Jug and bounce them .50s up off the ground right through the bottom of the tanks.

The chances of that happening are so close to zero it's not even worth talking about.

[Gambit21]

4 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Umm... Where exactly did I say anything about "it's still not true!"? What am I supposed to be getting over?

 

Did I trigger something here?

 

Whoa - wasn't talking about you.

Flare came in right on cue - perfect timing there on his part.

[Blackhawk_FR]

On German side we'll still have the Stuka G (and 110 G2 BK37) to burn the huge stream of Shermans 

Edited March 26, 2018 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Danziger]

2 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Whoa - wasn't talking about you.

Flare came in right on cue - perfect timing there on his part.

But you quoted me so I thought you were talking about me lol

[busdriver]

9 minutes ago, ATAG_Flare said:

The chances of that happening are so close to zero it's not even worth talking about.

 

[Gambit21]

Just now, BorysVorobyov said:

But you quoted me so I thought you were talking about me lol

 

Nah - I was predicting the typical "I know more as a random forum guy  70 years later than the men who were there and attacked these columns day in and day out" response.

 

I nailed it didn't I?

 

[ATAG_Flare]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Nah - I was predicting the typical "I know more as a random forum guy  70 years later than the men who were there and attacked these columns day in and day out" response.

 

I nailed it didn't I?

 

I'd rather trust the results of detailed examinations of destroyed tanks by guys on the ground standing right beside these tanks looking them over to determine what killed them than accounts of pilots who sprayed .50 cal and thought they could kill a German cat.

 

I'm not saying that I know more than those guys. But I bet the guys examining the knocked out tanks know more than the pilots.

Edited March 26, 2018 by ATAG_Flare

[Aap]

The thing is that random forum guys know nowodays that overclaiming was a thing during WWII. Historians have been able to look at archives, combat reports, unit diaries etc, so have way better knowledge of what actually happened compared to even the best intelligence reports at the time, let alone a random pilot that truly wanted to believe that he destroyed a Tiger with a machine gun.

[Ehret]

You may damage tank tracks with 50 cals and 20mm fire - an useful outcome.

Strafing a tank will put a lot stress on it's crew, too, as they have a very limited awareness of the outside.

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, ATAG_Flare said:

I'd rather trust the results of detailed examinations of destroyed tanks by guys on the ground standing right beside these tanks looking them over to determine what killed them than accounts of pilots who sprayed .50 cal and thought they could kill a German cat.

 

I'm not saying that I know more than those guys. But I bet the guys examining the knocked out tanks know more than the pilots.

 

'sigh'

 

It was 3rd Armored and 5th Infantry forward controllers etc that helped determine the efficacy of these attacks. They wound call in/coordinate these missions based on what they knew worked and seeing the aftermath on the ground.

 

Also Jug pilots were not into wasting ammo, or subjecting themselves and their aircraft to unnecessary German AAA, or risking getting jumped to execute demonstrably ineffective attacks.

You can also argue all day (as I predicted) that the pilots didn't know what they were seeing.

 

Kemp - with respect, are you trying to be ironic or is it unintentional? It's precisely these archives, reports, diaries etc where the information I speak of exists. Also your comment on "best intelligence report of the time" makes zero sense.

 

I guess we'll base history instead on the knowledge that over-claiming occurred.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Ehret said:

You may damage tank tracks with 50 cals and 20mm fire - an useful outcome.

Strafing a tank will put a lot stress on it's crew, too, as they have a very limited awareness of the outside.

 

Oh you were there? What did it sound like when the attacks came?

You only need to stress the engine compartment. 

Also nobody claims taking out a column of tanks in a strafing pass.

Simply that to some degree it was possible, enough that the pilots and controllers executed the attacks. Beyond that I can't say to what degree it was effective.

[Pict]

1 minute ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

The thing is that random forum guys know nowodays that overclaiming was a thing during WWII. Historians have been able to look at archives, combat reports, unit diaries etc, so have way better knowledge of what actually happened compared to even the best intelligence reports at the time, let alone a random pilot that truly wanted to believe that he destroyed a Tiger with a machine gun.

 

Yes and add to that mix the young blokes who went overseas as fighter pilots only to find they are relegated to ground attack mission, either because the Luftwaffe is a rare bird, or the "Jug" they are flying has been declared unsuitable for air to air....

 

You can imagine them going home and admitting to having only shot up a few trains, trucks and horses can't you...when the Tiger tank was the thing on the ground to beat 

 

46 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Yeager talked about it

 

Yeager talked plenty and one of the things he said was about the P-39...""I had about 500 hours on the P-39, and thought it was about the best airplane I ever flew"

 

This coming from a pilot who flew the P-51D in combat and claimed 11 kills, would be a surprising statement, until you factor in that he was working with Bell Aircraft Corporation when he said it.

 

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

It happened - get over it.

 

I'm over it, bit I still don't think it happened and if you want people to believe it did, even although you were not there either, please explain this to me...

 

If Tiger tanks (or Panthers or similar) could be knocked out with .50cal machine guns...why did the Russians bother developing the PTAB? After all, they had P-47's on lend lease, and plenty of Tiger tanks to test the theory on...plenty more than the USAAF had.

[StG77_Kondor]

These same pilots swore they were 'bouncing' .50 cal slugs underneath tanks to blow them up. And sure enough, someone has already stated this in the forums. Good Lord. No offense to these guys whatsoever. They're heroes. But just like the infantrymen on the ground every tank they came up against was a 'Tiger' and claimed as such.

 

I'll trust the facts as conducted by both American and British intel officers who went through the vast majority of destroyed German vehicles from the Normandy campaign. 

 

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/09/21/air-power-at-the-battlefront/

 

.50 cals cannot destroy a Tiger.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

Qualified troopers(I.E. not corporal hayseed from Cornberia or an excited pilot already painting kill marks on his way back to England) specifically tasked with examining enemy vehicles thought to be destroyed by friendly air attack determined for sure that those kinds of attacks were an effective way to destroy Tiger and Panther tanks?  

[sevenless]

Lots of good information here:

 

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000010.html

 

Tank busting...about 6% of tank losses were inflicted by air. Enjoy reading. 

[Gambit21]

Let's conveniently ignore 9th Air Force info and talk about Yeager.

Also not one pilot ever claimed a "destroyed" Tiger that I know of.

 

Anyhoo - I know over-claiming happened. Of course it did.

I also have no reason to think every claim by a Jug pilot was false. I try and take a balanced outlook on these things.

 

"it never happened" is equally as stupid as "it always happened" because you'd be second guessing every account 70 years later in that case.

 

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Lots of good information here:

 

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000010.html

 

Tank busting...about 6% of tank losses were inflicted by air. Enjoy reading. 

 

...and plenty of reports indicate no tanks damaged or killed. 

[sevenless]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

...and plenty of reports indicate no tanks damaged or killed. 

 

Yeah massive overclaiming by the air arm, however it did happen (tank kills). Nevertheless they (tac air force US and RAF) were hugely successfull at devastating supply trains and everything that moved on the roads at daylight and also at killing locomotives and destroying vital infrastructural features.

[Aap]

26 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Kemp - with respect, are you trying to be ironic or is it unintentional? It's precisely these archives, reports, diaries etc where the information I speak of exists. Also your comment on "best intelligence report of the time" makes zero sense.

 

Not being ironic, just stating a simple fact. The intelligence report comment should make sense for everybody that is capable of logical thinking. It should be pretty obvious that controlled facts afterwards are more precise than any intelligence reports from the time being about enemy's situation. 

[Pict]

5 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Let's conveniently ignore 9th Air Force info and talk about Yeager

 

 Your the one who brought Yeager to the discussion. I don't "believe" the 9th AF either, none of them, not one.

 

7 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

"it never happened" is equally as stupid as "it always happened" because you'd be second guessing every account 70 years later in that case.

 

Hard evidence is the only thing worth anything in a debate like this, pilot 1st hand account matter not a jot and that's all you have. On the other hand there is documented evidence that proves it did not happen and zero documented evidence to prove it did.

 

Additionally, there was much effort to produce tank busting air delivered weapons, the PTAB being but one type. Yet no effort put into developing the .50cal machine gun for the anti tank purpose.

[Danziger]

3 minutes ago, Pict said:

Additionally, there was much effort to produce tank busting air delivered weapons, the PTAB being but one type. Yet no effort put into developing the .50cal machine gun for the anti tank purpose.

Because the .50s were already developed enough. 

[Gambit21]

A single well I  placed rifle round can down an aircraft Pict, that doesn't mean it becomes your AAA solution - don't be silly.

[Ehret]

39 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Oh you were there? What did it sound like when the attacks came?

 

Like a giant cymbal hit repeatably next to your ears, probably.

 

[Pict]

8 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

A single well I  placed rifle round can down an aircraft Pict, that doesn't mean it becomes your AAA solution - don't be silly.

 

While I agree that is true, that is not what the guy in the video is claiming.

 

He's claiming that they bounced .50cal off the road underneath Tiger tanks to destroy them as a habitual technique "we still found a way to get in" were the mans words.

 

Call me silly if you like, oh, you already did  , but that is not how I would describe a one off fluke. 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Pict

[7.GShAP/Silas]

6 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Because the .50s were already developed enough. 

 

 

Yeah the M2 is really great.  The way it jams all the time is a very advanced feature.

[sevenless]

http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=cmh

 

additionally the conclusion from this article sets it into perspective:

 

The effect of American tactical airpower over Normandy was considerable, though perhaps not in the same way as its commanders initially thought. The huge claims of destroyed vehicles racked up by fighter bombers is difficult to substantiate, particularly with regard to tanks. However, fighter bombers were responsible for causing severe delays in German reinforcements, slowing to the point of only moving at night. They also did destroy enough motor transports to seriously impede the Germans’ ability to fuel their armor. Vehicles destroyed by aircraft also made for excellent roadblocks, a characteristic whose value was maximized during combat in the Falaise pocket, forcing many panzer crews to abandon their tanks in order to escape death or capture. Finally, the psychological impact of close air support on German forces was ruinous, causing the collapse of several offensive operations and the frequent interruption of resupply efforts.

 

Source: https://military-historian.squarespace.com/blog/2015/1/20/usaaf-tactical-airpower-in-world-war-ii-part-ii

[Gambit21]

3 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

While I agree that is true, that is not what the guy in the video is claiming.

 

He's claiming that they bounced .50cal off the road underneath Tiger tanks to destroy them as a habitual technique "we still found a way to get in" were the mans words.

 

Call me silly if you like, oh, you already did  , but that is not how I would describe a one off fluke. 

 

..and maybe he's incorrect - but neither you nor I have the knowledge or experience to say so.

[Pict]

11 minutes ago, BorysVorobyov said:

Because the .50s were already developed enough. 

 

Developed enough to do what exactly?

 

Ricochet of the road at an angle and in their depleted state of motion and shape, penetrated steel plate of ? thickness at an angle, which is known to multiply the thickness of armor.

 

Sounds like they were highly developed

[Danziger]

1 minute ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

Yeah the M2 is really great.  The way it jams all the time is a very advanced feature.

Dammit. I'm out of upvotes again...

 

Yeah I did a lot of work with the M2 in Iraq. She's definitely a freakin diva. We had one blow up doing a test fire before a mission. I am pretty sure the headspace was not set properly before use. 

[Pict]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

..and maybe he's incorrect - but neither you nor I have the knowledge or experience to say so.

 

So you admit he's not talking about a one off? 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

The chance of a heavily tumbling bullet after it had ricochet off the ground penetrating armor thicker then it is rated to penetrate at 100yds is doubtful.

Edited March 26, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Danziger]

2 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Developed enough to do what exactly?

 

Ricochet of the road at an angle and in their depleted state of motion and shape, penetrated steel plate of ? thickness at an angle, which is known to multiply the thickness of armor.

 

Sounds like they were highly developed

Didn't you ever see Tremors 2? Burt said his .50BMG rifle rounds were based on a WW1 anti-tank cartridge.