Aircraft against tanks

[The_Enigma]

not finding it hard to believe, just surprised as i said.

from the limted knowledge of the 2 battles i mentioned i hav read there was a hell load of torps being dropped to take the ships down, didnt realise its a bomb which got that one.

[stoat]

One thing about using shallow running gear on your torpedoes, like at Taranto and Pearl Harbor, is that you're likely to hit thicker armor near the waterline and need more torpedoes to flood the ship adequately. And the Arizona was certainly a bomb hit.

[John Kettler]

the_enigma,

Rudel did it with a 1500 kg AP bomb against the Marat, which was, according to Breyer's BATTLESHIPS & BATTLE CRUISERS 1905-1970, p. 393, "heavily damaged there (Kronstadt) by bomb hit on 23rd September 1941, settled on bottom.." On the same page we learn that the armored deck was a mere 37-25mm thick, hardly surprising considering the keel on this vessel was laid in 1909, long before Billy Mitchell abused and sank the war trophy Ostfriesland.

The U.S.S. Arizona, laid down 1913, was sunk by a 14" AP shell converted to a bomb; said bomb was dropped from a level bombing B5N "Kate" squarely down the smokestack, thus bypassing a combined 114mm of armored decks (op. cit. p. 210) and detonated in the ship's bowels, causing a magazine explosion (op. cit., p. 213), this after previously enduring six other bomb hits and one aerial torpedo hit.

The modern battleship Roma, laid down in 1938 and vastly better protected than either of the above,

was sunk by a single SD 1400 X ("Fritz X") radio-controlled AP bomb; H.M.S. Warspite barely survived one such hit herself, taking on some 500 tons of water and sustaining so much damage she had to be towed to Malta and was out of the war for a year.

In all four cases, we're talking about AP projectiles at steep to vertical impact angles

against the, from that aspect, thinnest armor protection on these battleships. Are battleships typically harder to sink than this? Generally, yes, but the examples cited show that what Rudel did was eminently doable. Reading between the lines, it appears he blew a big hole in the bottom of the Marat. The only reason she didn't sink outright is that the anchorage was so shallow.

Regards,

John Kettler

[z-warfare]

Yeah i can see that. End of an era.

[The_Enigma]

thanks for the info

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stoat:

One thing about using shallow running gear on your torpedoes, like at Taranto and Pearl Harbor, is that you're likely to hit thicker armor near the waterline and need more torpedoes to flood the ship adequately. And the Arizona was certainly a bomb hit.

Since Mr. Picky isn't here, I'll jump in and say that ISTR some of the aerial bombs the Japanese used were actually modified naval shells fitted with fins. But either way....

EDIT or I could just read Kettles' post...doh....

[stoat]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stoat:

One thing about using shallow running gear on your torpedoes, like at Taranto and Pearl Harbor, is that you're likely to hit thicker armor near the waterline and need more torpedoes to flood the ship adequately. And the Arizona was certainly a bomb hit.

Since Mr. Picky isn't here, I'll jump in and say that ISTR some of the aerial bombs the Japanese used were actually modified naval shells fitted with fins. But either way....

EDIT or I could just read Kettles' post...doh.... </font>

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by stoat:

Not sure if there are any examples of ship vs ship plunging fire, but the principle also works for bombs.

Bismark sank HMS Hood using this method. In fact, the British were well aware of the danger to such fire on Hood, who being a battlecruiser was more lightly armored then Prince of Wales. This led to the decision to close on Bismark as quickly as possible to minimize the danger, and thus Hood and PoW came in nearly straight on while the Germans were able to use their full broadsides.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

nm

[stoat]

True enough KF, but you hear it more in reference to early ironclads. The only way wooden ships could effectively damage the ironclads was by plunging shells down on the thin decks.

[John Kettler]

Should add that the Roma apparently blew up and sank because the Fritz X penetrated deep enough to explode a magazine. Like the Arizona, over 1000 men men died.

The single best source I've seen on this topic is the translation, available through whatever N.T.I.S.

is now called, of Korotkin & Korotkin's BATTLE DAMAGE TO SURFACE SHIPS, which is an OR type study

of the subject. I'd say more, but brother Ed has my copy/former copy, provided him so he could do his Command at Sea development work.

BTW, reinforcing the blown bottom scenario for the Marat is that a year or so later, she conducted a main battery shoot against the Germans, while still resting on the bottom! Clearly, then, Rudel got no magazine hit.

Regards,

John Kettler

[CloseCombat]

Some Gun Camera Footage:

P 47 Strafes German Ground Forces

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

Allied Fighters Strafe German Airfield

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1881994360824210862

[Larry Thorne]

Originally posted by CloseCombat:

Some Gun Camera Footage:

P 47 Strafes German Ground Forces

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

The infamous Tiger Tank busted with MG fire video. Lots of discussions about this in IL-2 forums

[stoat]

Originally posted by Larry Thorne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CloseCombat:

Some Gun Camera Footage:

P 47 Strafes German Ground Forces

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6635752499311348219

The infamous Tiger Tank busted with MG fire video. Lots of discussions about this in IL-2 forums </font>

[Larry Thorne]

originally posted by RAF74Buzzsaw_XO at IL-2 General forum

Salute All

Reading the claims by various posters that the P-47's .50 calibre bullets could penetrate the hull of Tiger tanks reminds me of the old urban myth about alligators in the sewers of New York.

There's always someone who's ready to claim a friend of a friend of a friend really ran into a 12 foot Gator while he was doing his chores in the sewers, but when you actually try to nail down an actual witness, they are suddenly in short supply.

I am the first to boost the P-47, and point to its real combat abilities, backing up my reasoning with real research, but I think these kinds of absurd claims just cast a shadow on the real excellent qualities of this aircraft.

Let's look at some facts:

There is no way a .50 calibre bullet is going to penetrate either the side, front or rear armour of a Tiger tank. The depth of the armour is simply to great for the penetrative power of the bullet. Anti Tank rifles were heavier calibre than the 12.7mm of the American weapon, and they were almost universally discarded as useless after 1942. The only way a .50 calibre round is going to do any damage is by striking the viewing slit of the driver, but that is unlikely, since the angle of the slit is such that a downward travelling bullet would deflect. No to mention that the slit is extremely narrow, and only a perfect shot would penetrate.

Could a .50 calibre bullet penetrate the louvers over the engine compartment? Doubtful. The Tiger was designed to withstand attacks from both enemy Tanks, as well as enemy infantry, including infantry armed with Machine guns which were situated in buildings higher than the tank.

Would the .50 calibre penetrate the armour on the belly of the tank? Doubtful again. The Tiger was built to withstand the blasts of anti-personel mines, and could drive over them with impunity.

The only real chance a .50 calibre bullet has is in damaging the bogey wheels, or treads on the Tiger. And they only way that could happen is with continuous shortrange sustained and focused fire on a single part. Fire from an aircraft is by the nature of the firing platform, scattered, and therefore this type of damage is extremely unlikely to occur.

There is also the issue of identification.

From the air, it is very difficult to identify exact types of tanks. Even for stationary U.S. tank gunners looking through telescopic sights, the Tiger and Mk IV were very often confused for one another. The possibility that a P-47 pilot, travelling at 300+ mph is going to be able to positively identify the type of tank he is strafing is extremely unlikely. So how does the P-47 pilot know he is strafing a Tiger?

Finally, how is the P-47 pilot going to be sure he has destroyed the enemy tank? In most situations, a tank will not catch fire when it is knocked out. The fact that tank is not moving, is not an indication that it has been destroyed. Tank crews were often hit by machinegun fire from enemy infantry, and in that situation, their first response would be to stop and search for a target.

The fact is, and I don't mean to disappoint those dedicated ground attack pilots who love to fly the ground pounders in IL-2, but Tanks were rarely destroyed by attacks from the air.

The US Army Air Force did a comprehensive study of the Mortain Counterattack Battlefield. For those who don't know, the Mortain Counterattack was launched by Hitler in a failed effort to close off Patton's 3rd Army Breakout from St Lo during Normandy Campaign in 1944. The Germans committed a large number of Panzer and S.S. Panzer Divisions. During the Counterattack, the Fighterbombers of the British 2nd Tactical Airforce and the U.S. 9th A.F. were credited with playing a large part in turning back the attack, and in destroying a large number of German tanks.

There is no doubt that the Typhoons and P-47's who participated did do a lot of damage to the Motor Transport of the German divisions, as well as halftracks and self propelled guns. However, the tanks on the battlefield which were examined later were shown to have almost all either to have been destroyed by U.S. Anti-tank guns or Tank Destroyers, or to have been abandoned by their crews either through lack of fuel or poor morale. Very few were actually hit by rockets.

However, that is not to say the air attacks were not effective. U.S. ground observers did report German tank crews abandoning their vehicles when under air attack. Undoubtably, the sight of a Fighter Bomber bearing down on you complete with rockets would be a terrifying sight for those tankcrew who were not aware that the statistical likelyhood of them being hit was small. If I was cooped up in a metal shell with 100's of aircraft taking runs at me with salvos of eight 120mm rockets, I would be nervous too. I'm not a soldier, but I have worked as a cameraman in a combat zone and have been mortared and shot at, and I know my immediate response was to head for the nearest hole to hide in.

In any case, to return to my original point, the possibility of a P-47 taking out a Tiger with its .50's is so small as to be irrelevant.

There are great back and forth arguing about this subject there. Everyone interested about reading these subjects http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=tiger&use_forum_scope=on&forum_scope=23110283 great "arguing"

Finish this from my part I want to quote Shot2Pieces

I would say that the numerous documented instances of tigers on the eastern front remaining combat effective after taking 50+ hits from shells ranging from 45 - 76mm just goes to show that, instead of going to 85mm for the later versions of t-34, they should instead have gone to .50cal.

Next time I play Combat Mission, and my opponent takes tigers, remind me not to bother with anti-tank guns and to take HMGs instead.

If he is around here maybe he has more data on this matter.

Cheers

LT

[pamak1970]

In reality, the average IL-2 never killed a single armored vehicle, even a light armored one, over its entire service life. The Russians fielded as many IL-2s as the Germans fielded AFVs. And air never accounted for more than 10% of their losses.

Although I agree with what was said in this thread I will point (again) that the above quote although maybe true statistically in the strategic level, reveals nothing about probability of kill during a ground attack at a tactical level.

It is like saying that the probability of kill when a pilot shoots at a target is affected to some extend by the numbers of industrial production.

We should not confuse statistics and probabilitites.

[JasonC]

pamak1970 - the average IL-2 in CMBB manages to get multiple AFV kills in a single sortie. If that actually happened in real life, all German AFVs would have been KOed by air strikes several times over and the war would have ended in oh, about mid 1943. Of course there is a connection between individual engagement probabilities and overall statistics. The latter are a sum over the former.

[-E]

You've all strayed from the cental issue... what's wrong with black pansies? *ducking-and-running-grin*

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JasonC:

pamak1970 - the average IL-2 in CMBB manages to get multiple AFV kills in a single sortie. If that actually happened in real life, all German AFVs would have been KOed by air strikes several times over and the war would have ended in oh, about mid 1943. Of course there is a connection between individual engagement probabilities and overall statistics. The latter are a sum over the former.

What happens in cmbb is irrelevant with my comments.

The connection you mention about individual engagement probabilities and statistics can not reveal anything.By knowing the statistical value we can not find probabilities during individual engagements.

If for example i triple the probability of kill of an airplane attacking an AFV and at the same time i triple the attrition rate of airplanes cause of enemy fighters and anti-aircraft fire, i will still have the same statistical figure as before (let say one plane lost for every enemy AFV kill) or

" the average airplane kills a single armored vehicle, over its entire service life"

[ July 11, 2006, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[JasonC]

You can't triple the attrition rate for the plane, it is a known quantity. 25 sorties service life early on, rising to 50 later in the war. Set in granite. Facts are stubborn things, and the average fighter bomber did not have an appreciable chance of KOing one, let alone several, full AFVs on a single sortie.

[Guest Mike]

That is of course an average rate isn't it Jason? Just like the average number of AFV's killed epr aeroplane, etc?

It's "just" a number.

I wonder if the attrition rate for strike a/c includes training accidents?

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by JasonC:

You can't triple the attrition rate for the plane, it is a known quantity. 25 sorties service life early on, rising to 50 later in the war. Set

in granite. Facts are stubborn things, and the average fighter bomber did not have an appreciable chance of KOing one, let alone several, full AFVs on a single sortie.

Notice that "probability of kill" evaluation demands information in addition of the statistical figure you presented at first and that was my objection with your initial quote.

So now you give the "average number of sorties" which is a good start.

Still it is not enough for a proper evaluation.

How many sorties of the average total amount actually led to an attack against AFVs?

In other words,what was the percentage of sorties aborted cause of enemy interceptors , heavy flak above the target, bad weather,mechanical failure and so on ?

What was the percentage of sorties where a pilot actually spotted an AFV ,identified as an enemy and went on for an attack?

You have different results if the actual number of sorties leading to a ground attack against an AFV are different portions of the average number of sorties you provide.

If you know in detail the above facts and some more that i miss then i will agree that you may do a calculation of probability of kill using among others statistical figures.

Another question for investigation is the following:

How many of the AFV hit succesfully by ground attacks were recovered , repaired and put back on action again surviving the war,or becoming a permamnet casualty at a later stage ?

The statistical figure counts just the number of survivors and permanent losses of AFVs.

So it misses the many cases of vehicles put out of action temporary due to ground attacks.

Tactically ,these attacks may be considered as succesful ,since the AFV was not available until recovery and/or repair took place,after the battle.

As a last point i will give an example of why we should not use just a statistical figure to evaluate probabilities of kill.

If we focus on tanks ,i will guess that statistics show that the average tank killed about a single enemy one during its entire operational life.

For Soviets the number will be less .

Does this mean that probability of kill during tank battles is low?

Not at all.

P.S what is the sourse of information regarding the average number of sorties?

I will be interested to see some numbers about tank battles.

Thank you

[ July 13, 2006, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

It seems i have been away from this forum for a long time........

[JasonC]

What is the percentage of times you pay for a Sturmovik in CMBB and it doesn't attack a tank on your battlefield?

It is just plain wrong, they are overmodeled. All the hemming and hawing in the world won't change it.

[Guest Mike]

The "facts" are that we only play games representing the "sharp" end of the war - it's been discussed hre many times that virtually everything in the CM series is overmodelled, because to have pure hstorical rates of action, etc would lead to a boring game - "on average" every front in thewar saw very little action in any given 20-60 minute period.