Major concern: Armor

[daft]

In regards to airpower and its effect on tanks. It has been argued by Zetterling that the effect of air attack on armoured targets is probably quite overstated. He uses Normandy and Kursk as examples of this and concludes that the losses were not as great as some sources indicate. In fact, the losses were even less severe on the Eastern Front (around 2-5% compared to around 6% for Panthers on the Western front in a British study). One aspect of this is the fact there might have been a tendency for German officers to over-emphasize the losses to aircraft in order to shift blame from themselves to Luftwaffe. Rommel for examle claimed that 12. SS-Pz. Div. lost more personnel then they in fact did during the march to Normandy, and Beyerlein also made a similar statement reagrding tank losses for Pz. Lehr that is not borne out by the documents available. It really is a very interesting and enlightening artcle, I'll link it if I can dig it up.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: tyrspawn

Just to comment on the effectiveness of artillery against armor.

Historically artillery is used to BUTTON the vehicle, forcing everyone to close all hatches, which severely limits combat effectiveness. Artillery can also "track" vehicles (immobilizing them), as well as destroy periscopes, external ammo and fuel supplies and disable other subsystems. Of course, a lucky hit could kill a tank.

In modern times arty can be used with a laser designator to directly target both moving and stationary targets.

Heavy artillery is very effective against light armored vehicles too... a 155 hit in a 30m range can be deadly even for a light tank.

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: James Sterrett

ORIGINAL: ZBrisk
Airstrikes did nothing either. From what I gather in flight sims, it's reasonable to expect on average a couple stuka strikes (500 kg each) to take out a medium/heavy tank. Given that air strikes are 1 tonne of bombs then you'd think a couple should at least kill one tank...

The flight sims, even the really good ones such as IL-2, greatly overstate the effectiveness of WW2 CAS (Close air Support).

The most easily accessible study of that is Ian Gooderson's Air Power at the Battlefront (Amazon link). Gooderson delved into US and British operations research examinations of the effectiveness of CAS; they found it far less effective than it claimed to be.

This matches with WW@ Soviet research & testing I've read through, which concluded that the best way for CAS to hurt tanks was to attack their logistics trucks.

It's extremely hard to hit a tank with WW2 era sights and bombs or cannon, and even if you get a hit it takes a big cannon or bomb to do much of note.

That said... CAS may not have destroyed many tanks, but it created immense disruption, confusion, and delay.

Side note: if you are interested in CAS procedures, look at chapter 5 of JP 3-09.3.

My sources about Normandy are clear about this: CAS was a major cause of Tiger and Panther destruction. The greatest and most famous tanker of WW2 was killed in his Tiger by a P-47 rear shot penetrating the engine compartment, very probably.

But I think we are going off topic. I was speaking about armor invulnerability when in restricted terrain without infantry support and close to the enemy.

[daft]

ORIGINAL: CptWasp



My sources about Normandy are clear about this: CAS was a major cause of Tiger and Panther destruction. The greatest and most famous tanker of WW2 was killed in his Tiger by a P-47 rear shot penetrating the engine compartment, very probably.

But I think we are going off topic. I was speaking about armor invulnerability when in restricted terrain without infantry support and close to the enemy.

I thought it was a Typhoon that originally got credited with the destruction of Wittman's Tiger, but from what I understand it was actually a Firefly, with Joe Ekins at the gun, that killed Wittman? Or am I thinking of the wrong tank ace? [:D]

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: daft

ORIGINAL: CptWasp



My sources about Normandy are clear about this: CAS was a major cause of Tiger and Panther destruction. The greatest and most famous tanker of WW2 was killed in his Tiger by a P-47 rear shot penetrating the engine compartment, very probably.

But I think we are going off topic. I was speaking about armor invulnerability when in restricted terrain without infantry support and close to the enemy.

I thought it was a Typhoon that originally got credited with the destruction of Wittman's Tiger, but from what I understand it was actually a Firefly, with Joe Ekins at the gun, that killed Wittman? Or am I thinking of the wrong tank ace? [:D]

He was the best, no doubt
Yes, it was a Typhoon sorry. I have read many different versions about his death, the one that seemed the most convincing to me was the Typhoon one (I remember a study of the shape of the hole); but I see that today the most common one is the Firefly one. You are right, probably.

[koontz]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: Sheytan

Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.

I very much doubt this. I'd be interested to see your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

Molotov cocktails were eventually mass-produced by the Alko corporation at its Rajamäki distillery, bundled with matches to light them. Production totalled 450,000 during the Winter War.

EDIT:guess not the best source;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M8_hS0gqU8 c.a 1.45

Guess the Finns wouldnt have made 450k if they werent "doing the job"

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: CptWasp

ORIGINAL: daft

ORIGINAL: CptWasp



My sources about Normandy are clear about this: CAS was a major cause of Tiger and Panther destruction. The greatest and most famous tanker of WW2 was killed in his Tiger by a P-47 rear shot penetrating the engine compartment, very probably.

But I think we are going off topic. I was speaking about armor invulnerability when in restricted terrain without infantry support and close to the enemy.

I thought it was a Typhoon that originally got credited with the destruction of Wittman's Tiger, but from what I understand it was actually a Firefly, with Joe Ekins at the gun, that killed Wittman? Or am I thinking of the wrong tank ace? [:D]

He was the best, no doubt
Yes, it was a Typhoon sorry. I have read many different versions about his death, the one that seemed the most convincing to me was the Typhoon one (I remember a study of the shape of the hole); but I see that today the most common one is the Firefly one. You are right, probably.

I watched a really good documentary about this recently on UK TV. They actually recovered parts of the turret of Witmann's Tiger from the field where it was destroyed and they showed the positions of the allied forces on the ground as well.

Witmanns' platoon of 4 Tigers were all knocked out within seconds of each other. The conclusion of the programme was that some were killed by the Firefly, maybe one by another (British?) unit and that Witmann was most likely the victim of a Typhoon strike, all occuring at the same time!

I'm just glad I wasn't there...

[daft]

What Typhoon units operated in the area that day? If I remember correctly, one of the main objections against the Typhoon theory was that the researchers couldn't find any suitable sorties for that particular area, but my memory might be failing me and new findings could obviously have come to light in recent years. Thanks for the heads up! Remember the name of the documentary?

[OlegHasky]

Just a small P.S. on the aircraft issue.

The flight sims, even the really good ones such as IL-2, greatly overstate the effectiveness of WW2 CAS (Close air Support).

I understand Your point James.
But greatly - maybe other titles. Il´s realistics (If you will act realisticly that is - with propper care for your "life" [8D]) makin the odds almost even[;)]
Especially on-line. Where you have other human minds vs you.
Knockin a tank in-motion could be tough. But Youre right. It is a bit easyier technicaly, when flying base planes like Il´s or Stuka.

On the other hand with fighter models adjusted to ground attacks, and aerial combat like Hurricanes, Typhoons, Messer variants etc. Its a tough.. tough task.

I am a pilot myself. And I can say, that excluding the emotional factor, I could have less problems directing the high-speed machine (fighter) on the target in reality, than on actual "Il game"
The stability of the stick = its vulnerability, and sensitivity on low altitudes with those machines is overdone (I know the producers had best intentions) but they went bit to far with that. Whats missing is.. You dont feel the mass of the machine well - and its reflected in the outcome that Ive mentioned above.

So that makes the results pretty even here [;)]. If You also exclude the duration of actual sorties (extended in Il online games) and the ground objects actually being static most of the times.

I went of topic.. Sorry. But the respect had to be given to this great simulation.
Also as a reminder to Panter - the role that aircraft is/was having in military action. The role - that deserves more detailed reflection here in the series. (Its a shame realy that this sector stayed ..static in its poverty)

Now, lets get back to the base topic.

[ZBrisk]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff

...the Tiger crew thought they were on fire and abandoned the Tiger. [:D] American ingenuity!

I think this is a key point that the game might have missed. Crew morale and experience will influence their assessment of the situation and whether or not they bail out. Another factor is the treatment they expect from the enemy. So, a German tank crew might be more willing to surrender to the Americans than to the Soviets.

I've read of Soviet crews refusing to leave their tank even when immobilised and unable to fire - the Germans used crowbars to open the hatches. I also read an account of German 20mm flak guns causing Soviet tank crews to surrender because the terrific noise of the rounds on the hull was too much to bear. No actual damage was done to their T34s - they just could stand it any longer.

Armour thickness + morale + experience + theatre of operations + ammo + damage level/mobility are the factors influencing chance to bail. It's a bailed out tank that loses its combat value just as much as a knocked out one, regardless of penetration and damage modelling... Many crews just bail and retreat

Well, after pounding that Matty I mentioned earlier with PaK38s for a while they did eventually rout and surrender. Its lack of HE certainly helped though.

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

I am a pilot myself. And I can say, that excluding the emotional factor, I could have less problems directing the high-speed machine (fighter) on the target in reality, than on actual "Il game"
The stability of the stick = its vulnerability, and sensitivity on low altitudes with those machines is overdone (I know the producers had best intentions) but they went bit to far with that. Whats missing is.. You dont feel the mass of the machine well - and its reflected in the outcome that Ive mentioned above.

This reminds me, Falcon 4.0 has an option for simplified movement during aerial refueling, because it's just too difficult to control on a computer as opposed to a real cockpit. That's the problem with realistic flight models I guess.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: tyrspawn

Just to comment on the effectiveness of artillery against armor.

Historically artillery is used to BUTTON the vehicle, forcing everyone to close all hatches, which severely limits combat effectiveness. Artillery can also "track" vehicles (immobilizing them), as well as destroy periscopes, external ammo and fuel supplies and disable other subsystems. Of course, a lucky hit could kill a tank.

In modern times arty can be used with a laser designator to directly target both moving and stationary targets.

Moonscaping the terrain also can boge the vehicle down. I work with a guy who was an arty spotter in WWII and he claimed for defense against Tigers they would plow the area up with 155mm rounds and the Tiger would get stuck. I guess they got the occasional knock-out.

[James Sterrett]

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky
But greatly - maybe other titles. Il´s realistics (If you will act realisticly that is - with propper care for your "life" [8D]) makin the odds almost even[;)]

I'll readily agree with you on IL-2's quality!

Nonetheless, kill claims by aircrew vastly outpaced reality when those claims could be directly verified on the ground.

The RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force and the US 9th Air Force claimed a total of 5,860 trucks and 391 AFVs killed in the Falaise Gap by 12,787 sorties.

On the ground, Allied operations research teams identified the cause of the destruction of every vehicle in the Gap.

Rockets destroyed 11 AFVs and 4 trucks.
Bombs destroyed 4 AFVs and 43 trucks.
Cannon and MG fire destroyed 18 AFVs, 278 trucks, and 1 gun.
Abandoned/destroyed by their crews: 100 AFVs, 376 trucks, 50 guns.

[Gooderson, p. 250]

This is the easiest example for me to dig out, but in quite a bit of research on WW2 airpower, this turns out to be the case again and again.

Note that this doesn't mean CAS is ineffective.... the disruption, disorganization, and suppression it caused were very important. But outright slaughter was pretty rare, even under excellent conditions.

[Panther Paul]

ORIGINAL: James Sterrett

The RAF 2nd Tactical Air Force and the US 9th Air Force claimed a total of 5,860 trucks and 391 AFVs killed in the Falaise Gap by 12,787 sorties.

On the ground, Allied operations research teams identified the cause of the destruction of every vehicle in the Gap.

Rockets destroyed 11 AFVs and 4 trucks.
Bombs destroyed 4 AFVs and 43 trucks.
Cannon and MG fire destroyed 18 AFVs, 278 trucks, and 1 gun.
Abandoned/destroyed by their crews: 100 AFVs, 376 trucks, 50 guns.

So for every 852 sorties they knocked out one AFV (not one tank, one AFV, which I assume included armoured cars etc)!

[daft]

ORIGINAL: Panther Paul


So for every 852 sorties they knocked out one AFV (not one tank, one AFV, which I assume included armoured cars etc)!

Yes, and Gooderson seems to be in support of Zetterling's assertions on this issue. It really does seem that there was a tendency for the allies to think their air power caused more damage than they actually did and for the Germans to overstate the factual effects of the allied air supremacy over Normandy, for one reason or another.

[Arimus]

It makes sense in a way because if the air force and artillery and infantry close assault were as effective as they claimed then why were the nations at war building tanks at all?
 
I ran into a similar situation during a computer similuation in 1990. I was tagged to be on the Russian team (about 12 of us) and during the simulation, an Apache (or Cobra) company wiped out an entire Russian tank regiment. I told the programmers that there simulation was not accurate. They countered by saying the missles on the Apache had the range and penetration power to kill as they did. I stated if an apache company could really attain such a high hit/kill rate and wipe out an entire tank regiment, then why are we building tanks? He had no answer...

[CptWaspLuca]

ORIGINAL: Arimus

It makes sense in a way because if the air force and artillery and infantry close assault were as effective as they claimed then why were the nations at war building tanks at all?

I ran into a similar situation during a computer similuation in 1990. I was tagged to be on the Russian team (about 12 of us) and during the simulation, an Apache (or Cobra) company wiped out an entire Russian tank regiment. I told the programmers that there simulation was not accurate. They countered by saying the missles on the Apache had the range and penetration power to kill as they did. I stated if an apache company could really attain such a high hit/kill rate and wipe out an entire tank regiment, then why are we building tanks? He had no answer...

Sorry but I disagree completely: tank are the best way to counter tanks in open terrain and are VERY effective in restricted terrain too BUT ONLY if supported by infantry. In my accounts of the Bulge EVERY TIME the Germans used no infantry support at all they reported big tank losses, generally to Bazookas.

Apache thing (off topic): it's simple, Apache are OK if enemy doesn't have air superiority or a lot of SAMs!

[daft]

Yes, with inadequate support tank units could get badly shot up in built up or constricted areas. Provided that the opposing infantry had proper AT-assets. I think this discussion drifted OT a bit and into the subject of the effectiveness of CAS on armoured ground targets.

[Arimus]

I don't consider a rocket propelled AT weapon a close assault weapon.
 
Most agree that infantry armed with AT weapons can be very effective at killing tanks under the right circumstances. That is why the Germans deployed the bazooka skirts. 
 
 

[Tophat1815]

 Did we ever have a test done on the initial point of this thread about the invulnerable M5's? was it terrain related,a weather issue? Did the german troops consider them a waste of a good panzerfaust?

But bravo! As informative or interesting wandering topics go the airpower discussion was very interesting.

[CptWaspLuca]

I'm doing a test with Elsenborn ridge. I have 21 Tiger under AT and Bazooka fire at close range at bucholz station, no tank losses but some single crew element lost. But those are Tigers, so maybe it's realistic.