Uncle Joe

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.

I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.

[Gunner98]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Just ask Michael Wittman.

A tricky thing to do, he was killed by either a Brit or Cdn Sherman Firefly during Op Totalize - a night attack with 4 Divs on a front of less than 6 Km, not by a Ftr Bmr. Although the stats quoted above seem out of whack, the Ftr bmr was much better suited to hunting and killing logistic and rear area forces than for killing tanks (which it could do if the tank was caught in the open) - in the end, shutting down the logistic system was much more devastating.

A T34/85 vs. a type 97! That would be more one sided than a US M1 vs. an Iraqi T-55 - and that one didn't work out too well for the Iraqis...[8|]

BG

[Jorge_Stanbury]

The best bet for Japan would had been to get extensive # of panzerfaust/ bazookas, etc. Germany used them quite succesfully and I guess it could had delayed, although by just a bit, their inevitable defeat

I think Japan was still using anti tank rifles, lunge mines and molotovs as their primary infantry AT weapons; these could had been very succcesful in the late 30s, against tankettes like the T-26 but totally inadequate vs. real late war tanks

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.

I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.

Actually, if I recall correctly, on the Western front the bulk of Tiger and Panther kills were to allied air power, not ground forces.
I believe something like 80% of tiger kills and around 60% of Panther kills were to Typhoons and T-Bolts.

This is as much a reflection of how badly outclassed the Sherman was than anything else.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.

I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.

Actually, if I recall correctly, on the Western front the bulk of Tiger and Panther kills were to allied air power, not ground forces.
I believe something like 80% of tiger kills and around 60% of Panther kills were to Typhoons and T-Bolts.

This is as much a reflection of how badly outclassed the Sherman was than anything else.

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."


..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Frank

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."

..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.

So apparently the major cause of German Tank losses on the Western Front was cowardly tank crews who blew up or abandoned their vehicles? Wonder what they were afraid of? [&:]

[Barb]

They simply run out of fuel/ammo as their transport vehicles were destroyed by fighter bombers. You can sit in a tank that is not going to move/fire if you want to

Actually there are three air force missions: Strategic bombing, air interdiction and close air support.
Of these strategic bombing could produce most significant results given the right conditions (air superiority etc.)
Air interdiction has its aim in cutting or limiting supply flow to the front. If the front is static it is not very effective as combat troops do not have such big fuel/supply consumption. Coupled with ground pressure, consumpion of the fluid battlefield rise up significantly.
Close air support is least effective of these three - you are trying to attack well hidden targets, dug in and covered by light flak. To effectively destroy a tank you need a direct hit. Mostly you can get a mobility kill - e.g. track thrown off.

[Symon]

Oh, c’mon Mike. You know better than that. Combat is not the antiseptic numbers game that computers suggest.

So here you are, a tank crew, and you are on a road with burning vehicles all around, you got no gas, your ammo resupply convoy is a burning smudge on the horizon, you got little or no commo, nobody knows jack about what’s going on. And the boogey man is on the roads and in the air. So, what cha gonna do?

I know what I’d do. I’d do exactly what they did; bundle up some thermites, toss them down the hatch (no point in leaving the bad guys with a gift), round up who I could, and proceed to seriously dee dee mau the hell outa there.

Cowardly? Heck yes! My butt is worth more than any machine. They can always build me another machine, but they can’t build me another me. So I’d be booking out and looking for better days. Don’t confuse combat soldiers with the literary paragons of military virtue. They bleed and want to get home, just like everybody else.

[ed] Whoops, sorry Barb, see you made the same point while I was ruminating [8D]

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Frank

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."

..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.

So apparently the major cause of German Tank losses on the Western Front was cowardly tank crews who blew up or abandoned their vehicles? Wonder what they were afraid of? [&:]

In case you read the link, your question doesn´t make any sense. In case you haven´t, stopp trolling.
The tanks were abandoned near a bridge, which could not be passed by the heavy tanks.
In the second case, there wasn´t enough fuel to break from the encirclement, so the crew destroyed the tank to prohibit the capture of an intact vehicle.
Just to make you feel even more bad:
The Allies lost about 1200 fighterbombers in the first days of the invasion in France for destroying about 20 tanks.
If you want to see real tankkillers you have to look at the Ju87 with 37mm PAK or the Hs 129 tank cracker.
ju 87 destroying landing boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
HS 129 in interdiction role: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTleVTB-_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm5yeUkp_Bg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129
So please, get real, fighter bombers were not the right tool to handle a tank problem.
Else the German Luftwaffe would have used them in this role! But there were major problems:
The planes were to fast to aim, the plane was to fragile to stand flak
Luftwaffe even tried an automatic Panzerschreck mount on FW190gs, but it didn´t work.
Lateron it was planned to mount wire guided antitank rockets (X7) in twoseat fighterbombers, but time went out and the war was over before it was really worked out.

Planes had to be slow to be able to hit a tank and they had to have the right punch. Both was not true for fighterbombers.

[crsutton]

What bothers me is that many hard core tank and aircraft fans just rely in the basics to define what is good. "The panther was the best tank in the world because it had the best gun, gun sight and thick sloping armor." There really is so much more in determining if an weapon was the best. Just like ships and planes too many other factors have to be considers. A tank was not just a big gun stuck in a lot of metal. What about track life, rate of fire, turret rotation speed, mechanical reliability, and yes, comfort. All of these are important. I think both the t34 and the sherman were the best and most important tanks of the war. Reliable, useful, suited to multi-roles and easily mass produced and easy to modify and improve. In other words they were the best tanks for most situations and important tools in winning the war. Yes, we all know that if a sherman met a panther head on at 2,000 meters what the expected result would be but that does not make it or the T34 inferior.

Personally, in 1945 I think the best tank on the battlefield was the sherman "easy eight" with its special ammo, fast rate of fire, fast turret, HVSS suspension, wet stowage, superior track and engine life, and possibly a functioning gyrostablizer...My second choice would be the T34-85. Two excellent all around tanks.

The panther was my favorite tank but not the best. It's role was too defined and it was just too unreliable.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Frank
..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."

I think, under the circumstances, that the vast majority of AFVs were operational losses. Now I'm just an arty puke, and everybody knows arty don't kill tanks, but there's some Internet sites (which means they must be true) of US Army analysis of the Italian campaign, that has the data. I'll try to find and post it.

Like all things military, it's not as simple as people would like. The VC didn't have tanks and the NVA were keeping their's very close, so I never got to shoot at a tank, but I was trained how to. What you do is shoot rapid with contact fusing; that craters the ground so they shed tracks; it puts a ton of shrapnell in the air, so they shut down. So they got teensy weensy viewports and a nasty terrain to cover. And while they are buttoned up, the infantry can get close and clean their clocks.

So how many were mission kills by the arty? Your call. Shred a track and can't fix it for all the MG hate coming your way, time to Dee Dee Mau. I kinda think that air missions had the same effect.

Can't see squat, don't know jack, all you get is info from your platoon/company leader. That was Germany's advantage. Unless and untill it was broken down and rendered nugatory by Allied air strikes at their HQ/Commo centers. It was a combined arms op. Something the game does not model very well. But hey !!!

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Dont want to go to deep into this discussion but most of the soviet 1941 T-34 where destroyed by German standard anti tank measures which means killed by 37mm/50mm AT guns and PZ-IIIs.
The T-34 achieved also a horrible kill ratio against German tanks. Especially PZ-IIIs in 1941. 3.5 T-34 for Every Panzer III If I remember right.The tank vs tank ratio even shifts more against the T-34 if we include all AFVs (because of the Stug-III)
Of course there are reports about T-34s hit by dozens of German 37mm shells and still runing and front armor was inpenetrable by these except turret ring. but this also a hint about this tanks main problem, it was basically blind.

While it was certainly an inovative design it still had issues I think.
Afaik the German army really had troubles with the KV-1 tanks (in 1941), way more then T-34s

Please dont assume bias I just state what I know (or belive to know)

[Banzan]

The ammount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.
Special AT-planes the Ju87G and Henschel129 were designed and used at the eastern front, as air supprtiority was meaningles there, due the enormously space. If german would have tried to use them the same way on the western front, most of them would have been shot down without even getting close to their targets.

The KV-1 (and KV-2) was more difficult to destory for the german tanks, as they failed to even penetrate them from the sides/rear. The red army had like no experienced tank commanders, and no radios. The crews were too small and always needed the commander to fullfill second role.
Germany learned very early (before the war already), that the tank commander is needed to command only to get the maximum possible effency out of a tank. The french heavy tanks are even a better exampel for a strong design, broken by not adding enough crew and overfilling the crew with too many tasks.

Also, keep in mind, the red armys main strategie till '43/44 was to run straight towards the enemy. No matter how good your tanks are, you will suffer with these kind of "tactic". "Combined forces" can't work either, if you tank commanders can't call for help due the missiong radio.
Germany was often able to re-establish fronts after a breakthrough as the russian armor broke through but failed to exploit it. Instead they stand still till they got new orders, or were destroyed by rallyed and regrouped german troops.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Banzan

The amount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.

To this I would only add the loss of the support vehicles which made tanks usefull. A tank abandoned because FB's had destroyed it's fuel and ammo trucks and brought down all the bridges it could use to move was destroyed by Fighter-Bombers just as surely as if it had been hit with a 500lb bomb. It's what I meant by "what they were afraid of.".

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Banzan

The amount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.

To this I would only add the loss of the support vehicles which made tanks usefull. A tank abandoned because FB's had destroyed it's fuel and ammo trucks and brought down all the bridges it could use to move was destroyed by Fighter-Bombers just as surely as if it had been hit with a 500lb bomb. It's what I meant by "what they were afraid of.".

Not to mention accounts of tank units going to ground and staying concealed in clear a
Weather situations when Jabos were flying about.