Planes Good, Tanks Rubbish

Discussion in 'The War In The Air' started by Kitty, Sep 7, 2007.

  1. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    Of course the Sherman DD would never even think of crossing the Channel, more than enough of them sunk just diebarking close to the Normandy beaches! Or couldn't you sense your leg being pulled? :lol:

    There's no proof the RAF bombed Glen Miller but all the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit quuite nicely. And the first place where I read a seriously article about this was in Aeroplane Monthly, not Pravda.:elkgrin:

    I seem to remember it was about a flight of halifaxs and one nav saw a light aircraft underneath his aircraft as it abandoned his bombs
     
  2. kfz

    kfz Very Senior Member

    One thing IVe never understood about german tanks (Im thinking about the Panther, Tiger, King Tiger here) with a central engine bay with the radiators and fuel tanks either side is why the fuel tanks where not better potected. The Radiator intakes are huge gratings with plenty enough space for .50" or 20mm cannon shell to pass through into the the rads or tanks below (did tanks ever use self sealing fuel tanks?). Ok the grating are deep but if the attacking airvrafe comes in at the steepest angle it can then there must be a very high chance the rounds will pass clean through the gaps of the grating. Seems such a flaw, I must me mistaken.

    Someboady please clarify.

    Kev
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I can only assume the difficult business of cooling under armour took priority over the potentially slim chance of a strike there.

    But check out pics of late war Panthers Kev, you'll often see rather crude steel plates on little legs welded over the openings on the back deck to guard against this possibility. The original grates, certainly on the Tiger, seem well designed though, the slats have a kind of double slope (can't explain it properly, sorry) that blocks the aperture but still allows for the necesary air circulation.
     
  4. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Didnt most of the American tanks sink anyway?


    That was on Omaha.

    All 28 DDs that launched at at Utah made it to the beach, albeit a tad behind time, making it to the the beach 15 minutes after the 4th ID's initial landing. I think 4 DDs were lost when the LCT carrying them struck a mine, so they never got a chance to get into the water.

    The water was rougher at Omaha than Utah; the DDs there faced 6 foot swells, but were only rated to handle 1 foot waves.
     
  5. David Layne

    David Layne Well-Known Member

    only rated to handle 1 foot waves.

    I think I could handle a 5 foot Wave, if not I would enjoy trying.
     
  6. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    One thing IVe never understood about german tanks (Im thinking about the Panther, Tiger, King Tiger here) with a central engine bay with the radiators and fuel tanks either side is why the fuel tanks where not better potected. The Radiator intakes are huge gratings with plenty enough space for .50" or 20mm cannon shell to pass through into the the rads or tanks below (did tanks ever use self sealing fuel tanks?). Ok the grating are deep but if the attacking airvrafe comes in at the steepest angle it can then there must be a very high chance the rounds will pass clean through the gaps of the grating. Seems such a flaw, I must me mistaken.

    Hi Kev. I think you're asking for an impossible thing, you're asking for the planes to come at a near vertical angle with guns blazing. Considering the very short range of aerial cannons/MGs, you'd have a very short time for this before you'd have to pull up unless you wanted to stick your nose in the soil. Also as I said before, a tank is an exceedingly small target to hit from a fast moving plane, more so if you have only seconds to align, aim, fire, bug out.

    The best thing would be to look at some gun camera films of actual strafings, and see how long do they take, ranges, dive angles, etc. What you propose would be considered suicide.

    Remember even the Stuka had an automatic mechanisms to pull up after bomb drop in case the pilot passed out.

    YouTube - P-47 strafing ground targets
    YouTube - P-47 Thunderbolts strafing Italian trains=
    YouTube - P47 Thunderbolt Combat Footage

    See if you can hit anything at all with these:
    YouTube - Hawker Typhoon pt.2=
     
  7. Andy in West Oz

    Andy in West Oz Senior Member

    There's a chapter in Michael Veitch's recent book, Flak, where the guy who's featured remembers seeing a small aircraft low over the channel as they jettisoned their bombs. Same nav? Haven't got the book handy.

    Now, I like tanks. Don't know a lot about them but they're impressive machines. Fair enough, it's a good thing we're all into something different (not hard with WWII, its expansiveness never ceases to amaze me) otherwise life'd be pretty bloody boring. However, how can you compare a tank with this...

    [​IMG]

    or this...

    [​IMG]

    or this YouTube - Messerschmitt Bf-109's on La Ferte Alais 1993 (listen to that turbo whistle!)

    or this...YouTube - P-38, Japanese Zero & Hellcat Startups & Flight- AWESOME! ( I think the Hellcat pilot had her a little rich!)
     
  8. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    That was on Omaha.

    All 28 DDs that launched at at Utah made it to the beach, albeit a tad behind time, making it to the the beach 15 minutes after the 4th ID's initial landing. I think 4 DDs were lost when the LCT carrying them struck a mine, so they never got a chance to get into the water.

    The water was rougher at Omaha than Utah; the DDs there faced 6 foot swells, but were only rated to handle 1 foot waves.


    The ones at utah were sunk because they had practised on freshwater lakes and pond but never faced a tidal water. The Col in charge in a attempt to make up time turned them so that they were abeam of the waves which broke over the canopies
     
  9. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    In short, those DDs sank because they were mishandled by chaps poorly trained in their capabilities & usage. The US didn't really take any of the funnies too seriously before DDay, after the event and considering their performance on other beaches they would have to concede there was a place for such specialist tankage.

    This is going off the point though.

    Back to the pointless but entertaining bickering!
    I reckon tanks can look damned fine too, this ones positively steamy...:
    [​IMG]

    And the affection I feel for this old dear really is enormous ;)
    [​IMG]

    Just as not all tanks attract me though, not all planes are beautiful either :mellow:.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Ahhhh, planes can be beautiful at times, it depends on what your tastes are.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    http://forum.valka.cz/download.php/id/51757/sid/a701e913d8272984161fff6f40ad2e86

    [​IMG]

    Shall I go on?

    Off topic, I stmbled upon this:
    The world’s ten most unfortunately coded airports:
    Perm, Russia (PEE)
    Pocos de Caldas, Brazil (POO)
    Butler, Missouri (BUM)
    Sioux City, Iowa (SUX)
    Samcheok, Korea (SUK)
    Fukuoka, Japan (FUK)
    Dickinson, North Dakota (DIK)
    Sembach, Germany (SEX)
    La Esperanza, Honduras (LEZ)
    Princeville, Hawaii (HPV)

    :elkgrin:

    More ugly planes here!
     
  11. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    While still smirking at the airport codes I've got to say I rather like those planes (particularly F-AHAF)... maybe it's their tankish aesthetic.:unsure:
     
  12. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    And how could I forget about the Northrop YC-125? So ugly that at a time I thought of making a flying model of it :lol:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Aww you gotta love the ugly pups of the air. Something so endearing about them.

    Boys, if it was impossible to line up, aim, strike and pull out in the limited time available to them, then how come the Typhoons were still taking out such tiny ickle targets as a moving tank?
     
  14. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Read it again mate, Za was only referring to the theoretical aimed shot through the vent grilles on the rear deck.
     
  15. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    I know he was, but then again he was asking if it was possible to kill a tank through its grills in such a limited time to line up.

    New question for you:

    What it was that kept the German tanks from the DDay beaches, and from the Normandy bridgehead? And who was it that the Germans actually feared the most - the Jabos or the Shermans?

    Hmm?
     
  16. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

    I know he was, but then again he was asking if it was possible to kill a tank through its grills in such a limited time to line up.

    New question for you:

    What it was that kept the German tanks from the DDay beaches, and from the Normandy bridgehead? And who was it that the Germans actually feared the most - the Jabos or the Shermans?

    Hmm?


    Hitler would not allow the reserves of panzers divisions up to the battlefront as Rommel wanted
     
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    What it was that kept the German tanks from the DDay beaches, and from the Normandy bridgehead? And who was it that the Germans actually feared the most - the Jabos or the Shermans?

    Hmm?
    Nobody here's going to denigrate the enormous affect of air superiority in Normandy, the specific point is one of actual destruction.

    Aircraft denied movement, communications, support etc. to the panzers, but they did not destroy the actual armoured vehicles to anything like the extent that oft cited popular belief has it. Every contemporary report, or history based on as solid sources as possible (rather than legend), that I've so far read appears to confirm this.
    The panzerwaffe in Normandy was not deprived of it's vehicles by aerial cannon and rocket strikes. Ground weapons (with the men that used them, of course) and unreliability performed the vast bulk of the actual killing.

    Edit: cross posted with Morses, "yeah, it was Hitler" was a much better answer! :lol:
     
  18. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Thank you for that spirited defence Morse.

    Hitler's delay was only for the first 12 hours or so - he released the two reserve Panzer divisions at about 4pm of the 6th - after which they had to crawl around in the dark because of AIRCRAFT attacks!
     
  19. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Good luck performing that capture of a heavily defended shore with nothing but planes mate. ;)
     
  20. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Kitty, please understand this. Planes in WW2 in the Western Front did not destroy tanks except by the most extreme flukes.They did not have the armament for this, and the targets themselves are extremely small.

    In the Eastern Front both Sovs and Germs had specialised planes, mainly the Ju-87G, Hs 129 and Il-2. There were none like these west. Even the Desert Hurricanes with those 40mm AT guns were not replicated, so can be counted as a failure.

    As for the Typhoons, yes, they had that impressive firepower provided by their 4x20mm and those 60lb rockets. However, as one of of the films I quoted above shows, those rockets were area fire weapons only, that is, they were good for shooting up the target's general area, they were not GPS bombs. In the film they are snaking a lot as they fly!

    Again, what these planes were excellent at was shooting up non-armoured vehicles, they made a carnage at the Falaise Gap for instance among the trucks and the horseflesh, but how many tanks were actually destroyed?

    In the meantime while Adam looks up his old relevant After the Battle issue ;) I found this thread elsewhere.

    I'm going to give this a read later as I should be busy now and will come back afterwards.

    This article Effects of Allied Air Power is also interesting.

    Often the German attack at Mortain is used as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. But in fact this engagement is rather an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd TAF claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area 7 - 10 August, while 9th US Air Force claimed 112.1 This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation.2 In fact no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons.3
    Actually it seems that very few German tank were lost due to hits from weapons carried by aircraft. Probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire campaign. Rather it seems that air attacks on tank formation protected by AA units were more dangerous to the aircraft than to the tanks. Allied losses of aircraft were considerable, the 2nd TAF (including elements of Air Defence of Britain that took part in the Normandy campaign) lost 829 aircraft, while US 9th Air Force lost 897.4
     

Share This Page