Tankbusters of WW2

A discussion about the best aircraft for tankbusting in WW2. But first read this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

 

An open door mister! Chek out these topics:
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=562
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=221

 

OK, I'll add some fuel to the fire; from 'Flying Guns - World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' by Emmanuel Gustin and myself:

"The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units (one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. As the Allies were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.

The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

Hmmm, interesting. But I go back to what the Germans had to say, and they greatly feared Allied air support in all its forms. Rommel especially respected the difference air support made in panzer operations. The truth well could lie somewhere in the middle.

My vote goes to the Typhoon, the P-47 a close second.

 

I'll take the Typhoon or Tempest.

Wow sounds like a lot of research was done here, nice work. Perhaps rthe Allied airpower as tank busters could be better assumed to have greatly impacted the supply columns of fuel and the likes?
Any thought to that idea?

 

Very much so. Another quote from the book:

"Despite their lack of success in destroying tanks, the fighter-bomber attacks made a substantial contribution to the battles. Cannon and HMG fire could be devastatingly effective against other vehicles, notably the supply chain on which the Panzers depended to remain in action, also resulting in blocked roads which indirectly hampered Panzer operations. Bomb and RP attacks could also be effective against area targets such as concentrations of vehicles.

Most importantly, their morale effect was considerable. It appears that far more tanks were abandoned undamaged as a result of air attack than were ever destroyed by it. Logically, the tank crews might have known that the safest place they could be was inside the tank, but having seen the appalling destruction inflicted by any RPs and bombs which did hit, they generally preferred to bail out at the first sight of the dreaded Jabos and take their chances in the open. It should be noted that in the Mortain battle described earlier in this section, a major Panzer attack was completely disrupted and prevented from making progress despite the fact that few tanks were destroyed."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

One question TW, do these figures include tanks destroyed by strategic bombers? The accounts I've read (and pictures) of the massive destruction to tanks during Operation Cobra bombings would seem to indicate a significant number just in this operation alone.

 

I believe this topic is about the tank busters, and therefore tactical bomber force. The damage done by a specific type of airplane would be hard to distinguish afterwards, though.

 

40mm AT gun on Typhoon?

Tony,

I may have asked you this before on another board but given there was a Hurricane version with 40mm AT guns, have you ever been able to find anything to suggest a version of the Typhoon with 40mm A/T gun was considered - it seems to me it would have been more accurate than RP's or bombs?

paul

 

I do not recall seeing any proposals for the Typhoon with 40mm. However, a Tempest was fitted with a pair of guns intended to replace the 40mm: the 47mm Vickers Class P. Unfortunately, it wasn't tested until after the war. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Pgun.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

That was the fate of many promising weapons systems: Just too late.

 

There was one other interesting British idea which could have been useful if it had come around sooner: fitting the 40mm S gun with a Littlejohn squeezebore adaptor. This could have dramatically boosted its performance. See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/sgun.htm

And then there was the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII or Tsetse with the 57mm Molins gun - see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm I don't really understand why this one wasn't used for its designed purpose as a 'tankbuster'.

Tony Williams

 

Tempest with A/T guns

The A/T Hurricanes had their armament reduced to a single 0.303 in each wing (used for aiming purposes for the 40mm A/T gun?).

Did the extra power available to the Tempest mean it could keep any of its 20mm cannon for self defence?

 

Re: Tempest with A/T guns

I don't know - I've not read any details of the RAF's thinking on this.

Tony Williams

 

Tony,

Thanks for the info regarding the ineffectivness of tactical air-power against tanks. Everything I had read rarely mentioned tanks being destroyed by aircraft, other than by heavy bombers in mass attacks. It always looked to me that the value of tac air was in preventing fuel, ammo, spare parts and food getting forward.
I had never seen any figures on the subject though.

 

The tanks themselves are often invulnerable to small-calibre cannons and HMGs. The degree of destruction those fighter-bombers were capable of then in nowhere what you would expect out of an A-10 or an AH-64.

However, its not the tanks which were the issue. Destruction of supply columns was equally fatal, and unarmoured trucks without roof mounted AA MGs moving in a straight line often presented far easier targets than the tanks thenselves which were likely to be protected by AA weapons since they were in the frontline. And each supply column represented, in effect, the ability of an entire tank unit to operate as a fully-fledged combat unit.

I'm surprised the IL-10 Sturmovich has not been mentioned here. It seems to be a pretty devastating tank destroyer (2X20mm cannon, 2X23mm cannon, 2X MGs) with enough armour to protect it from AA MGs.

 

What about the German projects ?

For example the Ju 87G sporting two 37mm guns. Rudel claimed more than 500 tanks in this aircraft. Did those BK 3.7 cannons have enough firepower to substansiate this claim ?

 

Maybe it depends where you hit? Frontal armour, no way. Sides, maybe. Roof and back, most definitely.
Btw, I have read Rudels book. Very interesting.

 

Well, the details of gun armament and its effectiveness against tanks, plus the fit-outs of aircraft, are included in the first link I posted, at: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

Rudel like to attack the tanks from the rear, reasons:2
1.- is the weakeast part of almost any tank and
2.- in case he got damage by AA he is on rout to the german side