# Tank Busting Armaments... Whats The Best Setup???



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Which Armament Package do u think was the best setup for Tank Busting.... The plane portion is irrelevant for this discussion.....

The HS-129B3/Wa....
2x 13mm MG 131's
2x 20mm MG 151/20 cannon (125 rounds each) 
1x 75mm BK 7.5 cannon and 26 rounds 

The Ju-87G-2 'Panzerknacker' :
2x 37 mm BK 3.7 cannon in underwing gondolas
2x 7.92mm MG 81Z machine guns

Il-2/M3:
2 x 23mm VYa guns
2 x 12.7mm BS machine guns
2 x 7.62mm machine guns

Fw-190A-8/R2:
2x 30mm Mk 108 cannon
2x 20mm MG 151E/20 cannon
2x 13mm MG 131's

Any other suggestions???
Someone post the same stats for the Typhoon??? Rockets are interesting....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

The Henschel Hs-129


Where'd you get all the profiles from?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 13, 2004)

Yeah, great profiles!  
IMO, the Ju-87G-1 would be best. In the right hands, those twin 37mm's were absolutely hellish!
It was my understanding that the Hs-129 was not overly successful, but then that was due to the actual aircraft design, and not the weapons package as such.
But yeah, that single 75mm BK cannon would definitely spell "good night" for a tank!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

are people forgetting the 2x40mm on the hurricane Mk.IID?? they were very effective................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 13, 2004)

Very true!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

or of course the ultimate tank buster, the rocket armed swordfish


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

No lanc, its too early in the topic for jokes like that...

But I always was a rebel...

Did you guys know about the Rocket armed Me-321 glider? It never even made the prototype stage but it was designed to carry 48 rockets under each wing  and it had 12 x 20mm cannons in the nose, with another 8 x 30mm cannons on the wings


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

wow, and it'd still be like target practice for fighters


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Oh no, not with the heat seeking missiles the Germans also had in development. When an enemy aircraft got within 10km of it, the radr sensors would automatically detect it and fire a missle. They were destined to carry 24 of these.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

how would it identify it as enemy or friendly??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

By the markings on the aircraft. The sensors were highly developed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Knowing the Germans I wouldnt be surprised if they actually tried to do that


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I just search for profiles of certain planes and TA-DA, i got em......

The Hurricane Mk. IV:
2x .303 Browning Machine guns
2x 40mm Vickers cannon 
8x 27kg (60lb) rockets


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)




----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

WHat version of Tiffy is that???? You gotta add the armament stats for us CC......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Dude I dunno, i just posted the profile cos no-one else did...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

research em dammit... Make an effort atleast to back up the pic......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

cba to research until ive posted all I can. posts first, research second 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Hawker Typhoon Mk. IB:
4x 20 mm Hispano Mk.II cannons
8x 3" 60 Ib (27 kg) rocket projectiles

Hawker Tempest Mk.V Series 2:
4x 20 mm Hispano Mk.V cannons
8x 3" 60 Ib (27 kg) rocket projectiles


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

the large link at the bottom of the site will take you to a page with thousands of profiles, it's a very good site...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I dont think the tempest was really used for tank busting, it was more a fighter.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 13, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> By the markings on the aircraft. The sensors were highly developed.






Even if this was true...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

LMFAOROFL......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

why that's positively engenious................


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 14, 2004)

For details of the tankbuster and their armament, and which was best, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 14, 2004)

Mmmmm...Typhoon...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 14, 2004)

Here's some more, none as good as the original...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 14, 2004)

Cute!


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 14, 2004)

Sweet, but what about the USAAF aircraft? I know that ours were not as freindly to cannons, but the 8x0.50inch machine guns on the P-47 and its rockes were very good!

Question that 75mm cannon on the HA-129, did it work as well or poorly as the oe tried on the B-25s? The USAAF foud that the slow fireing times and small amount of rounds made it hard to use in aircraft and that was on shipping mostly, not even tanks that have a lot more of them.


----------



## Andrew (Nov 15, 2004)

Tiffy Mk 2
4 X 20mm Cannon
up to 16 X 60lb rockets (Experimental 2 Tier Mounts)


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 15, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> Question that 75mm cannon on the HA-129, did it work as well or poorly as the oe tried on the B-25s? The USAAF foud that the slow fireing times and small amount of rounds made it hard to use in aircraft and that was on shipping mostly, not even tanks that have a lot more of them.



The BK 7,5 used in the Hs 129 was much better than the US gun; partly because it was more powerful, but mainly because it had an autoloader whereas the B-25's gun needed a man to chuck a fresh cartridge into the breech each time it fired.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Andrew (Nov 16, 2004)

The 6lb Anti Tank Gun fitted to the Mosquito Tetse, had an autoload arrangement produced by Molins, who were one of the major manufactures of Cigarette Dispensing Machines.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2004)




----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 16, 2004)

Thnks, but I still think the 75mm guns were stil to slow for aircraft. I would have loved to see some 40mm cannons on the B-25, but the US loved the .50 so much and why not it as great for what it did!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

against soft targets yes but there were some things that required a bit more beef............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

I believe that was a dietist remark...please consider veggies/vegans in future


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 17, 2004)

Beef is beef and no I will not and hope Lanc wil not make some posts overly Politicaly Corect. I agree with Lanc, that Hurts, and the 0.50s were light, but the rate of fire dose make up for it. The P-38 seemed to have the bst mix. And some Hellcats had 20mm with the 0.50s as well.

I think that the arms need to be able to stay over the lines for a long time, and the 0.50s had lots of round to put out and hit you.


----------



## JCS (Nov 17, 2004)

> Tiffy Mk 2



 Stupid question... What the hell is a "Tiffy"?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

The affectionate name for the Hawker Typhoon


----------



## JCS (Nov 17, 2004)

Oh  Thats what I was thinking but I wasnt sure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

don't worry, the nicnames are best known in Britian..............


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 19, 2004)

But the Typhoon was a late development and had lots of problums early. So look at the Hurricaine. The 40mms used in North Africa were effective and it could hold enough shells to last a while.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

i believe it had 15rpg, but yes, it was VERY effective................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

15 Rocket propelled Grenades?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

rounds per gun.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

I know...it was a lame joke...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

indeed................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Hey thats my phrase...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

In terms of tank busting, the Stuka is the only airframe that has the #'s of tanks destroyed on official record..... Im sure the Il-2 was a close second, but I have been unable to find stats regarding how many tanks the Shturms destroyed....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

What was the deal with the Fw-190 F series that ive heard of somewhere...?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Damn now my post doesnt make sense  Ah well


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

The F Series Focke Wulf Fw 190

The F Series Focke Wulf 190 The F series was a natural evolution of the type to suit ever-expanding mission requirements, in this case for ground support, with the increasing obsolescence of the famous Stuka.

F-1 through F-8 versions had been designed, but only the F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-8 were built in any quantity, with the largest share consisting of F-8's. In all, around 550 of the F series were built. Approximately 385 were the F-8 variant.

F-8 production began around March 1944. Defining features are typically based upon the A-8, with 115 liter fuselage tank, outboard pitot, FuG16ZY or ZS and possibly an FuG 25 radio, ETC 501 center fuselage stores rack, and the added ETC 50 or later ETC 71 under wing stores racks, with either standard or later style bubble canopy. Outboard cannon were deleted.

F-8's served well in the ground attack role. The armored cowling, the Panzer ring, helped to protect the air-cooled BMW engine, and armor plate added further protection for the pilot. Self-sealing fuel tanks were also standard equipment. Some aircraft could also be equipped with the Rustsatze consisting variously of MG 151/20 20mm cannon, MK 103 30mm cannon, or MK 108 30mm cannon.

Many additional roles for the F-8 were explored such as extended range versions, trainer versions, and types equipped for delivery of Bomben-Torpedo, Panzerblitz missiles, the Ruhrstahl missile, and the Hagelkorn glide bomb. 

The F series was a dedicated ground attack aircraft. These were fitted with armor around the cockpit sides, under the fuselage and the engine cowling. This armor, however, was in the form of thicker skinning. It was NOT the external appliqué armor fitted to the A-6/7/8. The F series did not carry the outer wing cannon, but did carry the cowling guns. Remember, these aircraft were fitted with armor that made them true F- series machines, but this was not externally visible. All carried a small, rectangular panel in the cockpit below the main instrument panel. This panel contained the bomb arming switches and status lights.

F-1

As previously mentioned, this was based on the A-4/U3. Supposedly less than thirty were made. I’ve never seen a verified photo of one. I’m not even sure what the WNr block might have been. They had the centerline ETC rack, but no wing racks.

F-2 

This was based on the A-5/U3. It is difficult to distinguish, visually, from an A-5/U3. WNr. are the only reliable way. 
It had the centerline rack and bomb carrier, but no wing racks. 

F-3

This was based on the A5/U17 variant which had wing racks. However, the decision was made to mate this with the new wing design of the A-6. The result was the F-3. Some A-5/U17s may have served operationally, but these cannot be distinguished from a genuine F-3 except by WNr. 

It had the centerline rack which could carry bombs or a fuel tank. 
It had wing racks which carried small bombs. 
You frequently see F-3 aircraft without a full bomb-load. This was usually dictated by operational requirements. I.e., small, HE or frag bombs on the wings, but no centerline bomb, or vice-versa. It is extremely rare to see and F-3 or F-8 carrying bombs on all carriers. 
There was no F-4 through F-7, although experiments went on with each variant based on the A series.

F-8

This was the variant used by so many SKG and SG Geschwadern in the last year of the war. It was based on the A-8 so it had the same panel lines. 

As per the F-3 it had wing and fuselage racks. 
Late in 1944 and into 1945, some began to carry the Pb 8 and other types of air to ground rockets. 
Remember, these also had the Mk 108 bulges in the top wing, but flat panels underneath the wing over the ammunition loading locations. 
Some were retrofitted with the bulged canopy and accompanying armor. This was not a "standard" fitting on the F-8. 

F-9

They did exist, but photos are rare and not totally verifiable. This was the parallel version of the A-9 but fitted with the F equipment of bomb racks, etc.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Thanks  Ive wondered about the F series for ages and now I know


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Ur Welcome...


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 21, 2004)

The Fw 190 was only equipped experimentally with the big 30mm MK 103 cannon (the only gun it could carry which was capable of penetrating tank armour). The installation was not a success and this variant didn't enter service.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

The above statement is true.. The Fw-190A8/R3 was designed to carry the Mk.103 cannon, but tests proved it was not a viable weapon.....

Not so sure on Tonys statement concerning the Mk.103 being the only cannon that could penetrate tank armor.... The armor on a Sherman was not that thick...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 21, 2004)

He did say it was the only one it was capable of carrying that could penetrate it...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

I dont believe that the engine compartment armor on a Sherman could withstand a 20mm HE round, let alone a 30mm round from the Mk.108.....


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 21, 2004)

HE rounds had virtually zero penetration of any thickness of armour - they just blew up on the surface. And the 20mm AP rounds from the MG 151 could penetrate a maximum of around 20mm if they hit at short range with the armour vertical. Given the longer ranges and shallow angles of attack actually used, it stood virtually no chance of penetration.

After all, if tanks could be knocked out by 20mm cannon, why did everyone go to the trouble of fitting huge anti-tank guns and inaccurate rockets?

TW


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

Good points..... Although I do believe that the 30mm Mk.108 could definatly destroy a Sherman or a T-34..... Especially since the Sherman drove around with Gasoline tanks...

So what do u think the Best Tank Busting Armament setup was?????


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 21, 2004)

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm for a detailed answer!

TW


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 21, 2004)

I read u page awhile back, and re-read it just now... And u didnt answer the question.. Using hypotheticals is not an answer.. 

Which plane that functioned in an Anti-Tank capacity do u think was the Best????


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 22, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Which plane that functioned in an Anti-Tank capacity do u think was the Best????



Hs 129. The twin engines meant that it could mount one gun on the centreline, providing greater mounting rigidity and accuracy than underwing guns. With the MK 103 it could deal with most tanks, with the BK 7,5 with any tank (at the expense of performance and handling). I'm surprised it didn't see more use with the BK 3,7 or BK 5.

TW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

but at the same time a rocket armed tiffy could take out any tank, and the rockets didn't hamper performance to much..........


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

But the rockets were not as accurate as the centerline guns. I think the centerline guns are more importent and the twin engine airframes are more stable. The Hs 129 did very well but what I read it was not well liked in the high command.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

Its a shame the P-8 wasnt used for Tank busting - It would have been good I think because it was already good at regular ground attack, and it had the ability to carry both rockets and the centreline guns. Being twin engined it was also a lot more stable than the tiffy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 22, 2004)

P-8? Sorry I meant P-38


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 22, 2004)

It was affective with tanks, but the USAAC liked the P-47s petter. But the P-38 was good at realy anything it anted to do. For tank busting the Kmodel would have worked, but did not come to production. Also by early 1945 the airframe was coming to the limits of it's design.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Which Armament Package do u think was the best setup for Tank Busting.... The plane portion is irrelevant for this discussion.....
> 
> The HS-129B3/Wa....
> 2x 13mm MG 131's
> ...



The MK108 would be nearly useless. You want the FW190A-8/R3 I think, it had 2 x MK103 30mm cannon, much higher velocity and thus more effective against thick armor (if firing an AP round).

Hmmm... best armament - NAPALM. Near 100% kill rate against German tanks.

Best gun? I'd go with the NS-37 or maybe the NS-45. These russian cannon fired a huge round at very high velocity, and they fired at 250 rpm, much faster than most other large cannon. The VYa 23mm is also a very good choice, but probably insufficient to kill Tigers from most angles of attack. I think all other WWII guns fall short by comparison, at least for tank killing.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## johnny (Nov 23, 2004)

Didnt Hans Ulrich Rudel fly a Stuka for years on the Eastern front and must have knocked out thousands of tanks in his career.Think he wrote a book on his life as a pilot during the war.Recon the Stuka or the IL2 must be the best anti-tank planes of the war, or any war for that matter.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

johnny said:


> Didnt Hans Ulrich Rudel fly a Stuka for years on the Eastern front and must have knocked out thousands of tanks in his career.Think he wrote a book on his life as a pilot during the war.Recon the Stuka or the IL2 must be the best anti-tank planes of the war, or any war for that matter.



Topic is not the plane, it's the armament.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## johnny (Nov 23, 2004)

Didnt see that part!! Sorry.  .Would have to with the 30mm Mk 108 cannon. I am going now.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

rudel got 11 air to air kills and 519+ tanks...................


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 23, 2004)

Well, he CLAIMED 519 tanks. When the tank-kill claims of Allied fighter-bomber pilots were copmpared with evidence found on the battlefield, it was found that they overclaimed by 10x...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

Wow really? That would mean he only got 52 tanks...


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 23, 2004)

He probably did better than that, since the Ju 87G's 37mm guns were far more accurate than the rockets and bombs used by the Allies.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

when using 60lb rockets accuracy isn't a huge issue, they'll destroy anything within a adaquate radius...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Good point.


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> when using 60lb rockets accuracy isn't a huge issue, they'll destroy anything within a adaquate radius...............



Nope. You had to score a direct hit with an RP to knock out a tank (with bombs you could do it with a near miss). And the chances of that? In training, they could get up to 5% hits. In combat, this was officially estimated to drop to 0.5%. In other words, one hit in 200 rockets. That's why they didn't knock out many tanks...

With big guns firing aimed single shots, the claimed hits in training were between 25% and 60%. Accuracy would have reduced in combat, but by nothing like as much as rockets as guns were easier to aim.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> when using 60lb rockets accuracy isn't a huge issue, they'll destroy anything within a adaquate radius...............



5" HVAR (General Purpose):
length: ~ 6 feet (1.83 m)
diameter: ~ 5" (12.7 cm)
weight: 140 lbs (63.5 kg)
payload: If I recall correctly about 20 lbs of RDX. This warhead was housed in a steel casing capable of penetrating 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) of armor or 4 feet (1.2 meters) of reinforced concrete.

There was also an anti-armor verson but I don't have specifics on it.

The point however is, even with the 5" HVAR, which was much more potent than the 3" rockets, *you had to hit the tank *to have a chance of disabling or killing it. In Korea, they found they had to hit the tank on the side, and the most common result from a single hit was to knock off a track not to "kill" the tank. Usually these were fired in salvos of 4 or 8 rockets at a single tank, and several hits were likely to kill it. The T-34's were about equivalent to German WWII tanks, perhaps a little tougher to kill because of the diesle engine (German tanks burned gasoline), but the rockets were also improved with shaped charge warheads.

The 5" HVAR's were actually pretty accurate, a skilled pilot could hit a stationary tank most of the time with a single rocket in ideal conditions. In post war competitions using a P-51, the winner put 10 of 10 HVAR's in a 10 foot radius circle, the 2nd place finisher scored 9 of 10 "hits". During WWII (and for most pilots in Korea), pilots had to learn to hit with these weapons in combat, there was no training for this, which probably explains why so many were not very good with them. And of course, conditions were generally not "ideal".

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 24, 2004)

With the RAF's 3 inch RPs, the average miss distance in action was around 60 yards (tightening up to around 40 yards or so later, with better sights). With bombs, the average miss distance for the Typhoons was 120 yards.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

Tony Williams said:


> With the RAF's 3 inch RPs, the average miss distance in action was around 60 yards (tightening up to around 40 yards or so later, with better sights). With bombs, the average miss distance for the Typhoons was 120 yards.
> 
> Tony Williams



I don't know about the British rockets, but with HVAR's they were fairly accurate. Pilots who used them say a tank on the field of battle in Korea could be hit one in three passes with single shot salvos, one in two passes with a salvo of 4. This was after they had experiance in firing them, early on they did poorly since they were not well trained with rockets. The best approach was from about the 4/8 oclock position at 30 degrees.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 27, 2004)

But guns were still better. The only problum is the rpg coun t for the guns and rate of fire. I am a strong supporter of any platform that will keep its guns or rockets over the battle for long times.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 27, 2004)

MP-Willow said:


> But guns were still better. The only problum is the rpg coun t for the guns and rate of fire. I am a strong supporter of any platform that will keep its guns or rockets over the battle for long times.



I'm not so sure guns were better. Hitting the tank with guns was not so easy either, and often hitting it did not take it out, and to do so you had to get in close. Rockets (5") almost always took out a tank if it was hit squarely. The idea is to get in, kill the tank, and get out, without having to make a lot of passes. For this, 8 x 5" rockets were ideal. One plane could take out 1-2 tanks with a fair degree of reliability and relatively little exposure to ground fire (compared to using guns).

Figure it would take 4 rockets to have a 50% chance to take out a tank. It would probably take 3-10 shots with a cannon to do the same job, depending on the conditions, the cannon, and the type of tank. With rockets, you make a high speed pass and fire from about 750 feet altitude and about 1500-2000 feet distance, with a gun you have to fire from about 100 feet altitude and about 750 feet or less distance, and lower speed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 28, 2004)

You have to remember that we are talking about WW2 technology, when rockets were new and not very good. The USAAF's P-47s had RPs but made relatively little use of them, normally carrying bombs for ground attack, which suggests that they didn't find their RPs very effective.

The pattern of gun attack varied considerably depending on the plane and the nature of the target. The Hurri IIDs normally began firing at 900m from the target (3,000 feet), getting in about four shots per gun (each pair of shots being aimed individually) before pulling up to avoid hitting the tank. The Ju 87G normally had its guns zeroed at 450m (1,500 feet) but Rudel reduced his to 100m when the JS heavy tanks came out.

Provided that the gun was powerful enough to penetrate the tank, then gun attack proved to be many times more effective than RP attack in the WW2 timeframe.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

Tony, which rockets are you refering to as RP's? As far as I know there was very little difference between the 5" HVAR of late WWII and the 5" HVAR of Korea.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 28, 2004)

I meant WW2 RPs in general. I have no specific accuracy figures for the HVARs, but circumstantial evidence (the fact that the P-47 groups generally preferred bombs, and also the fact that very few tanks were knocked out by RPs) suggest that they were not very effective in WW2.

Changes to improve performance may not have been obvious - they could consist of subtle changes to improve consistency of rocket performance, for example.

TW


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 28, 2004)

It really depends on so many factors...

Not that many true 5" HVAR's were used in WWII, especially in the ETO. The first rockets were 3.5" motors behind a 4.5" warhead fired from a tube. These were horribly inaccurate. When the zero-length launchers were first installed, the rockets had a 5" AA shell as a warhead on them but used the same 3.5" motor, and while quite a bit more accurate because they had the fins on them they were not effective on tanks. Later the 3.5" rocket motor was replaced with a 5" rocket motor, and these were both accurate and effective vs. tanks, but by the time they actually reached combat the war in Europe was nearly over. I'm not sure how many tank targets were there to be destroyed by the time the 5" HVAR's reached the battle field. Also, the terrain in Europe proper was not generally open enough to allow tank attacks like those conducted on the E. Front or in N. Africa. It's questionable how effective cannon would have been in that environment (lots of trees and obstructions in N. Italy, France, and W. Germany).

During WWII, pilots were not trained in firing rockets, they had to learn in battle. They had been trained in dropping bombs. Furthermore, no experimentation about how to take out a tank with a rocket was conducted. So pilots were going into it pretty blind. Even in Korea, pilots had little idea how to go about attacking a tank with rockets, and it was not until the 2nd year of that war that a relatively successful attack docrine was developed.

In Korea, Skyraider pilots prefered rockets to bombs for attacking T-34's. The rockets were usually identical to those used in WWII, though there was a type that used shape charge technology gleaned from the Germans (but these were rarely carried as they were not so effective on anything but armor). As far as accuracy goes, there was no change at all as far as I know.

In 1946 or so, there was a competition where P-51 pilots fired 10 rockets at a 10' radius circle chalked in the dirt. The winner put 10 of 10 rockets in the circle, the 2nd place finisher put 9 of 10 rockets in the circle, and almost all the competitors put at least 5 rockets in the circle. However, all were vetrans experianced with firing rockets.

So I would argue that it was the pilot's lack of experiance with rocketing tanks, not the technology, that prevented the 5" HVAR's from being an effective anti-tank weapon in WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

but the pilot's COs had told them it they would work, if your CO told you they would work, by god they were gonna work or you were for it................


----------



## MP-Willow (Nov 30, 2004)

But Thr rockets took time to get used to. Even in the Pacific they were not that great. But then bombs and napam were the first pick.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

they were used extensively over europe.............


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> they were used extensively over europe.............



Yes they were, starting about the end of summer '44. Thusly I make the point that the mountainous terrain of N. Italy and the heavily forested terrain of E. France and W. Germany were not well suited rocket attacks against tanks. They were not well suited to cannon attacks either. So we really do not know how effective the 5" HVAR might have been had it been deployed in time for N. Africa or the tank battles of the Russian stepps. Pointing to stats showing few tank kills with 5" HVAR's as compared to cannon used totally different conditions is not very relevant.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 2, 2004)

It may be that the HVAR was much more capable than its very limited achievements in WW2 would indicate, but that cannot now be determined. However, the characteristics of an RP by comparison with a gun - the long flight time, the odd trajectory (accelerating at first, then slowing down again) the vulnerability to side winds and the importance of avoiding all drift in the plane when firing - made it much more difficult to fire accurately. I don't doubt that skilled pilots who practiced a lot got very good in training - but combat was a different matter. You had to have a cool, calculating head to shoot RPs well, and that is just what most pilots didn't have in the stress of combat. So it's no surprise that the RAF found that their pilots' hit record with RPs slumped from 5% in training to 0.5% in combat. The HVAR may have done better than this, I don't know (I have no comparative info from WW2) but still would have suffered from similar problems. In contrast, high-velocity cannon were much simpler - you just put the sights on the target and fired!

There was nothing specially difficult about anti-tank operations in NW Europe. The tanks could be seen from the air, they were frequently attacked, but rarely hit.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Tree's and hilly ground make all tank attacks more difficult.


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 2, 2004)

If you can see the tanks, you can attack them. And judging by the hundreds of claims of knocked-out tanks made by RAF and USAAF pilots, they had no problems in seeing plenty of them and in launching attacks. The only problem was, they weren't hitting many of them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
 forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

Tony Williams said:


> If you can see the tanks, you can attack them. And judging by the hundreds of claims of knocked-out tanks made by RAF and USAAF pilots, they had no problems in seeing plenty of them and in launching attacks. The only problem was, they weren't hitting many of them.



Sure, because they were high angle attacks. It was rarely possible to approach from a low angle in W. Europe like it was in N. Africa and Russia.

Look at the Hurc IID attack method, which was to get down around 50-100 feet and attack the tank from the side. That was very doable in N. Africa, but not in W. Europe where the tanks were either in forested areas, or urban areas. Similarly, the Sturmovik attacks were made from very low almost level approaches.

RAF and USAAF pilots still attacked the tanks, but from much steeper angles, and thus a much lower level of success. The Luftwaffa' was no where to be seen and the British didn't even bother to bring the Hurc IID to W. Europe. It wasn't that there wern't pleanty of German tanks to be destroyed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 2, 2004)

Most of the NW Europe tank battles were in the relatively open farmlands of Northern France. Urban development and forests between them would have covered no more than a quarter of the land area. There were lots of hedges which obstructed ground fighting but did nothing to prevent observation from the air - or low-level attacks.

The reason for the steeper attack angle adopted by the planes was simply the weapons used; bombs and RPs rather than guns. With those, the steeper the angle of attack, the more accurate they were (except for some who practised 'skip bombing' from right on the deck).

The 40mm Hurris did indeed see service in Europe. This is from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45':

"The IID was not the only Hurricane to carry the 40 mm S gun. The Hurricane IV, of which over five hundred were built, was introduced in 1943 as a specialised ground attack variant. A more powerful engine enabled more armour to be fitted and it had a "universal wing", designed to take various armament options including the S gun or rocket projectiles (RPs); the changeover could be made by five men in about forty minutes. Most saw service overseas but three squadrons based in England (Nos. 137, 164 and 184) were equipped with this aircraft. 
Official British reports during 1943 concerning the effectiveness of the armament options for the Hurricane IV make interesting reading. The 40 mm gun was seen as the precision weapon, usable against smaller targets such as locomotives and tanks, while the RPs were thought to be more effective against shipping. It was recommended that all Hurricane IVs should normally be issued fitted with the S gun, with conversion kits for RPs provided, and that squadrons should employ both variants, with different flights being equipped with RPs or S guns. Operations were conducted by 11 Group over France and against coastal shipping, and both guns and RPs were evidently considered satisfactory.

In June 1943 the RAF's order of preference in weapons for use against tanks was given as: 1st 40 mm S gun; 2nd 20 mm cannon with Mk III AP ammunition; 3rd RP with 25 lb AP head; 4th RP with 60 lb HE head; 5th .50" Browning HMG; 6th 9 lb AT bomb. Only the first three of these were considered to be serious anti-tank weapons. Some comment on these preferences is necessary. The 20 mm AP Mk III, as mentioned in Chapter 1, was a tungsten-cored round of considerable performance which was, in the end, not adopted. The RP with 25 lb AP head could penetrate 70-80 mm, which compensated to some extent for its lack of accuracy. The RP with 60 lb HE head was discounted against tanks as it could only penetrate 25 mm, but this assessment rather underestimated the cataclysmic effect of detonating such a large charge against a tank. 
The 9 lb AT bomb, jovially known as "Puffball", used a squash-head rather than a HEAT design and a fighter-bomber was expected to carry twenty-four of them, to be released in one diving pass at low altitude. 
Despite the success of similar (but smaller) Soviet and German weapons, Puffball proved unsatisfactory due to sympathetic detonations in mid-air (the explosion of the first hits setting off the others) and significant damage from blast and debris being suffered by the carrying aircraft. The 40 mm S gun, 20 mm AP Mk III and 25 lb AP were all considered capable of dealing with the German Mk IV tank and it seemed that the S gun-equipped Hurricane Mk IV would have a part to play in the forthcoming invasion of Europe. Despite this, all Hurricanes were withdrawn from European service in March 1944, just three months before D-day."

The reason for the Hurri's withdrawal is not stated but I suspect a couple of factors:

1. The S gun was unable to penetrate the Tiger tank and probably the Panther also.

2. The plane was relatively vulnerable to Flak.

The RAF went on playing with powerful anti-tank guns, the 47mm P Gun being tried on a Tempest in 1946.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
 forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 2, 2004)

There were only a handful of NW European "tank battles", and these generally consisted of the German's being on the defensive, in which case aircraft had a hard time spotting the tanks until battle was engaged, and then it was difficult to attack them because of FF risks. When the German's did attack, it was usually under cover of bad weather.

So far, everything you've presented represents the British experiance with the 7.62cm/3" RP's, a very different weapon than the 5" HVAR. Amoung other differences, the RP's were known to be much less accurate than the HVAR's both because of the fin design and the much weaker rocket engine and thus slower acceleration, and less effective because of the much smaller payload. British RP's were not even developed for ground attack, they were intended for AA use and then adapted to ground attack because they were plentiful.

Korean war accounts indicate skilled pilots almost always hit T-34's with salvos of HVARs, but the improved T-34/85's of Korea were somewhat resistant to such attacks (which motivated the development of the RAM warheads), typically being immobilized but not "killed". While the official recommended firing range was 1000 yards, most pilots actually fired them from 300 about yards.

Finally, I'm not saying that in terms of the pure accuracy a 5" HVAR was anything close to as accurate as a cannon. If the plane had the time and freedom to setup and attack, the cannon were much more accurate, but doing so in W. Europe after D-Day was nearly suicide. For the kind of attacks that were being conducted in W. Europe in late '44 and '45, namely 300 mph single passes into heavily defended positions, the HVAR was probably more effective. At such speeds with a cannon you would get maybe two rounds off, where you could fire up to 8-10 rockets.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 3, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> There were only a handful of NW European "tank battles", and these generally consisted of the German's being on the defensive, in which case aircraft had a hard time spotting the tanks until battle was engaged, and then it was difficult to attack them because of FF risks. When the German's did attack, it was usually under cover of bad weather.



In tne Mortain batttle, Allied fighter-bomber claimed 252 tanks destroyed in a four-day period. In the one month of fighting in the Ardennes Salient (which was more difficult country - hilly and wooded - and the weather was initially bad) they claimed 324 tanks and 89 other armoured vehicles destroyed. Clearly, they were able to see and attack them. Unfortunately their claims for hits proved to be wildly optimistic.



> So far, everything you've presented represents the British experiance with the 7.62cm/3" RP's, a very different weapon than the 5" HVAR. Amoung other differences, the RP's were known to be much less accurate than the HVAR's both because of the fin design and the much weaker rocket engine and thus slower acceleration, and less effective because of the much smaller payload.



Can you quote your source for that? I have no data on the HVAR's accuracy, but your information on payload is incorrect. The British RPs carried a 60 lb warhead, which contained 14 lb of TNT. The HVAR's 40 lb warhead carried 7.7 lb of HE. 



> British RP's were not even developed for ground attack, they were intended for AA use and then adapted to ground attack because they were plentiful.



Wrong again - the 3 inch rocket motor was designed for an AA weapon, but the addition of the 60 lb HE and 25 lb AP warheads was for aircraft use only. Incidentally, the HVAR reached a velocity of 390 m/s compared with the 60 lb RP at 350 m/s (the 25 lb RP hit 460 m/s) so there wasn't a huge difference ballistically.



> Finally, I'm not saying that in terms of the pure accuracy a 5" HVAR was anything close to as accurate as a cannon. If the plane had the time and freedom to setup and attack, the cannon were much more accurate, but doing so in W. Europe after D-Day was nearly suicide. For the kind of attacks that were being conducted in W. Europe in late '44 and '45, namely 300 mph single passes into heavily defended positions, the HVAR was probably more effective. At such speeds with a cannon you would get maybe two rounds off, where you could fire up to 8-10 rockets.



On the contrary, the much flatter trajectory and shorter time of flight of cannon shells made them much easier to line up and quicker to use. RP firing needed more careful preparation if you were going to stand much chance of a hit. Yes, you could volley RPs to make up in quantity what you lacked in accuracy, but even the careful, single-aimed shot approach of the British big-gun planes allowed them to fire four times on each attack (i.e. 8 shots form the Hurri's 40mm guns), which was enough to hit the target.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Tony Williams said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > There were only a handful of NW European "tank battles", and these generally consisted of the German's being on the defensive, in which case aircraft had a hard time spotting the tanks until battle was engaged, and then it was difficult to attack them because of FF risks. When the German's did attack, it was usually under cover of bad weather.
> ...



Just because they could see and attack them does not mean these attacks were nearly as favorable as attacks on tanks out in the open in the N. African desert or on the Russian stepps. The fact that so few of the tanks attacked were actually destroyed can be looked at either as supporting the idea that the method was inferior OR that the conditions were not as favorable to success.

Clearly in Korea F-51 pilots claim consistant hits with salvo's of 4-6 HVARs against T-34 tanks. Skyraider pilots claim 2-4 rockets was enough to just about gaurantee a hit on a tank as long as it was in the relative open. And in both cases attacks were carried out at the fastest possible speed.



Tony Williams said:


> > Finally, I'm not saying that in terms of the pure accuracy a 5" HVAR was anything close to as accurate as a cannon. If the plane had the time and freedom to setup and attack, the cannon were much more accurate, but doing so in W. Europe after D-Day was nearly suicide. For the kind of attacks that were being conducted in W. Europe in late '44 and '45, namely 300 mph single passes into heavily defended positions, the HVAR was probably more effective. At such speeds with a cannon you would get maybe two rounds off, where you could fire up to 8-10 rockets.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, the much flatter trajectory and shorter time of flight of cannon shells made them much easier to line up and quicker to use. RP firing needed more careful preparation if you were going to stand much chance of a hit. Yes, you could volley RPs to make up in quantity what you lacked in accuracy, but even the careful, single-aimed shot approach of the British big-gun planes allowed them to fire four times on each attack (i.e. 8 shots form the Hurri's 40mm guns), which was enough to hit the target.



The Hurri was not able to make a 300-350 mph pass. If it were able to do so, it would have sufficient time to take one, maybe two shots at the target, which would mean maybe 4 rounds fired. The HVAR armed plane could release a salvo of 4-10 rockets in the same pass.

As for your velocity of rocket figures, I do not have specific figures, but I do have footage, and there is absolutely no question that the HVAR's accelerate much faster than the 3.5" rockets. I have footage from P-47's and from Tempests and Hurricanes firing rockets, and it is very easy to see. And also you imply that the HVAR's were extremely wild and dropped tremendously in their flight path, but the footage does not show this. In a salvo of 8 rockets, typically one or two go wild, but the rest go pretty strait.

The velocity figure I have for the HVAR is 414.5 m/s, but the time to reach max. velocity is a critical difference. The "HV" in "HVAR" is there for a reason, and it is specifically in comparison to the earlier 3.5 inch motored versions.

I'll have to find the reference, but the figure I've seen for the payload of the HVAR is 20 lbs of HE. But you have to admit the larger warhead you are specifying for the RP's coupled with a much smaller rocket imply much slower acceleration as well as a lower final velocity.

All sources I've seen indicate the "Holy Moses" rockets hit much harder than the RP's. RP's were abandon after WWII as ineffective, but HVAR's were still in use well into the 1960's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Here's a source on the 3.5 inch British rockets vs. the 5" HVAR:

Stats 3.5" Rocket: 
Weight: 25kg / 55lbs 
Length: 1397mm / 55ins 
Warhead: 9kg / 20lbs solid steel or explosives 
Speed: 358m/s / 1175f/s

Stats HVAR: 
Diameter: 5" 
Weight: 63.5kg / 140lbs 
Length: 1829mm / 72ins 
Warhead: 25kg / 55lbs 
Speed: 419m/s / 1375f/s

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/armament/rockets.htm

After searching rather extensively, I'm pretty convinced that the warhead figures above are accurate, and that they are included in the total weight of the rocket.

There was a ~60 lbs warhead on a 3.5" rocket, it was the same warhead as mounted on the 5" HVAR (actually 55 lbs), but you are selectively mixing the stats on the 5" FFAR (5 inch warhead on 3.5" rocket) with the velocity of the strait 3.5" rocket and it's 20 lbs warhead. The 5" FFAR was slow and front heavy, which made it inaccurate.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 3, 2004)

The fighter-bombers wouldn't launch an attack unless they thought they could hit - attacks were very dangerous due to the very effective German light flak. In fact, that flak in distracting the pilots may well have contributed to the problems in making accurate rocket attacks. This extract from 'Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45' explains the problems with the British RP, but in principle any rocket suffered from these to a greater or lesser extent:

"This fall in accuracy experienced in action may be attributed to the curious trajectory of the RP, which first dropped below the line of sight and then accelerated as the rocket motor took effect before it dropped again. Because of this it was generally desirable to fire them at a range of between 900-1,800 m. They were also very susceptible to side winds, with a mere 15 km/h wind being enough to miss the aiming mark by nearly 5 m, and the aircraft had to be absolutely steady at the instant of launching. This meant that a pilot needed a very cool and calculating head to ensure reasonable accuracy, something that was difficult to achieve in the heat of battle. It is worth noting that high-velocity cannon did not suffer from this problem, so would have experienced a much less significant fall-off in accuracy under combat conditions. "

I don't know of any 3.5 inch rocket. The British RPs were known as 60 pdr or 25 pdr Rocket Projectiles, depending on the warhead, and used a 3 inch diameter motor. There were two USAAF rockets: the 4.5 inch and the 5 inch HVAR. This is the info in FG:WW2. 

"The two RPs used by the USAAF had different histories. The 4.5" version originated from a 1940 request from the Ordnance Department to the National Defense Research Committee for help in developing a rocket primarily for use in aircraft. The availability of British research speeded the task so the first prototype was tested at the end of 1941. Somewhat bizarrely, the calibre of 4.5" (114 mm) was determined broadly by the specified warhead size and 330 m/s velocity, but specifically by the availability of surplus fire extinguisher tubes of that size! Unlike the British RPs, the 4.5" (designated the M8) had folding fins as they were launched from tubes. After significant problems with propellant quality, the M8 entered service in December 1943. In service, the tube-launching was found unnecessary and imposed drag penalties, so first the zero-length launcher from the USN's 5" (127 mm) HVAR (high velocity aircraft rocket) was utilised, then the HVAR itself was adopted, although the M8 remained in service alongside. The M8 weighed 18 kg and the warhead carried 2.3 kg of HE and reached 260 m/s. The HVAR, which achieved 390 m/s, weighed 63 kg and carried 3.5 kg of HE."

The Hurri attacked at around 250 mph. If its speed went up to 300, it could have got in three shots. The Tsetse with 6 pdr gun was very fast yet in practice could still get of four shots against a tank-sized target, with a virtually guaranteed hit.

I note that in describing the results in Korea you refer to 'claims'. Please note that WW2 claims against tanks were found to be overstated by 1,000% when the results were examined on the battlefield.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
 forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 3, 2004)

Every source I've seen refers to the British supplied rockets as being of 3.5" diameter. This may well have been the outside diameter, with a 3" rocket being inside the 3.5" casing. That'd just be a standards and nomenclature issue.

Yes, I've seen references to the 4.5" FFAR (I think it was designated FFAR) as well, and perhaps this represents a different warhead on the same 3.5" rocket? In any case these were the tube fired things and they were a failure.

The US nomenclature for the British type 3.5" rocket is FFAR (Forward Firing Arial Rocket), and this term is also used for the 5" version, which had the same rocket motor. The 5" FFAR was found to be unsuitable by the USN because of it's inaccuracy and low speed, but perhaps the British used their own variation of this anyway? In any case, to support the 5" warhead the USA developed the HVAR.

I think if you investigate you will find the "60 pounder" was in fact refering to the total weight of the warhead, not HE payload. If it did refer to just the HE payload, that'd mean a warhead weighing something on the order of 150+ lbs!

I agree conditions were different in W. Europe than in N. Africa and the Stepps of Russia, in many ways, resulting in different results.

As for the claims for Korea, there is often film to back it up (I have lots of 8mm Korean war Skyraider footage and combat assement photos). One thing is clear in Korea, hitting the tank with an HVAR was often not enough to take it out of action. Most attacks were to the sides, and the most frequent damage damage was to the tracks or wheels.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

> I think if you investigate you will find the "60 pounder" was in fact refering to the total weight of the warhead



that's proberly true, the Grand Slam weighed 22,000lbs but "only" had a 9,135lb warhead............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

MOAB all the way...


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 3, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Every source I've seen refers to the British supplied rockets as being of 3.5" diameter. This may well have been the outside diameter, with a 3" rocket being inside the 3.5" casing. That'd just be a standards and nomenclature issue.



The diameter of the body of the RP may have been 3.5 inches (although the diameter of the 60 lb HE warhead was considerably larger), but I've never heard it referred to as a '3.5 inch rocket'. It is generally known as the RP (for Rocket Projectile), sometimes the 3 inch RP or 3 inch rocket, for the diameter of the motor.



> Yes, I've seen references to the 4.5" FFAR (I think it was designated FFAR) as well, and perhaps this represents a different warhead on the same 3.5" rocket? In any case these were the tube fired things and they were a failure.



Why would it use the British 3 inch motor? It was American, not British, and was of 4.5 inch diameter anyway. FFAR stands for 'Folding Fin Aircraft (or Aerial, or Air-launched) Rocket' - the fins have to fold to fit into the launch tube, they spring out on launching - but this term was I think first coined to describe postwar rockets in multiple pods (which have been highly successful), not the 4.5 inch.



> The US nomenclature for the British type 3.5" rocket is FFAR (Forward Firing Arial Rocket), and this term is also used for the 5" version, which had the same rocket motor. The 5" FFAR was found to be unsuitable by the USN because of it's inaccuracy and low speed, but perhaps the British used their own variation of this anyway? In any case, to support the 5" warhead the USA developed the HVAR.



Re FFAR - see my comment above; ever heard of a backward firing aerial rocket?  . The term FFAR does not apply to any British rockets of this period - they all had fixed fins. I don't know anything about a 5" FFAR; if there was such a thing it wasn't British AFAIK.



> I think if you investigate you will find the "60 pounder" was in fact refering to the total weight of the warhead, not HE payload. If it did refer to just the HE payload, that'd mean a warhead weighing something on the order of 150+ lbs!



If you read my earlier post you will see that's exactly what I said; a 60 lb warhead with 14 lb of TNT.



> I agree conditions were different in W. Europe than in N. Africa and the Stepps of Russia, in many ways, resulting in different results.



As I've said, the results were different because the weapons were different. The Russians did have RPs (in fact they were the first to use them) but found them too inaccurate to be effective against single tank targets. They PTAB cluster-bomb was their best anti-tank weapon, but the British and Americans had nothing like it.



> As for the claims for Korea, there is often film to back it up (I have lots of 8mm Korean war Skyraider footage and combat assement photos). One thing is clear in Korea, hitting the tank with an HVAR was often not enough to take it out of action. Most attacks were to the sides, and the most frequent damage damage was to the tracks or wheels.



Camera gun footage which is released to the public tends to be selected to show the successes - which may be only a very small percentage of the attacks. So it does nothing to prove how accurate such rocket attacks were in general. And I've never argued that rockets couldn't hit tanks, just that they rarely did in the WW2 timeframe which is what we're talking about, so made an unsatisfactory anti-tank weapon (although they were very destructive against area targets).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

Tony Williams said:


> The diameter of the body of the RP may have been 3.5 inches (although the diameter of the 60 lb HE warhead was considerably larger), but I've never heard it referred to as a '3.5 inch rocket'. It is generally known as the RP (for Rocket Projectile), sometimes the 3 inch RP or 3 inch rocket, for the diameter of the motor.



Well, the point is it was the same rocket section. All the sources refer to the 3" or 3.5" rockets as having been supplied by the British.



Tony Williams said:


> Why would it use the British 3 inch motor? It was American, not British, and was of 4.5 inch diameter anyway. FFAR stands for 'Folding Fin Aircraft (or Aerial, or Air-launched) Rocket' - the fins have to fold to fit into the launch tube, they spring out on launching - but this term was I think first coined to describe postwar rockets in multiple pods (which have been highly successful), not the 4.5 inch.



I don't know why, other than that there were a load of British made rocket sections available.



Tony Williams said:


> Re FFAR - see my comment above; ever heard of a backward firing aerial rocket?  . The term FFAR does not apply to any British rockets of this period - they all had fixed fins. I don't know anything about a 5" FFAR; if there was such a thing it wasn't British AFAIK.



Well, the only source I've seen defining it defines it as "Forward Firing" but you could be right. There could also have been research into downward firing rockets.



Tony Williams said:


> If you read my earlier post you will see that's exactly what I said; a 60 lb warhead with 14 lb of TNT.



My applogies, I misread that. But you also say the HVAR warhead was 40 lbs with an ~7.5 lbs HE load where data I've found says 55 lbs with an ~20 lbs HE load.



Tony Williams said:


> As I've said, the results were different because the weapons were different. The Russians did have RPs (in fact they were the first to use them) but found them too inaccurate to be effective against single tank targets. They PTAB cluster-bomb was their best anti-tank weapon, but the British and Americans had nothing like it.



Russian RP's were tiny by comparison to an HVAR. In fact I think they were small even by comparison to a British 3" RP.



Tony Williams said:


> Camera gun footage which is released to the public tends to be selected to show the successes - which may be only a very small percentage of the attacks. So it does nothing to prove how accurate such rocket attacks were in general. And I've never argued that rockets couldn't hit tanks, just that they rarely did in the WW2 timeframe which is what we're talking about, so made an unsatisfactory anti-tank weapon (although they were very destructive against area targets).



The footage I have was never released to the public. I have the entire stock of guncam footage from my Father's attack squadron 1951 and 1952 tours. He was the squadron CIC officer and took a lot of photos from his plane's cameras, and some 8mm footage from a wind up camera he kept in the cockpit, though often it's from too high to make out much detail. I have located several films of rocket attacks on tanks, but only in a few of them are the results clear. Often the smoke and/dirt (often hard to tell the difference) in the air makes evaluation difficult within the short period of the film clips. I have a good number of shots of tanks that have been destroyed, but it is hard to tell exactly how they were destroyed. And I have a large number of before/during/after photos of bridge attacks.

In the end though, I have to go back to his statements that firing rockets one at a time, you'd probably hit the tank within three shots, and a salvo of 4 rockets (fired in 2's) was enough to hit a tank well over half the time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

> MOAB all the way...



NO!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Hell yeah, Go USA!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

NO The Grand Slam's a symbol of everythig that's good about Britian!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

What, Big, fat and heavy? I think not


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

no, sleek, fast, well buit...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

British items are famed for their lack of build quality, only behind the Italians...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 4, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> British items are famed for their lack of build quality, only behind the Italians...



Leading up to WWII, the British reputation for quality was quite good. During WWII they had to cut corners to maximize quantity, and they seem not to have been able to completely recover from that.

They still eat Kidney pie, something you would normally only eat in the hardest of times.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 4, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> British items are famed for their lack of build quality, only behind the Italians...



I think the politically correct term is "functionality".


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Kidney pie is NOT nice...


----------



## Maestro (Dec 4, 2004)

You're wrong, CC. Italian items are worst. British items are great ! Only think about all the great planes Britain built : Spitfire, Hurricane, Tempest, Lancaster (or more recently) the Harrier. Or the great cars : Rolls-Royce (I know it was bought out by BMW at the end of the 90s) and Benkley (or Bentley, can't remember).


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 4, 2004)

Hey Maestro, didn't Bomber Harris especially like the Canadian built planes for quality?  

(back me up here!  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Yup its Bentley.

I know that British items are great (Triumph, Austin-Morris, Rolls Royce etc) but the way theyre built is just dreadful. They rust, breakdown all the time, dont start in the cold and always give up the ghost a few days after the warranty runs out (sods law  )

Im not saying I dont like British things, just they they could be a lot better. Their badness is part of the appeal for me 8)

The Italians cant build stuff properly for shit  But everything they make looks so DAMN good I forgive them, entirely.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 4, 2004)

Hmmm... I don't even know WHO is Bomber Harris. So I can't really back you up on that...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 4, 2004)

Maestro said:


> Hmmm... I don't even know WHO is Bomber Harris. So I can't really back you up on that...



That's ok, it was a bad attempt at humour anyway.  

He was the head of RAF Bomber Command.


----------



## Maestro (Dec 4, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> dont start in the cold



Hmmm... Considering that (for British) -10° C is cold, I would like to see how the react at -30° C... That our average temperature in January/February.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Never mind -10, 5C is cold for a British car


----------



## Maestro (Dec 4, 2004)

Nonskimmer said:


> Maestro said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... I don't even know WHO is Bomber Harris. So I can't really back you up on that...
> ...



Oh...  

Thanks for the information.


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 4, 2004)

Tony thanks for the reat Reading!


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 4, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, the point is it was the same rocket section. All the sources refer to the 3" or 3.5" rockets as having been supplied by the British....
> 
> I don't know why, other than that there were a load of British made rocket sections available.



I have been through the section on aircraft rockets in the official History of the US Army, the volume which deals with the Ordnance Department. This goes into great detail over the development of the US RPs but makes no reference to American use of British rockets or rocket motors. The two US rockets - the USAAF's 4.5 inch and the USN's 5 inch HVAR - were of a much larger diameter anyway so could not have used the same motors. The British connection was simply that the UK already had much experience with rocket motors so supplied all the technical data to the US to enable them to make their own more quickly.



> My applogies, I misread that. But you also say the HVAR warhead was 40 lbs with an ~7.5 lbs HE load where data I've found says 55 lbs with an ~20 lbs HE load.



On checking the official Army source above, I see that the data there is slightly different from the other source I used. It states for the HVAR a warhead of 48 lbs with a content of 7.8 lb HE.



> The footage I have was never released to the public. I have the entire stock of guncam footage from my Father's attack squadron 1951 and 1952 tours. He was the squadron CIC officer and took a lot of photos from his plane's cameras, and some 8mm footage from a wind up camera he kept in the cockpit, though often it's from too high to make out much detail. I have located several films of rocket attacks on tanks, but only in a few of them are the results clear. Often the smoke and/dirt (often hard to tell the difference) in the air makes evaluation difficult within the short period of the film clips. I have a good number of shots of tanks that have been destroyed, but it is hard to tell exactly how they were destroyed. And I have a large number of before/during/after photos of bridge attacks.



Fair enough. One of the main reasons for overclaiming in WW2 was that the dust and smoke thrown up all around the tank by the rocket strikes made the pilots sure that the tank couldn't have survived, but they were usually wrong. Viewing from a fast-moving aircraft in the heat of battle is not the most reliable method of determining what happened!



> In the end though, I have to go back to his statements that firing rockets one at a time, you'd probably hit the tank within three shots, and a salvo of 4 rockets (fired in 2's) was enough to hit a tank well over half the time.



That may have been true in Korea, but for whatever reason the performance of all RPs in WW2 certainly fell far short of this. Analysis of knocked-out tanks after the major battles showed that very, very few had been hit by RPs, and nearly all of those were probably British ones. Which returns me to my bottom line; whatever the theoretical accuracy may have been, and whatever they may have achieved later, the RP proved an ineffective anti-tank weapon in WW2.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum


----------



## MP-Willow (Dec 6, 2004)

So, now we have divebombers?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

That was a great discussion between RG and Tony... Very informative and concise....

I still believe tho that cannons were a better way to destroy tanks than rockets.....


----------



## zuzik (Jan 25, 2005)

Lol Imho the best antitank weapon is PTAB 

Find in Google:

http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/bomb-ptab.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avil2.html


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2005)

Nah 

Welcome to the site z...Enjoy your time here!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 25, 2005)

PTAB was more advanced that a lot of the other options, but I still think guns were the best option. Something in the range of 37mm to 40mm would have be the ideal.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 26, 2005)

This discussion is very intresting.

Here is a very intresting site that has a lot of information about US rockets from WW2's 3.25" FFAR, 4.5" FFAR and 5" HVAR systems all the way up to the current Mk.66 Hydra 70 systems.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

PTAB weren't ideal unless they caught the tanks all bunched up.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Maybe they weren't ideal, but they did foreshadow the weapons that were to come. And being design specifically to attack a tank's upper surfaces was an advanced idea.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

there's very few medium tanks that twin vikers s guns couldn't rip apart..........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm not saying heavy cannons were ineffective (I think they were the best option available in the war) but the PTABs were more of a point towards the future.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 26, 2005)

A point to the future LG, that was a lot of systems from WWII that did that 

I will agree, guns seem to be the way to go.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2005)

I would think that more Allied tanks were destroyed by the Ju 87-G2 than any other Axis plane......

I would also think that more German tanks were destroyed by the Il-2M3 than any other Allied aircraft.....

Both utilized a 37mm cannon for the job.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2005)

very good point, mind you, so did the P-39................


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 2, 2005)

The arrangement for the 75mm gun in Hs-129B-3 "waffentrager" ( gun-carrier) showing the 12 shot magazine

The long and slim case was the same of the PAK 40. Was able to penetrate 116 mm of good steel a 500m in a 30 degres angle.







I read in many places that the 30mm Mk-103 round ( 30x184B) was inefective against any allied medium tank, but I ´m not very sure about it.

Acording to the "Handbüch fur Flugzebau bordwaffenmunition" year 1977 this round, the Harthkermunition , meaning hard core round, but mostly now as the Panzergranate 40 could pierce a 90 mm plate in a 30 degrees angle a 150 metres, wich is enough to defeat a T-34-76 or the earlys Shermans.


----------



## Erich (Feb 2, 2005)

suggest a copy of the OOP title Hs 129 by Martin Pegg. The Mk 103 round was indeed sufficient to take out any Soviet tank.

tottles for now


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2005)

Unfortunatly (or fortunatly), not very many aircraft could carry the Mk103 on the wing......

The only one i know off the top of my head was the Fw 190A8/R3 and the Fw 190F3/R3, both of which carried them in under-wing gondolas....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 2, 2005)

nice shots of the 75mm............


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 3, 2005)

Two of posible configurations on the Uhu for ground attack.

Four Mg-17 with 1000 rounds of ammo each, complemented by 4 underwing SC-50 in the antipersonel role, or a ventral pack with the Mk-101 gun provided with 30 shot drum magazine.


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2005)

Les the Mk 103 was never operational with Fw 190 ground attack units. tests were made but unsuitable. the Two 2cm were kept using AP and different forms of Panzerblitz rockets were used

E


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> very good point, mind you, so did the P-39................



Was the Airacobra used for ground attack then?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 4, 2005)

One of the more persistent myths of World War Two aviation concerns the Russian use of the P-39 Airacobra as a "tank buster," a myth perpetuated until recently . Thanks to James Gebhardt, translator of Attack of the Airacobras: Soviet Aces, American P-39s, and the Air War Against Germany, the actual use of the Bell P-39 by the Soviets can be summarized here. 

In short, the Russian pilots flew the Airacobra as "air superiority fighters," and at the low to medium altitudes of air combat on the Eastern Front, they did so with considerable success, against German Fw 190s and Bf 109s. The 216th Fighter Division (later 9th Guards Fighter Division) flew Airacobras from August, 1942 to the end of the war in May, 1945 and counted 28 aces with at least 15 victories. 

Anyway the 37mm main gun of the Airacobra was not very efective against armour, his original objetive was to deliver large calibre high explosive shells tracer to ensure the destruction of a formation of bombers that could threat U.S mainland.

Even shooting armour-piercing round the performance was insuficient to penetrate anything more armoured that a Pz I, Pz II ,Sdkfz 251 etc.
Aprox. 20mm of steel plate at 400 metres. Remember that it have a relative short case ( 37x145 rimmed) wich gives a initial speed of 600 m/s.

With no doubt the best gun setup of the entire family of Bell fighters was carried by the P-63D. A elegant bubble-canopy supercharged fighter.
It replaced the old M4 with the M9 wich shot the 37x223SR long bottlenecked case wich improved enormously the penetration on armour.
It was the same cartrigde of the 37mm infantry antitank gun.

Unfortunatly this aircraft not entered in production, his 4x ,50 Browning + 1x37 mm give him a masive firepower that the russians would used with devastating effect againts the new generation of german tanks.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 4, 2005)

A picture of the fine Bell P-63D.






"One of a kind"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

never seen it looking so ugly before..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nice shot, but heres a better one! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

show off................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Hehe...I got tons of great shots on my computer... 8)


----------



## Grampa (Feb 8, 2005)

There is an other things in discussion of best setup we should talk about. Its about where to place those guns best on the plane. Big gun placed on the wing would surely decrease the fligtstability and reduce accuracy when firing those weapons. To have A good stable and accuracy gun-platform wouldn't the best place to have it close to the gravitycentern on the plane. The Henscel Hs 129 carried a 75 mm gun and its a weary big gun for this small plane to carry. wasn't tank-fully that it could carry that gun because it is mounted weary close to the center?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 8, 2005)

I think that the best place was in the centreline of the aircraft, for example between the cilinders banks in V-12 engine fighters.

Is curious to note that the russians technicians were able to fit the powerful Ns-37 de 37x195mm in relative small planes, like the Lagg-3IT and the Yak-9T, but the germans could not do that with the MK-103 a smaller gun in his front line figther , the Bf-109.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2005)

but the -109 was tiny!! there wasn't any room inside!!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 15, 2005)

Or this, it's not a tank busting armament...but I bet it could rip up tanks if it wanted to!


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2005)

tanks no but soft skinned vehicles like MT by using a mix of AP and HE. what a mess............this is what Ju 87D-5's used on the Ost front for example

E ♪


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2005)

The Lagg-3 was also tiny.






Few aircraft actually placed the powerful MK-103 between the V-12 cilinders. One was the plane of the image above the Tank Ta-152C, other the Do-335, and...I think we must stop counting.

Anyway the russian 37 mm was a superior weapon.






LaGG-3-37 "White 75" 
303 IAp 
M. Kravchuk 
1943


----------



## Gemhorse (Feb 15, 2005)

Real impressive posts and pics, CB, it's got my attention !.....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 15, 2005)

Thank you...

You are feeding my ego, wich is huge already


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Unfortunatly (or fortunatly), not very many aircraft could carry the Mk103 on the wing......
> 
> The only one i know off the top of my head was the Fw 190A8/R3 and the Fw 190F3/R3, both of which carried them in under-wing gondolas....



These proved unsuccessful and very few were fielded, and all were converted to some other configuration fairly quickly. The gun just had too much recoil.

I agree the MK103 firing AP ammo could defeat almost any tank (possible exception - JS-II/III).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

It could most likely defeat the IS-2 as well, it's top armour wasn't anything to go nuts about. I don't know about the IS-3 because the 'frying pan' turret was a well protected shape, but that never saw service.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> It could most likely defeat the IS-2 as well, it's top armour wasn't anything to go nuts about. I don't know about the IS-3 because the 'frying pan' turret was a well protected shape, but that never saw service.



Top armor on the IS-2 was 30mm and of excellent quality. Given a reasonable angle of attack of about 30 degrees or less (0 degrees being perpendicular) this was enough to stop the MK103. The 190 could not dive steeper than this in such an attack, 30 degrees is quite generous.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

Have you just stated that the IS-2 armour was of excellent quality. Where did you get this information, might I ask? 
The IS-2s armour was of extremely poor quality, it collapsed on many an occasion. It was never rectified either. The IS-2 was designed to be invincible to German tanks, but the poor quality on the thick armour did not provide this invulnerability.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

_The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees._

Tony Williams


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Have you just stated that the IS-2 armour was of excellent quality. Where did you get this information, might I ask?
> The IS-2s armour was of extremely poor quality, it collapsed on many an occasion. It was never rectified either. The IS-2 was designed to be invincible to German tanks, but the poor quality on the thick armour did not provide this invulnerability.



Everything I've seen says that Soviet armor plate in 1944 was of decent quality, though not as good as the German armor because of the quality of the seams. Still, 30 mm of such armor was more than enough to protect against an MK103 given realistic attack angles.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

No, you'll find that Soviet armour was not of decent quality at all. It was shoddy workmanship by the hands of over-worked and malnurished workers. 
The IS-2 was a tank to suffer greatly from it. A short section from 'Russian Tanks of World War II : Stalins Armoured Might' (which I believe is quite bias towards Soviet armour, but it provides good information). 



> Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm (4.8in) gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m (656yd), *whilst splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the defiency was allowed to remain.*



"Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalins Armoured Might" - Tim Bean and Will Flower. (2002) 

The late war German armour was inferior to the armour before it, due to Allied bombing and shortages of manganese. Although, I've read countless times it didn't come into effect until late 1944.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2005)

Another thing is the material of the armour, wich not always is Steel.

The cast iron is more easy to pierce than steel

The russian many times used the cast iron for his tank turrets. This material is not actually steel, being much more fragile and with tendency to crack by nature. The only advantage is that is more easy to handle in hot than steel, forming the turret in one step. The germans used only the welded contruccion, this is cutting steel plates forming the turret and the hull, keeping it together with electric welding. The lack of manganese was solved in part increasing the amount of chrome and carbon in the alloy.

That diferent contruccions can explain some of the catastrofical failures seeing in the russian tanks when it got hit.

Example:

In March of 1943, during a tank battle around Belgorod, Rudel knocked out his first tank with his new tank-busting Stuka - After a single pass and four shots "... I feel my rear gunner shout who said that the tank exploded like a bomb and he had seen bits of it crashing down behind us." (Hans-Ulrich Rudel).


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

The Germans used high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel in an attempt to replace the shortage of manganese. It was brittle, but better than nothing. It certainly didn't make up for it.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> _The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees._
> 
> Tony Williams



Which would be less than 30 mm at 30 degrees, penetration drops off more than proprotionally to the change in angle. And by 300 meters range the angle of attack would likely be even less than 30 degrees.

Also, Hartkermunition ammo was extremely rare - tungsten was in very limited supply by 1944 (the time of the JS-II). Most that was available was consigned to machine tool bits with which make armor rather than 30 mm class ammo to attack it. What tungston was used for penetrators was utilized in 75 mm and 88 mm class weapons, not in large numbers of small caliber 30mm class rounds (most of which would be wasted).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Another thing is the material of the armour, wich not always is Steel.
> 
> The cast iron is more easy to pierce than steel
> 
> ...



Cast iron is not "easier to peirce" than steel. It is easier to shatter. Cast iron is much harder than typical steel, but also more brittle. It is more likely to resist penetration, but also more likely to splinter or shatter.

By the time of the Tiger and Panther tanks German steel used for tank armor was not of the best quality either. Typically it was below 200 brinell, too soft to effectively resist penetration. The Germans countered this by using even thicker plates.

Also, the Germans used bolts a lot too, not just arc welding. And by late 1944 the Russian's had significant supplies of high quality steel alloy's from the USA which were utilized in some of their tanks.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2005)

Excuse me...

The part that I wrote "This material is not actually steel, being much more fragile and with tendency to crack by nature" mean something to you..?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Excuse me...
> 
> The part that I wrote "This material is not actually steel, being much more fragile and with tendency to crack by nature" mean something to you..?



Yes... but 



CharlesBronson said:


> The cast iron is more easy to pierce than steel



Also means something... and this part is wrong. The point is cast iron is probably more likely to fully defeat a flat angle hit (30 degrees or less) than is steel because of its hardness.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2005)

interesting thought on the Tungsten cored rounds via being a rare commodity. Seems that the SG 9 equipped with MK 103 Hs 129's had enough to go around as witnessed by their successful Geschwader history as well as the Panzerstaffels flying 3.7cm equipped Ju 87G-1's with SG 2, 3, 77 till wars end.

E ~


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2005)

I should say " the cast iron is less resistent to impact than steel" 

But still I do prefer be protected for a steel plate,.. let say a SAE 8620 face hardened, and not the shitty cast iron. ( I say shitty because I have to turn and drill bars of this material many times and is really dirty)


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

Erich said:


> interesting thought on the Tungsten cored rounds via being a rare commodity. Seems that the SG 9 equipped with MK 103 Hs 129's had enough to go around as witnessed by their successful Geschwader history as well as the Panzerstaffels flying 3.7cm equipped Ju 87G-1's with SG 2, 3, 77 till wars end.
> 
> E ~



The tungsten tipped rounds were not used exclusively by these units, and were not necessary to kill the target tanks. And, there were relatively few of these aircraft in service anyway.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 18, 2005)

Expend tugsten core amunition on aircraft is a very expensive bussines.

But even in 15 mm there was a version of the Hartkermunition. Is the H panzergranate from Mauser Heavy machinegun ( not cannon ) Mg-151/15.
15x96mm.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> I should say " the cast iron is less resistent to impact than steel"
> 
> But still I do prefer be protected for a steel plate,.. let say a SAE 8620 face hardened, and not the s**t cast iron. ( I say s**t because I have to turn and drill bars of this material many times and is really dirty)



Wouldn't 8620 steel would be too hard for good armor, IIRC it's rated up around 400 Brinell. Isn't it stainless as well?

I'm not sure you can compare modern steels to what was avialable to Germany in WWII, smelting, heat treating, and alloying processes have come a long way. Also, I've seen a fair number of discussions of armor quality that seem to indicate that face hardened plates were generally not worth it except in very thick ship applications.

The best tank armor possible in WWII, as far as I know, would have consisted of layered plates of US tempered steel armor. You sometimes see photos of Sherman's with as many as three 1" plates on the front, though no tank was constructed using it. That stuff was increadibly good (both hard and good ductility), but limited to flat ~1 inch or thinner plates because of the requirements for back-tempering it. It was mostly used in aircraft armor.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Expend tugsten core amunition on aircraft is a very expensive bussines.
> 
> But even in 15 mm there was a version of the Hartkermunition. Is the H panzergranate from Mauser Heavy machinegun ( not cannon ) Mg-151/15.
> 15x96mm.



Sure it was developed. It was even deployed a little. But my point is I don't think it was commonly used - it was just too expensive for aircraft guns where most of the rounds would miss the target anyway. Something around 10% or less of aircraft ammo actually hit a target - that's a lot of wasted tungston which was essential to many industrial tools.

The USA had M8 API rounds with tungsten penetrators but switched to a moly-steel penetrator because it was deemed a waste of precious tungsten. And the USA had a lot more avialable tungston than Germany, especially later in the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2005)

No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.

There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.

Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 22, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.
> 
> There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.
> 
> Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.



Hmmm, I thought the 8000 series steels were all stainless (at least to a degree). Doesn't substantial chromium and Nickle define stainless????

I cannot view the file - it requires some codec that is not part of Windows Media player.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 22, 2005)

Yes it does, but you need more than 17 % of cromium and-or more than 15% nickel in the alloy for make it stainless. The 8620 have much less of that.

You need codec Divx. Can be downloaded from:

http://www.divx.com/divx/drdivx/download/


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> No. the SAE 8620 isn`t stainless. Actually is a Cr-Ni-Mo-Si steel specially designed for superficial hardening by heat treatment.
> 
> There is better steel for armour without heat treatment, like SAE 1075, 4340, 4140, but this is really hard when is cemented.
> 
> Returning to our topic a gumcam of Hs-129 attaking a unknown russian tank.



I think that's some kind of self propelled howitzer. The turret sits far back on the hull. We cannot see the gun length because the gun is pointed twoard the attacker.

BTW: nice film!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 25, 2005)

If it is cheep and works, use it. I think that volume of fire can help to make up some difference.


----------



## BountyHunter15 (Feb 26, 2005)

If you ask me, I think the P-51D Mustang with two 20mm cannons would stop tanks dead in their tracks.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 26, 2005)

Would that be for tanks or for aircraft ?)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I never even knew 'Stangs were equipped with 20mm's...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

2x20mm wont "stop tanks dead in their tracks", 4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets, and there are far better ground attack platforms than the P-51, principly the tiffy, with 4x20mm funnily enough........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Also the Hs-129, with 1x BK 7,5 cannon


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 26, 2005)

P-51s did have 20mm mostlyused by the RAF. The USAAC used 8x0.50s 

We have talked about shells and rockets, but the most common way to kill a tank a 100lb bomb!
Or mybe a good artillery volley.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I never even knew 'Stangs were equipped with 20mm's...



The P-51A1 had 2 x Hispano II's. Most were delivered to the British who used them with 20mm installed. Most, but not all, of those kept by the USAAF after the US entered the war had the 20mm replaced with .50s.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

USAAF P-51s had 6x.50cal, not 8, and i can't speak for the US, but the RAF didn't use 100lb bombs, do you mean 1,000lbs??


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> 2x20mm wont "stop tanks dead in their tracks", 4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets, and there are far better ground attack platforms than the P-51, principly the tiffy, with 4x20mm funnily enough........



20mm Hispano's won't kill a tank except for maybe Italian tanks and some very early German tanks. Armored car's and halftracks yes, tanks no!

As an example, the British took a captured Panzer III and set it in a prime location and attacked it repeatedly with Hurc-IIc's. After several thousands of hits something like only 1 was deemed to maybe have killed the tank and two more had disabled it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

oh i'm sorry, when did i say 4x20mm would take out a tank?? oh i'm sorry, I DIDN'T!! i said "4x20mm will suffice for "soft" targets", if you want a true british tankbuster take a hurricane Mk.IID..............


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

I was agreeing with you there Lanc


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Yes I thought that...I dont know how he could read it otherwise


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2005)

Americans have claimed that they can knock out Tigers with their 8x .50s fired from the P-47. Bounced them off the road surface into the belly, they did.

Don't know how they can claim doing so since the Tiger had a 1" steel belly.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Americans have claimed that they can knock out Tigers with their 8x .50s fired from the P-47. Bounced them off the road surface into the belly, they did.
> 
> Don't know how they can claim doing so since the Tiger had a 1" steel belly.



I'm rather dubious of this claim as well. It is well known that Tigers were regularly taken out by shooting the fuel trailer they often towed until they were on the front lines, but otherwise I think the chances are slim.

There are two ways the Tiger could be destroyed by such an attack. The first is that a hatch was left open underneath the tank (I'm not sure these were easily opened I think they were for emergency exit only). The other would be if a round bounced up and went up the downward facing exhaust pipe or into one of those downward facing louvers. Once inside under the armor in the engine compartment, it would bounce all over the place spewing 4000+ deg. F incendiary metal and the odds of a fuel fire/explosion would be quite good. I personally think this probably happened once or twice but it really is a fluke.

Another possibility is they just caught the tank unwares and the turret or drivers hatches were open and a round got inside.

Yet another possibility is that it was not really a Tiger. Some of the earlier German tanks (some of which were still in service) and especially armored cars had rather thin armor and could be destroyed by lots of .50 hits. Mis-identification of the type of tank was very common.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 26, 2005)

Destroying this....with a mg...? Kind of unrealistic.








Returning to the reality nice guncamera of Typhoon in the clasical rocket-gun strafing attack.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 26, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Destroying this....with a mg...? Kind of unrealistic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh but if you caught it by surprise driving along a road all opened up like that, it is not so unrealistic at all. Three seconds of fire (the minimum to button it up) from a P-47 delivers 300 rounds, and it only takes one or two getting loose inside the tank to rip the crew to shreads and quite possibly set off the ammo or start a fire. Buttoned up... I think it was possible but it was a fluke to bounce a round off a road and up through the exhaust pipe or cooling flutes. It certianly was not a reasonable expectation.

Most of the German tanks destroyed by strafing involved either a fuel cart being towed behind it or fuel cans stored on the exterior. Common practice for tanks moving up toward the front.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 27, 2005)

Now, for the Hispano fans, some figures and test of this gun used in the anti-armour role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

nice where'd you get them??


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 28, 2005)

sorry...my lips are sealed.


----------



## MP-Willow (Feb 28, 2005)

Lanc, thanks for the corection on the P-51 guns. A 1,000lb bomb could do well, but smaller bombs would do fine.

So why not, a fight of B-24s carpetbombing the line of armor? Follow it up with B-26, A-20, or mossies to get the stragglers


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Aye, sounds like a plan! 8)


----------



## evangilder (Feb 28, 2005)

If you have a large concentration of armor, your best weapon is napalm. It may not penetrate the armor, but it will cook the crew, for lack of a better way to put it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

heavy bombers were not good destroyers of mobile armour, the tanks could easily get out of the way, best plan is to grand slam an area full of tanks, they'll all get flipped over...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Nah, Dropping an A-Bomb....


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

B-26s, B-25s and A-20s going in first, with the heavies following behind, then bomb armed P-47s and P-51s to finish the rest off


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2005)

ohhhh i like it............


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 1, 2005)

I can agree with the Napalm, and Mosquitoman,you have an interesting order of battle 

As for the heavies going after moble units, if they are still in the yards or in fixed works go at it. Question for you al, what about useing Napalm from a B-24 or other heavie


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 1, 2005)

A 22,000lb Napalm bomb... Sounds great!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2005)

if a little dangerous.........


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 2, 2005)

I woudn't like to be dropping one of those- imagine a direct hit on the bomb as you're about to drop it


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 2, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> I can agree with the Napalm, and Mosquitoman,you have an interesting order of battle
> 
> As for the heavies going after moble units, if they are still in the yards or in fixed works go at it. Question for you al, what about useing Napalm from a B-24 or other heavie



Lots of napalm was included as "incendiaries" dropped during city attacks in 1944 and 1945 on targets such as Dresden. Bomber command was fond of napalm.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2005)

The most common form of incendairy charge is Thermit which is used extensively nowdays for welding rail track and it gets pretty warm Ive seen a shovel melted through in less than half a second


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2005)

they don't use that method anymore, they used to, but now they don't to allow for expansion.........


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2005)

trackend said:


> The most common form of incendairy charge is Thermit which is used extensively nowdays for welding rail track and it gets pretty warm Ive seen a shovel melted through in less than half a second



"Thermite" is a mixture of 8 parts iron-oxide and 3 parts alluminum, both in powedered form. It is hard to ignite and this is usually accomplished using a welding torch or using a magesium casing (for military useages such as grenades) which is ignited to provide the necessary heat.

In civilian usage, thermite is useful for some welding applications (often for repairs, especially underwater), as it provides the necessary heat and the burning produces very pure iron as a byproduct which if properly setup can fill in the weld.

However, in military useage, it is mostly used to destroy enemy equipment or your own equipment if it must be abandon. When a thermite grenade is placed on the works of a steel peice of equipment, it not only damages it by melting part of it but it also fills the works with molten iron.

For bombs however, most incendiaries are either napalm like, or they are a mixture of alluminum and magnesium and an oxidizer (like barium nitrate), usually in powder form using some kind of wax (often lard in WWII) as a binding agent.

Before napalm, large containgers of oil/lard with small amounts of incendiary metal ingiters were used. The Germans used a magesium/aluminum casingl filled with oil/lard in the firebombing of British cities. Once napalm was developed, it was the favored type of incendiary for city bombing, especially by the RAF.

I'm not sure of this, but I think one advantage was the empty bomb casing could be loaded and then the napalm mixture pumped into the casing in place in the plane, making the loading easier.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2005)

hi fellas (Lanc) Thermite welding is still used as the standard method for CWR (continuous welded rail) exspansion joints are used to allow for rail temperature variations
(RG) As far as the constuction of bombs I was refering to the standard german variaty of ww2 device that was used in the blitz ect.
B2.2EZ Incendiary CONSTRUCTION:


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2005)

Trackend,

Yes that kind of incendiary was used in the blitz. However the Germans also used a lot of "oil bombs", which is nothing more than a can of oil/lard (used) with an ingniter. These were usually fitted in a standard 250 or 500 kg bomb case and usually used an HE charge for ignition. They were not very reliable, often failing to ignite the oil, and were withdrawn after a while. They were called "FLAM" or "FLAMMENBOMBEN" or something like that.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 3, 2005)

Well now are we all ready to go burn and pillage 

After reading I remember reading eltswhere that the USAAC used Napalm over Japan. It was mixed with small bombs to help spread the flames and create the fire storms. 

Did the RAF use this sytem over Germany? Also were cities outside of Japan, Germany, China, and England fire bombed? Or is that question for another topic?


----------



## trackend (Mar 3, 2005)

I agree RG that they used oil bombs infact one was dropped in my old home town of Brentwood as you say they where not very reliable this one failed to explode landing on a crossroads but it made one heck of a mess with vehicles and people sliding all over the place before it was cleared up however for every one oil bomb dropped the number of incenderies like the b2.2ez where vast, containers full of them with mixed H.E to follow thus spreading the inferno even further.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 3, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Well now are we all ready to go burn and pillage
> 
> After reading I remember reading eltswhere that the USAAC used Napalm over Japan. It was mixed with small bombs to help spread the flames and create the fire storms.
> 
> Did the RAF use this sytem over Germany? Also were cities outside of Japan, Germany, China, and England fire bombed? Or is that question for another topic?



The RAF developed the system against Germany. I think Russia was also firebombed some too - but not as much as they didn't have as many fire-vulnerable cities. Firebombing works best against large dense cities, and to be effective you need to have a fair number of bombers so the firefighters of the target are totally overwhelmed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 4, 2005)

the most common lancaster bomb load, codenamed "usual" consisted of a 4,000lb cookie and 12 SBC (small bomb containers), and so was able to carry up to 2,832x4lb insendry bombs, and that's allot of fires.........

and just for you CC, my source was "The Avro Lancaster" by Francis K. Mason, 1990...........


----------



## Erich (Mar 4, 2005)

napalm was used extensively in the eto by the 422nd and 425th nf squadrons during 1945 ............


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 4, 2005)

Napalm was used to bomb cities in both the ETO and PTO.



> The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs -- all aimed against the Dresden city area. Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm



It was heavily used against Japan - on the night March 9/10, 1945, 1,665 tons of napalm were dropped on Tokyo by 279 B-29's, killing about 84,000 and seriously injuring another 41,000. It was more devastating than the A-Bombs!

As for napalm effectiveness vs. tanks, the topic of this thread,



> Whereas pilots had to hit an enemy tank with a rocket, they found that a napalm burst as much as 50 yards short would burn off tank treads and usually explode its internal fuel and ammunition. One 110-gallon napalm bomb would spread over a pear-shaped area about 275 feet long and 80 feet wide, and, burning with a 1500° flash, would normally devastate the area. Tests conducted by the 49th Fighter-Bomber Group, in conjunction with the FEAF Operations Analysis Office, showed that two 110-gallon bombs would cover an area of approximately 50 by 50 yards and that four would burn an area of some 50 by 85 yards. It was concluded that to insure a kill when a tank was the target, the impact of two napalm tanks should be 50 to 100 feet short, while four might be dropped as much as 200 feet short.
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/korea/no71-67.htm



Patton's Third Army's air support dropped 17,486 tons of bombs, 3,205 napalm tanks, and launched 4,599 rockets, so clearly it was pretty heavily used in the ETO against tactical targets.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the most common lancaster bomb load, codenamed "usual" consisted of a 4,000lb cookie and 12 SBC (small bomb containers), and so was able to carry up to 2,832x4lb insendry bombs, and that's allot of fires.........
> 
> and just for you CC, my source was "The Avro Lancaster" by Francis K. Mason, 1990...........



Wow, a source!


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 4, 2005)

Lunitic, where did you find the Patton info?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 4, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Lunitic, where did you find the Patton info?



I pulled it from another post I made, which is why I didn't give a reference.

Here's the reference: http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/thirdhst.html

Do a find on "napalm" to locate the data.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 4, 2005)

One of the best in the antitank role the VY-23.






This gas operated gun have a rate of fire aroun 550-600 rpm. The cartrigde was 23x152 case with a initial speed almost 900 meters second.
he overral legth of this gun was 2,2 meters and it have a 1,6 meters barrel length . His weight was 68 kg.

In the Il-2 aircraft it replaced the pair of 20 mm ShVak.
The Sturmovik magazine hold 300 round of ammo wich give hive a long burst capacity. Also was installed in some figthers and the experimental Il-2I ( Istribitel= Figther).

Although the AP ammo was not the same quality of westerner, it can pierce 30 mm of armour steel at 400 m in 30 degrees angle.
Usually it used a hardened steel core, and not the more effective tugsten-alloy core.






Here the sides on Panzer 38(T) hit by 200 grams, 23 mm API, with clean penetrations, between 20-25 mm.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 5, 2005)

The VYa 23mm was effective against lighter armor, but for medium tanks it was limited to only a few places where it could penetrate, and for heavy tanks it was not very effective. Most German tanks in 1941 and 1942 were not that heavy, so it was quite effective.

Also, it was much more likely to disable a target than to "destroy" it. Against a tank actually in battle, there is very little difference. But for a tank behind the front it makes a huge difference, often it could be repaired (or the crew replaced) and put back into action very quickly.

While the gun was spec'd at a 550 rpm RoF, in practice it was usually 500 rpm or even lower - perhaps this was intentional for attacking of ground targets?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 5, 2005)

Thanks. Interesting about the 23mm. So is that to say more German armor was killed from the ground and not the air? This is just my question


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 6, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> Thanks. Interesting about the 23mm. So is that to say more German armor was killed from the ground and not the air? This is just my question



Yes, I think many more German tanks were killed by ground forces. Probably more were killed by artillary pieces than any kind of vehicle, air or land.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 7, 2005)

thanks. It seems that Artillary would be the hardest weapon to use if the tanks are moving. But then the large formations of Artillary and he use of self propelled guns might make a difference


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

MP-Willow said:


> thanks. It seems that Artillary would be the hardest weapon to use if the tanks are moving. But then the large formations of Artillary and he use of self propelled guns might make a difference



By artillary, I mean all non-vehicle mounted guns, including anti-tank guns.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## MP-Willow (Mar 11, 2005)

ok thanks


----------

