I believe the first real use of "thickened" gasoline as you call it was by the Germans in WWI. As you stated though the US was the first to use Napalm Bombs dropped from aircraft.
Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I would beg to differ. The actions in Normandy (particularly the neutralization of the Falaise pocket, and the Battle of the Bulge showed the devastating potential of airpower as a tool against armour. I would go so far as to argue it was the beginning of the end for the tank as the dominant ground-based weapon system. The Typhoon and P-47 were the primary tankbusters of these campaigns, but the RAF also demonstrated that medium to low altitude bombing by heavy bomers (specifically Lancasters), was also devastating against armour. The idea was discontinued due to tragic Allied losses caused by the lack of precision bombsights and the inexperience of Bomber Command crews in the CAS role. Had this not been the case, the tactic could have proved truly devastating.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's exactly what it is. I made some of the stuff when in army training. Pour fuel thickener or powdered laundry soap into a container of gasoline and stir it up. In a couple minutes it's ready for use. Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.
Yes I know what it is. I just have never called it thickened gas or heard it called that way. That is why I said "as you call i".
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I thought flame throwers used diesel fuel as the accelerant?
Was there a change at some point, or is that erroneous information?
Elvis
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The number of actual German tanks that were destroyed by single engine ground attack during the Normandy Campaign has been totally blown out of proportion... Just a small portion of those actually claimed were confirmed....
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Flame weapons aren't picky. You can use any flammable liquid. Thickened gasoline would have been the most common during WWI and WWII.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Ah, I see.
Ok Dave, thanks for answering my question.
Elvis
Ok Dave, thanks for answering my question.
Elvis
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
From reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that tank killing was just not all that good in WWII from the air.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's my impression also. Some good tank busting technology existed. However napalm, AT cluster bombs and the R4/M rocket were deployed too late and / or in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I'm sure the poor buggers on the receiving end would beg to differ 
I am sure that total kills were overclaimed (as were kills of many things in WWII), but the morale effect on the Germans in Normandy of flights of Typhoons circling overhead waiting to pick them off must have been dreadful, especially when the LW was becoming less and less capable of stopping it from happening. I don't have specific numbers of tanks claimed to hand (although I will certainly look for them), but I am confident in saying that the effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed...
I am sure that total kills were overclaimed (as were kills of many things in WWII), but the morale effect on the Germans in Normandy of flights of Typhoons circling overhead waiting to pick them off must have been dreadful, especially when the LW was becoming less and less capable of stopping it from happening. I don't have specific numbers of tanks claimed to hand (although I will certainly look for them), but I am confident in saying that the effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed...
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Don't forget how much fuel the german armor needed. Kinda hard to run your tank when the fuel truck gets its butt chewed off by a P-47.That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.
Fireaxe888
Recruit
- 5
- Apr 18, 2009
The Il-2 had PTAB-2.5-1.5 HEAT bomblets-it carried 198 and any one of them can penetrate the armour of a heavy tank.That really must have hurt 
parsifal
Colonel
The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly. Vehicles of all kinds were generally safe unless forced to move in daylight. Once that happened, the position of the vehicle was exposed, and its ability to survive greatly reduced.
However not being able to move meant that it could be more easily targetted by ground formations. It could be flanked, bombarded sniped,,,,etc. In other words, its risk from ground forces was much increased because it could not move, but if it did move, its risk from the air was greatly increased. This gave air power a force multiplier many times that achieved by its actual kill rates
During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes
However not being able to move meant that it could be more easily targetted by ground formations. It could be flanked, bombarded sniped,,,,etc. In other words, its risk from ground forces was much increased because it could not move, but if it did move, its risk from the air was greatly increased. This gave air power a force multiplier many times that achieved by its actual kill rates
During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes
one thing 1st isn't Napalm similar to Greek fire if that is the case than it's even much older
Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?
Also the bad point of the IL-2 are these plane related or pilot related? I would say any big gun aircraft is probably a better anti armour platform than the rocket armed ones. With an OK training every plane can take out 1 tank a sortie maybe more. The rocket armed planes with their 0.5% hit rate need about 20 sorties per tank (assuming they cary 10 rockets each).
If I'm correct then the German Ju-87 and Hs-129, and IL-2 type 3M suddenly look much better.
Also the fighter bombers en route are very clumsy fighters, so when they encounter opposition they will need to drop their ordinance making them suddenly incapable of killing a tank. I don't know how rocket armed fighter bombers get rid of their rockets, but if they do not get rid of them they are hampered by their weight and drag during self-defence.
Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?
Also the bad point of the IL-2 are these plane related or pilot related? I would say any big gun aircraft is probably a better anti armour platform than the rocket armed ones. With an OK training every plane can take out 1 tank a sortie maybe more. The rocket armed planes with their 0.5% hit rate need about 20 sorties per tank (assuming they cary 10 rockets each).
If I'm correct then the German Ju-87 and Hs-129, and IL-2 type 3M suddenly look much better.
Also the fighter bombers en route are very clumsy fighters, so when they encounter opposition they will need to drop their ordinance making them suddenly incapable of killing a tank. I don't know how rocket armed fighter bombers get rid of their rockets, but if they do not get rid of them they are hampered by their weight and drag during self-defence.
Last edited:
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
For sure the rocket armed Fw 190F was an inferior tank buster. Tests showed that the Panzerblitz was very inaccurate. However, they were more accurate than their allied counterparts due to the extending fins and the high velocity. Yet, the main problem with the Panzerblitz was that it used hollow charged warheads which were too unreliable as they would not impact at a steep angle.one thing 1st isn't Napalm similar to Greek fire if that is the case than it's even much older
Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?
Also the bad point of the IL-2 are these plane related or pilot related? I would say any big gun aircraft is probably a better anti armour platform than the rocket armed ones. With an OK training every plane can take out 1 tank a sortie maybe more. The rocket armed planes with their 0.5% hit rate need about 20 sorties per tank (assuming they cary 10 rockets each).
If I'm correct then the German Ju-87 and Hs-129, and IL-2 type 3M suddenly look much better.
Also the fighter bombers en route are very clumsy fighters, so when they encounter opposition they will need to drop their ordinance making them suddenly incapable of killing a tank. I don't know how rocket armed fighter bombers get rid of their rockets, but if they do not get rid of them they are hampered by their weight and drag during self-defence.
I do think however that rocket armed fighter bombers were still capable fighter aircraft. Their ordance gave some drag which would hinder their manoeuvres and top speed but they would still be able to attack enemy attack aircraft for instance.
Kris
I'm afraid, you misunderstood the main topic, Cimmee .
