Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[Zeke_Freak]

The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly...

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

I agree. The other effects of close support air attacks should also be considered. But the overall effectiveness of close support in general isn't really at issue. I think this thread's topic would better be interpretted as 'which aircraft best served the role of tank killer', and that theme should be considered from two perspectives, the raw ability of the aircraft 1 vs 1 against a tank, and then extenuating factors that affect its abilities. As example of what I mean... if someone considered the Stuka as best tank killer, the Stukas weakness against enemy fighters is a factor to consider, since it limits its ability to serve its purpose, but with no enemy air support around the Stuka was quite effective in its role, relative to the overall effectiveness of tactical close support aircraft in general. The Stukas siren alone was very effective in its purpose.

Leif

 

[parsifal]

good points, and with regard to the vulnrtability issue, its why I think aircraft like the Stuka are not the best tank killing aircraft....even though they were very good at killing tanks, they sucked at surviving.....

Another issue is multi-role flexibility.....and ease of production....lesser a/c like the Allied F/Bs, the German Fw 190 F-8 or the IL-2 get good points in these various other considerations, even though as tank killing platforms they are not the best

 

[cimmee]

I'm afraid, you misunderstood the main topic, Cimmee .

I understand the topic quite well. The best tank killers are other tanks...

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

5%?

It's gotta be higher. During the last two years of the war they used animals to move around on....

 

[parsifal]

If you have some information to back your ideas up, that would be helpful.

I base those figures on several sources, principally Colonel Dupuys postwar studies on the causes of defeat. Dunnigan in his SPI book "East Front" also gives a pretty good breakdown on losses by cause.

But if we look at France in 1944, the effects of airpower as a direct means of inflicting casualties are brought inhto focus. The tactical airforces claimed to have destroyed 6200 vehicles and 391 tanks by direct action. They claimed for example, to have destroyed over 90 AFVs (ie tanks) attached to the panzer Lehr Division, in its advance to normandy. In fact only two tanks were actually destroyed by airpower, though approximately 100 soft skinned vehecles were damaged or destroyed.

Like I said, if you have better figures, please go ahead and and post your figures. These are the best i can do at short notice.

391 tanks claimed destroyed is almost certainoly an overclaim. Exactly how much is anybodies guess, but lets be generaous and assume that it is only out by 50%....lets assume that in reality 200 armoured vehicles were destroyed by direct air attack (close air support. What percentage of the total German losses in Normandy do you think that might represent?

Jarymowycz's work also includes a table of causes for German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):

Gunfire.........................43.8%
Abandonment.....................18.3%
Mechanical.......................4.0%
Self destruction................20.7%
Air Attack.......................7.5%
Hollow-charge Rounds.............4.4%
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%

However, this figure may still be too high. Making various adjustments and alowances gives a figure of around 2% for hard targets, and around 5-7% for all categories of vehicles.

Yet another study (WO 291/1186) gives the comparative performance of anti-tank weapons systems during WWII

This report is British in origin, dated 24 May 1950.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows:
Theatre (tanks)..Mines.ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe
Mines.22.1%
ATk guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
Total100%


losses due to airpower arent even listed separately in this report,...I believe they are lumped into the "other" column

In fairness, tanks are also not the biggest killers of other tanks....the biggest anti-armour weapons are Tracked and towed ATgs, and Infantry weapons...Bazookas and mines

As to the comment about animals being used only in the last two years....well, again, a misconception. 80% of the german armoy was classified as unmotorized in 1939.....a frontline German Infantry Div in 1939 had over 1000 soft skinned vehicles when at full strength, and 6200 draft animals. By 1944, the size of the division had dropped from 17000 to around 11000 (on average), the number of soft skinned vehicles had dropped to about 750, on average, but the number of draft animals had sunk to less than 2000....there were simply not enough horses....thats why it was impossible on the eastern front for the germans to undertake any mobile warfare of any description....they had lost their mobility...any rapid movements invariable large losses of heavy equipment, and reduced re-supply capability...this had all happened mostly as a result of the animal and vehicle losses on the eastern front up tpo 1944

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I understand the topic quite well. The best tank killers are other tanks...

And the topic was about which AIRCRAFT was the best best tank killer. We have other topics about best tank and best tank on tank and all that stuff...

 

[johnbr]

What about the Typhoon it took out a few tanks.

 

[cimmee]

And the topic was about which AIRCRAFT was the best best tank killer. We have other topics about best tank and best tank on tank and all that stuff...

The best tank killer is, was, and always will be another AFV.

That or an A-bomb... Ultimately that was a fine AFV killer. It stopped the war...

 

[cimmee]

If you have some information to back your ideas up, that would be helpful.

I base those figures on several sources, principally Colonel Dupuys postwar studies on the causes of defeat. Dunnigan in his SPI book "East Front" also gives a pretty good breakdown on losses by cause.

But if we look at France in 1944, the effects of airpower as a direct means of inflicting casualties are brought inhto focus. The tactical airforces claimed to have destroyed 6200 vehicles and 391 tanks by direct action. They claimed for example, to have destroyed over 90 AFVs (ie tanks) attached to the panzer Lehr Division, in its advance to normandy. In fact only two tanks were actually destroyed by airpower, though approximately 100 soft skinned vehecles were damaged or destroyed.

Like I said, if you have better figures, please go ahead and and post your figures. These are the best i can do at short notice.

391 tanks claimed destroyed is almost certainoly an overclaim. Exactly how much is anybodies guess, but lets be generaous and assume that it is only out by 50%....lets assume that in reality 200 armoured vehicles were destroyed by direct air attack (close air support. What percentage of the total German losses in Normandy do you think that might represent?

Jarymowycz's work also includes a table of causes for German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):

Gunfire.........................43.8%
Abandonment.....................18.3%
Mechanical.......................4.0%
Self destruction................20.7%
Air Attack.......................7.5%
Hollow-charge Rounds.............4.4%
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%

However, this figure may still be too high. Making various adjustments and alowances gives a figure of around 2% for hard targets, and around 5-7% for all categories of vehicles.

Yet another study (WO 291/1186) gives the comparative performance of anti-tank weapons systems during WWII

This report is British in origin, dated 24 May 1950.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows:
Theatre (tanks)..Mines.ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe
Mines.22.1%
ATk guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5%
SP guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
Total100%


losses due to airpower arent even listed separately in this report,...I believe they are lumped into the "other" column

In fairness, tanks are also not the biggest killers of other tanks....the biggest anti-armour weapons are Tracked and towed ATgs, and Infantry weapons...Bazookas and mines

As to the comment about animals being used only in the last two years....well, again, a misconception. 80% of the german armoy was classified as unmotorized in 1939.....a frontline German Infantry Div in 1939 had over 1000 soft skinned vehicles when at full strength, and 6200 draft animals. By 1944, the size of the division had dropped from 17000 to around 11000 (on average), the number of soft skinned vehicles had dropped to about 750, on average, but the number of draft animals had sunk to less than 2000....there were simply not enough horses....thats why it was impossible on the eastern front for the germans to undertake any mobile warfare of any description....they had lost their mobility...any rapid movements invariable large losses of heavy equipment, and reduced re-supply capability...this had all happened mostly as a result of the animal and vehicle losses on the eastern front up tpo 1944

Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal.

You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.

As it's common knowledge that most of the mongoloid Nazis moved via animal transport, I am not proffering a link.

Fulda was filled with dead tanks, animals, rotting Nazi soldiers, trains, etc..

 

[cimmee]

What about the Typhoon it took out a few tanks.

More than a few. I am not sure how accurate the rockets were, but the 20mm worked well.

Use the original claims. Do not ever fall for revisionist history...

 

[parsifal]

Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal.

You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.

As it's common knowledge that most of the mongoloid Nazis moved via animal transport, I am not proffering a link.

Fulda was filled with dead tanks, animals, rotting Nazi soldiers, trains, etc..

Why is it banal? Ive given you some pretty good refernces to start you off, which you could go and research at your own leisure. Instead, i get an unsupported rebuttal, which adds up to no rebuttal, because it is a response with no substance

Petrol was in short supply, for most of the war, as you say, but the Germans also suffered from a shortage of all types of transport, mostly motor transport, but also horses as well. By the late war, they did not have enough of any transport, horsed or MT. I fail to see how one problem, ie the shortage of fuel, has any relevance or connection to other problems faced by the Germans, such as their chronic shortages of MT or their shortagesw of horses.

I am no friend of the Nazis, but I also dont appreciate your tone of language....the Germans, including the nazis, were not mongoloid, so please stop trying to either impress with such language. Its actually offensive, because those so-called "mongoloids" took 6 years to defeat, and 10s of millions of lives. And they fought ferociously, heroically and effectively in that process

With regard to your last comment about Fulda, what has that got to do with anything....are you perhaps referring to Falaise, in which case you should undertake some serious research. Airpower was at its most efficient in these sorts of constricted situations, but even so, it was not as effective as other weapons, particualrly artillery. Airpower was crucial for victory, but not as a direct means of killing thins.

Unless you have some information to back your claims up, or which refute the information I have already provided to you, I dont see this discussion going too far.

 

[parsifal]

The best tank killer is, was, and always will be another AFV.

That or an A-bomb... Ultimately that was a fine AFV killer. It stopped the war...

Even though you are banned at this point, I think it worthwhile to respond to this drivel. Tanks are an effective defence against tanks, but they were not the most effective weapon. The most effective weapons were Infantry, and their weapons they carried. ATGs and mines mostly. On the Eastern Front, in 1944, the Soviets lost 19000 AFVs, but 13000 of these were to German Infantry formations. The Soviet Infantry formations had the same impact in reverse.

If they let you come back, try and do at least some research befaore opening your mouth in future

 

[Zeke_Freak]

It's always a shame to see someone trip over their own ego. You hope they'll learn, and act as intelligently as they think they are... but usually its a lost cause.

I appreciated your stats parsifal. I think it gives some interesting food for thought on the subject at hand. I wonder how many times the reality of the situation spills over several of the categories. A tank encounters some weapons fire/ mine, etc, suffers some mechanical issues, is abandoned, and perhaps later hit by an air attack.

The Russian Winter was pretty hard on German tanks. Weather doesn't seem to be considered directly in the stats, but I imagine many of those casualites would fall into the 'abandoned' category.

Back to the subject at hand, does anyone know what sort of air attack was most effective against most armor? Dive bombing, flak canons, rockets, etc? I imagine the rocket attacks were delivered at less of an angle than say the flak or bombs.

I'm also curious about the types of bombs generally used, and the nature of the flight missions for tank killers. I'm somewhat familiar with the Pacific theater options. But in the European theater, were tank killing missions with AP bomb specifically called in when targets were identified, or did tank killers patrol around with APs ready to go, and just use them as they saw an opportunity?

Leif

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal.

You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.

As it's common knowledge that most of the mongoloid Nazis moved via animal transport, I am not proffering a link.

Fulda was filled with dead tanks, animals, rotting Nazi soldiers, trains, etc..

I bet you wonder why you were banned? Asshat...

 

[parsifal]

Thankyou Leif


I dont have an answer, but the general wisdom is that cannohn armed divebombers were the most effective weapons system.....

 

[gjs238]

How about this puppy?
Henschel Hs 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia