Tank busters for the air forces?

[parsifal]

Here is a link to a website that is a pretty good summary of the development of unguided rockets since 1940.

[7.0] Unguided Rockets

With regard to the germans developments, they were working on a number of very promising developments at the end of the war. Whereas allied rockets used underpowered motors and fin stabilized ballistics, the Germans opted for smaller warheads and spin stabilized rockets, similar, in concept at least, to their nebelwerfer rockets. Spin stabilized is inherently more accurate whilst the smaller warhead size meant also an inherently more accurate delivery system. On the other hand German aircraft rockets would have been less potent than their allied counterparts and hence needed more accuracy to be effective

 

[Juha]

The Littlejohn adapter on the S-class cannon was enabling a 50% increase of the penetration (eg. at 400 yds it was 85 mm at 20 deg, plane flying at 350 fps). I'd like to see some dive-brakes on the tank buster carrying that, so he can execute a 60deg dive an harm the tanks through the thin upper armor. Even without the adapter.
The notion about a Hurri IID being too much a specialized A/C points at the fact that Germans were fielding far less tanks that they needed?

Yes, I know the adapter and how it improved penetration power. It was also used in 2pdr guns of Daimler armoured cars in 44-45, usually one car with it and one without if used at all bebause the adapter attached the 2pdr could not fire HE rounds. Now the story goes that some clever crews noticed that even without the adapter the APSV shot used with Littlejohn adapter had clearly better penetration than normal APCBC shot. In fact it that way it was much like Soviet "Arrowhead" APCR round.

But even with adapter 40mm S would have been a little marginal against side armour of a Tiger, but with Molins...

Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

Now the story goes that some clever crews noticed that even without the adapter the APSV shot used with Littlejohn adapter had clearly better penetration than normal APCBC shot. In fact it that way it was much like Soviet "Arrowhead" APCR round.

Improvisation being synonym for the Brits

But even with adapter 40mm S would have been a little marginal against side armour of a Tiger, but with Molins...

Well, I've already proposed a dive bomber + S class
Or, let's attach the S class to the A-36 and be done with it.

 

[davebender]

It's my understanding the Ju-87 was considered a better overall CAS platform. That's why the Hs-129 was phased out in favor of converted Ju-87s.

 

[Juha]

It's my understanding the Ju-87 was considered a better overall CAS platform. That's why the Hs-129 was phased out in favor of converted Ju-87s.

If we are talking on tank busters, in early 45 there were still c. 60 Hs 129Bs vs c. 30 Ju 87Gs, in Apr 45 22 Hs 129Bs and c. 35 Ju 87Gs

Juha

 

[davebender]

The R4M FF rocket changed the equation during 1945. It allowed Fw-190F to become effective tank busters. Hs-129s and Ju-87s in service during 1945 were survivors that had been produced a year earlier.

 

[davebender]

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ai...rences-between-fw-190-a8-fw-190-f8-21164.html

Fw190F-8/Pb1 - Panzerblitz 1 (Pb 1) system was developed consisting of six and, more often, eight R4M air-to-air missiles. They were adapted for tank destroying by mounting an 80 mm M8 type warhead for an armour penetration of up to 90 mm. Using the Pb 1 unit it was possible to destroy tanks at a 200 m distance with rockets being fired in salvo or in pairs. The only limitation was a maximum speed of 490 km/hr, not to be exceeded during missile firing. Up to February 1945 the Luftwaffe received 115 Fw 190F-8/Pb 1 planes.


Fw190F-8/Pb2 - Panzerblitz 2 (Pb 2) unit( the successor to the Pb 1 unit). The main difference between them was the replacement of the M8 warhead by a hollow-charge warhead able to penetrate up to 180 mm armour. Also developed was the new missile system Panzerblitz 3 (Pb 3) with a 210 mm hollow-charge warhead, but it was not operational by the end of the war.

The Fw-190F-8/Pb1 made all other tank busting aircraft obsolete but it appeared too late to make much difference in WWII. If it had been available two years earlier the results could have been decisive on the Russian front.

 

[parsifal]

There is no doubt that the R4m panzerblitz rocket was a step forward. its use of spin stabilization relatively powerful motor and lightweight warhead gave it a marked advanatage in accuracy. Direct descendants can be found in the post war 70mm rockets (forget the name) and the vietnam era "zuni" rockets

However, its a stretch to say the system completely eclipsed all other systems Accuracy was greatly improved with the "Holy Moses" and the modifications to the British launching system. allied rockets retained a huge advantage in terms of simplicity and even relaibility, and the R4m rocket still suffered from a low velocity. that issue was not solved until post war. The most damning problem with the german system, however, was the small warhead size. it had a much smaller lethal kill zone than the big 5 in rockets developed earlier by the allies

Its also misleading to suggest the Germans could introduce the R4M Panzerblitz II earlier than they did. The Germans did not use airborne tankbusting rockets earlier thjan they did, because theyu were not available, moreover the germans had considerable difficulty in developing rockets for this purpose.



210 mm to 280 mm Werfergrenate - Modified army artillery rockets mounted under the wings of Fw190F's, also used to attack formations of Allied strategic bombers. greatly affected aircraft performance

80 mm and 88 mm Panzerblitz I - Modified versions of the R4M anti-aircraft rocket with a hollow charge warhead, capable of defeating 100 mm of armor plate at ranges of 500 m. Main problems was projectile speed. PBII addressed this issue, but work was delayed due in part to technical diffieculties

SG 113A 77 mm Recoilless gun (Forstersonde) - Perhaps the most innovative German aerial anti-tank weapon, the Forstersonde (Forester's probe) was a vertically mounted weapon that was fired via a magnetic trigger that would activate the weapon as it passed over its metallic target.

 

[davebender]

Folding fin stabilization is the break through technology that made the R4M rocket possible. This same technology made the Panzerfaust LAW possible.

Panzerfaust entered service during 1943. There's no reason the R4M aerial rocket couldn't also enter service during 1943. RLM just needs to fund development and production as the Heer did for the Panzerfaust.

 

[parsifal]

The Panzerblitz I, based on the Hand held Panzer faust did not start development until after Normandy, and only after the Germans had suffered first hand from the concentrated assaults by Allied Rocket Firing aircraft. Up to that time it was their opinion that the gun armed tankbusters were as good as they could get. What limited these aircraft was their specialized nature....a gun armed a/c wasnt as versatile as a rocket armed aircraft against dispersed soft targets like Infantry .

So, it wasnt funding that held the Germans back.....they were already lavishing obscene amounts of capital on R&D.....it was enlightenment and also the sheer ability to produce an effective airborne air to ground rocket. Their attempts prior to 1943 had not been all that succesful.

Also, even though spin stabilization was inherently more accurate than fin stabilization, it wasnt decisively so. The allies had access to German R&D in this area after the war, yet spin stabilization did not completely eclipse fin stabilzation, to this very day. FS does have big advantages in terms of cost....its cheap to develop and build.

The German rockets were also far from effective in some respects. The original PBI developed after Normandy suffered from two serious faults....short range and slow speed, which, along with the small warhead, actually made it less effective than the Allied ordinance. The Panzerblitz II overcame two of those issues....range and speed, but retained a small warhead size. This immediately prevented the weapon from being an effective GP weapon, and required a greater level of crew proficiency. The smaller warhead meant a smaller lethal radius, a smaller lethal radius required better crew proficiency, and in 1944-5, better crew proficiency was a rare commodity in the LW.

The LW of 1944 was not really suited to the PBII. They needed a more GP weapon in which accuracy was not important....just point the thing in the general direction of the enemy and fire it. Killing things from the air is not the principal role of CAS aircraft....a far more important mission objective was suppression, and in the rocket firing world you do that better with firepower, not accuracy. The PBii might be aas much as twice as accurate as an M-8, but that just increases the instances of a direct hit from 1% of launches to 2%. If the kill radius of the 2.75" R4M rocket is 10yards (Im being generous here), and the 5" 60lb warhead is say 20 yards, your probability of a lethal hit hasnt really changed much, but your versatility using the german weapon (because of its warhead size and design) was more restricted.

 

[jim]

The Panzerblitz I, based on the Hand held Panzer faust did not start development until after Normandy, and only after the Germans had suffered first hand from the concentrated assaults by Allied Rocket Firing aircraft. Up to that time it was their opinion that the gun armed tankbusters were as good as they could get. What limited these aircraft was their specialized nature....a gun armed a/c wasnt as versatile as a rocket armed aircraft against dispersed soft targets like Infantry .

So, it wasnt funding that held the Germans back.....they were already lavishing obscene amounts of capital on R&D.....it was enlightenment and also the sheer ability to produce an effective airborne air to ground rocket. Their attempts prior to 1943 had not been all that succesful.

Also, even though spin stabilization was inherently more accurate than fin stabilization, it wasnt decisively so. The allies had access to German R&D in this area after the war, yet spin stabilization did not completely eclipse fin stabilzation, to this very day. FS does have big advantages in terms of cost....its cheap to develop and build.

The German rockets were also far from effective in some respects. The original PBI developed after Normandy suffered from two serious faults....short range and slow speed, which, along with the small warhead, actually made it less effective than the Allied ordinance. The Panzerblitz II overcame two of those issues....range and speed, but retained a small warhead size. This immediately prevented the weapon from being an effective GP weapon, and required a greater level of crew proficiency. The smaller warhead meant a smaller lethal radius, a smaller lethal radius required better crew proficiency, and in 1944-5, better crew proficiency was a rare commodity in the LW.

The LW of 1944 was not really suited to the PBII. They needed a more GP weapon in which accuracy was not important....just point the thing in the general direction of the enemy and fire it. Killing things from the air is not the principal role of CAS aircraft....a far more important mission objective was suppression, and in the rocket firing world you do that better with firepower, not accuracy. The PBii might be aas much as twice as accurate as an M-8, but that just increases the instances of a direct hit from 1% of launches to 2%. If the kill radius of the 2.75" R4M rocket is 10yards (Im being generous here), and the 5" 60lb warhead is say 20 yards, your probability of a lethal hit hasnt really changed much, but your versatility using the german weapon (because of its warhead size and design) was more restricted.[/Q

Far from the truth .
What Lw needed DESPERATELY was something to kill tanks from the air. Soviet tanks. Something that could be used by their best CAS aircraft ,Fw190F8. For suppresion work Lw had excellent, very effective, cluster bombs not to mention the powerful but inaccurate 21cm and28cm rockets.They prefered the bombs.
About the killing radius, heavy tanks required direct hits for penetration of their armour

 

[parsifal]

What Lw needed DESPERATELY was something to kill tanks from the air. Soviet tanks

Which is a pipe dream that no combatant, from any nation was able to achieve during the war. The high kill rates from aircrafdt look impressive, until the actual details of individual actions are examined. According to Bergsytom, during the Kursk battle, there was an incident involving both of the HS 129 units....about 40 aircraft, that claimed the destruction of almost an entire Soviet Tank Brigade....about 70 tanks....in one day. Turns out just three tanks were destroyed.

What "tankbusting" aircraft could do was suppress them either by immobilizing them, killing or injuring the crews, or pining them to allow the ground formations to envelope, isolate and then destroy that armour

For suppresion work Lw had excellent, very effective, cluster bombs not to mention the powerful but inaccurate 21cm and28cm rockets.They prefered the bombs.

And the Soviets had the PTAB cluster bomb and an AT variant as well as well as the RS 82 rocket, all from 1941....much earlier than any of the ordinance you mention

About the killing radius, heavy tanks required direct hits for penetration of their armour

You dont need to penetrate the frontal armour of a tank to knock it out or disable it. A paytern of 5 inch rockets within 30 yards of the target will deliver around 800 lbs of high explosive in a tight radius around the target. more than enough to set up a concussion wave that will generally kill or maim the crew, take of a track, rupture a fuel line, or a dozen other ways to stop that tank. Firepowert was the key to understanding how allied rocket attacks worked. this was less apparent in the German approach. German approach was not invalid, it eventually overtook the allied approach, but not in the context of the war itself. Further postwar development was needed to bring those late war German projects to fruition.

I see as usual your rebuttal has absolutely zero supporting evidence....nice

 

[tyrodtom]

Folding fin aircraft rockets are spin stabilized, the fins are slighly canted like the feathers on a arrow. Maybe not all, but the FFARs i'm familiar with spun.

But i've never seen a FFAR that you could call accurate, even in the 70's. I don't know if the spin wasn't enough or/and the solid propellant just never burned evenly.

 

[davebender]

That depends on how you define accurate.

Hs-129Bs and Ju-87Gs fired at armored vehicles from a range of about 300 meters. I think a volley of FF rockets could hit a tank from that distance.

 

[jim]

Which is a pipe dream that no combatant, from any nation was able to achieve during the war. The high kill rates from aircrafdt look impressive, until the actual details of individual actions are examined. According to Bergsytom, during the Kursk battle, there was an incident involving both of the HS 129 units....about 40 aircraft, that claimed the destruction of almost an entire Soviet Tank Brigade....about 70 tanks....in one day. Turns out just three tanks were destroyed.

What "tankbusting" aircraft could do was suppress them either by immobilizing them, killing or injuring the crews, or pining them to allow the ground formations to envelope, isolate and then destroy that armour



And the Soviets had the PTAB cluster bomb and an AT variant as well as well as the RS 82 rocket, all from 1941....much earlier than any of the ordinance you mention



You dont need to penetrate the frontal armour of a tank to knock it out or disable it. A paytern of 5 inch rockets within 30 yards of the target will deliver around 800 lbs of high explosive in a tight radius around the target. more than enough to set up a concussion wave that will generally kill or maim the crew, take of a track, rupture a fuel line, or a dozen other ways to stop that tank. Firepowert was the key to understanding how allied rocket attacks worked. this was less apparent in the German approach. German approach was not invalid, it eventually overtook the allied approach, but not in the context of the war itself. Further postwar development was needed to bring those late war German projects to fruition.

I see as usual your rebuttal has absolutely zero supporting evidence....nice

Parsifal
Your post, as usual, is full of insults ,arrogance, ignorance and discrimination
1) Your claims that german aircrafts did not destroy soviet tanks has 0 evidence. You keep repeating that caramel about soviet brigade at Kursk. Soviet evidence show no kills but they dont explain why that brigade stoped. Do you want evidence? READ! Read SG2 s actions as fire brigade to stop soviets armor penetraions of the front. Read how ground attack forces were asking for support by cannon armed Stukas. There are photographic evidence as well. Why they were risking their lives flying Ju87Gs in 1945? For no reason? They did not knew ? You know Lw was evaluating the results of newly introduced weapons in the field. READ!. They dicovered the shortcomings of early 30mm cannons, they evaluated the reults of 37 mm as well . Overclaiming of course did occur. But in contrast to the aerial victories, in attacks against tanks there were not only forward directors but often whole companies and battallions to witness the results
2)Obviously you dont have a clue about the situation faced by the Germans on the Eastern front! Simply There were no enough ground forces to "envelope,isolate and destoy that armour" .How easy every thing looks from a chair!German held a line of strongholds and usually soviets tanks broke the line in the interim space. German tanks and and heavy self propelled guns of korps level reserve were going to counter attack but there were never enough of them. Luftwaffe had to destroy tanks breaking in the rear of german front lines. Soviets had so many tanks that very often used them as infantry carriers as well!
3) Did i say that soviets did not had cluster bombs??? What that has to do with this discusiion? My point is that German did not need the rockets as supression weapons, they had the their cluster bombs. You are so anxious to devalue anything german that you say irrelevant things!
4) How effectively alleid rockets worked against tanks is proven by the statistics of their own armies. German on the eastern front discovered that even small bombs had to land very near to the tank to disable it. Actually Panthers and Tigers often were surviving near explosions by artillery shells. Also imobilising a tank is not enough, it still can fire and both armies were expert at recovering
5)Because i have enough with your detractions and insults towards me about not providing evidence i will suggest you some bibliography
a)Aggrersor:Tank Buster vs Combat Vehicle b)Fw 190 , Hs 129, Ju87 ,Bf 110 in action c) Stuka Pilot by Just d) Hans ulrich Rudels Memoirs ( I imagine your answer : He was a liar and a coward) e) Panzer Aces 1,2 3 f) Armored battles of the Waffen SS g) Infantry aces of the eastern front h)Otto Carius memories j)Guns of the Reich k) Luftwaffe weapons l) Eagles of the third reich and quite a few more that i am boring writing . I write nothing from my imagination. You do have many knowledges but your biasment blinds you and you insult any one with diferent opinion..

 

[tyrodtom]

That depends on how you define accurate.

Hs-129Bs and Ju-87Gs fired at armored vehicles from a range of about 300 meters. I think a volley of FF rockets could hit a tank from that distance.

For once I can't disagree, but that's sort of like area bombing with rockets.

 

[davebender]

Until gyro stabilized gunsights were introduced it's almost impossible for an aircraft to hit anything with either a cannon or rockets at ranges greater then 300 meters. If the target is an enemy fighter aircraft effective range drops to about 150 meters. That's WWII reality.

 

[Milosh]

Maybe you should read this discussion jim,
Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk - The Dupuy Institute Forum

 

[davebender]

Anton Flettner moved to the USA during 1945 and became chief designer for Kaman Aircraft. His WWII era Fi-282 helicopter evolved into the Vietnam era H-43. If you look at pictures of both helicopters it's easy to see the linage. This gives us a reference as to where Fi-282 helicopter development is heading if Anton Flettner receives adequate funding.
...............................................................................................................................

The historical Fi-282 was approved for service with the German Navy during 1942. However the program received crumbs for funding. Flettner never had more then 120 employees and that was during 1944 after the Heer placed an order for 1,000 helicopters. Let's get the Heer interested during 1942 and give the program serious funding.

Historically the more powerful Fi-285 was approved after the Heer order. This involves replacing the 160hp Bramo Sh-14A engine with a 240hp Argus As.10 engine to increase aircraft payload.

This gives the Heer an aerial tank buster which is inherently more accurate then a fixed wing aircraft. It's also more survivable as it can fly nape of the earth and pop up for a shot.

The Fi-285 has enough payload to carry a 3cm M103 cannon or FF rockets.

 

[parsifal]

Part I of II

Your post, as usual, is full of insults ,arrogance, ignorance and discrimination

Please point me to where mylast post to you is full of insults, arrogance ignorance and discrimination? disagreeing with you does not fit any of those categories. Pointing out you have no supporting material is not an insult, its a fact, and an invitation for you to correct that omission.

1)

Your claims that german aircrafts did not destroy soviet tanks has 0 evidence. You keep repeating that caramel about soviet brigade at Kursk.

I quoted bergstrom, who iss THE recognized authority on the Kursk air battle, at least in a widely published form. If you have better information, please present it.

Soviet evidence show no kills but they dont explain why that brigade stoped. Do you want evidence? READ! Read SG2 s actions as fire brigade to stop soviets armor penetraions of the front. Read how ground attack forces were asking for support by cannon armed Stukas. There are photographic evidence as well.

According to Soviet sources (Krivosheev i think....i rely on Bergstrom who mentions him i believe) the Brigade in question lost three tanks. This is confirmed, or at least supported by Bergstrom on that day, who also demolishes the claims made by the germans. Short answer is, i have read quite a bit on this subject, but im happy for you to present supported argument to the contrary. this far you have no supported evidence, and no verifiable sources quoted in your reply. which diminishes the credibilty of your response to about zero Im afraid.

Why they were risking their lives flying Ju87Gs in 1945? For no reason? They did not knew ? You know Lw was evaluating the results of newly introduced weapons in the field. READ!. They dicovered the shortcomings of early 30mm cannons, they evaluated the reults of 37 mm as well . Overclaiming of course did occur. But in contrast to the aerial victories, in attacks against tanks there were not only forward directors but often whole companies and battallions to witness the results

Obtaining reliable results from battlefields is harder, much harder when you are on the retreat. And thats the big problem for the germans in the last half of the war. they were retreating and often did not get to see or observe the results of their attacks properly.

Moreover there were massive gaps and weaknesses in the german evaluation and intelligence services, inlcuding the technical evaluation services. The best source i can recommend is gehlen who established the foreign armies east network (the so called "red books"). these were the best sources on Soviet military strength and capability available to the germans, yet after the war were found to be hopelessly innaccurate. gehlen himself admitted this after the war, but it was better than anything the germans possessed in the way of interlligence during the war. Hitler once threatened to have gehlen shot, because at the end of the war he accurately predicted the Soviet strength and tank availability on the Oder-Niese line. Gehlens command included a comprehensive technical branch to do the very job you are talking about. If you ever do actually do what you are admonishing me to do....read....you will find repeated lamentations from these officers about their inability to just what you are claiming....have the time to obseverve the results of such attacks.

Often tanks were knocked out by German attacks.....temporarily. Thats one of the advatages of being the strategic attacker....vehicles and AFVs knocked out of action can be returned to action because you as the attacker take the ground, make it secure and have the time to repair the equipment knocked out by the enemy. Such advantage does not exist for the strategic defender. seldom, or at least less often was it possible for the defender able to recover knocked out equipment. It happended to the Soviets in 1941-2, and it happened just as often to the Germans 1944-5.

2)Obviously you dont have a clue about the situation faced by the Germans on the Eastern front! Simply There were no enough ground forces to "envelope,isolate and destoy that armour" .How easy every thing looks from a chair!German held a line of strongholds and usually soviets tanks broke the line in the interim space. German tanks and and heavy self propelled guns of korps level reserve were going to counter attack but there were never enough of them. Luftwaffe had to destroy tanks breaking in the rear of german front lines. Soviets had so many tanks that very often used them as infantry carriers as well!

You are right that as an outside observer I dont have the experiences of people that were there. But i have to ask you a question...are you an east front veteran. on the assumption that you are not I think I have as much knowledge as you to make observations about this TO. And, for the record, I have personal connections for people on both sides that fought on that front. People that have spoken to me in detail about their experiences.

having said that, what you are saying about the german inability to concentrate and achieve decisive advanatgaes in numbers is true, but only because of the production and military decisionms they themselves made, and not always true anyway at a tactical level. at a strategic level, the Russians achieved overwhelming suuperiority of numbers. Tactically, there are many instances the germans could and did achieve local superiorities. And it was not the passive supine defences that won battles for the germans after 1943....it was their ability to achieve local superiorities wherever possible and deliver stinging counterattacks that usually stopped the Russian offensives.

3) Did i say that soviets did not had cluster bombs??? What that has to do with this discusiion? My point is that German did not need the rockets as supression weapons, they had the their cluster bombs. You are so anxious to devalue anything german that you say irrelevant things!

Its not irrelevant in my opinion. you presented your case as if nobody else possessed other weapons suited for suppression. I was merely citing an example of comparable capability.

Saying the germans did not need a good air to ground rocket is just not supported by the facts. One of the great advatages of rocket area supreesive weapons is their ability to engage at range. Instead of having to fly over the target, they could be fired at some distance....usually 3-500m, but at a pinch up to 1200m or so, thereby reducing the effects of AA.

Im not anxious to denigrate the germans, in fact the posts I have made over this thread are to acknowledge the technical advantages their rocket techs possessed. problem was it arrived too late and was not the right wepon for theeir wars end situation. thats not denigrating the germans, thats attempting to explain why they lost.