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

[Tony Williams]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Anonymous]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tony Williams]

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]

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]

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]

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