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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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 :lol: But everything they make looks so DAMN good I forgive them, entirely.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
tomo pauk
Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
peceed
P
tomo pauk
Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45
6 7 8
Replies
156
Views
5K
Shortround6
S
INTX7568
The best fighter of the 1930s
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
11K
bf109xxl
bf109xxl
DerAdlerIstGelandet
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
10K
mikewint
mikewint
Back