Office Tank Battle! (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Here in my office the Germans have mustered two Tigers,a Stug,a Jagdpanther and a forthcoming King tiger.Facing this mighty force are two Shermans a Churchill and a T-34 -its not looking good for my brave allies!!!
(i think i need about ten firefly's!)
Rob.

 

[jazzeum]

I think you need to get back to work

 

[Rob]

You may have a point there Brad!!!!

Rob.

 

[binder001]

Tac air!!!!! Run down to WalMart and get some 21C P47s in 1:32 scale - fast!

"Firelies" or M36s WOULD help with the Nazi armor. The Firefly won't be any better than a regular Sherman at dealing with the infantry (perhaps worse). Use terrain to the advantage of your lesser-armed tanks. Call in artillery. Rain or shine, in WW2 Allied artillery was always a major factor in the battlefield in Europe.

Pray!

 

[Louis Badolato]

Forget 10 fireflys, what you need is air support. A couple of P51-D Mustangs, or P47 Thunderbolts, maybe a Typhoon or two. K&C made all of these warbirds back in the 1990's.

 

[Rob]

Thats what i need,TYPHOONS!!

Rob.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well I have two K&C Mustangs and a P47, but I have never been able to find the Typhoon. It looks really cool in the flyer, and I hope to add it to my collection one day.

 

[Rob]

Actually while we are on the subject of Typhoons, do any of you out there know if many King Tigers were knocked out by Typhoons or other fighter bombers?.I know a lot of KT's were abandoned by their crew's etc,but i was wondering if the Typhoon was still as deady against KT's as it was against ordinary Tigers and Panthers.

Rob.

 

[binder001]

As far as actual tank "kills" the Allied fighter-bombers (Typhoon, P47, etc.) were less effective than their pilots and many airpower supporters gave them credit for. WW2 rockets were unguided and often inaccurate, bombs were killers, but hard for a pilot to get on target. There was an interview with a pilot who discussed using bombs to "flip the German tanks on their backs". Even ground observers in Kosovo found that pilots claimed of AFV "kills" were inflated. Airpower had tank kills, but one of their big contributions was to destroy the fuel and supply trucks and the other infrastructure that keeps tanks running and effective.

The King Tiger was vulnerable to gunfire through the sides and rear, so I imagine that the 60-pounder rockets from a Typhoon or the US 4.5-inch rockets from P47s, Mustangs and P38s would be deadly if they scored a good hit from above. I don't know if either weapon had a shaped charge. Bombs would still be deadly if a good hit was scored.

Don't forget that the P47 was a superior ground attack aircarft to the P51. Better survivability and more firepower.

 

[Louis Badolato]

The P47 was indeed a superior ground attack fighter, as its air cooled radial engine could sustain relatively severe damage and still run, while one rifle bullet causing a coolant or oil leak would knock down a P51. However, with regard to the statement that the claims of the allied pilots were inflated, be that as it may, the vast majority of German armor knocked out on the western front was knocked out by what the panzer crews referred to as "Jaeger Bombers" or Jabo's. Every first hand account by a Panzer crewman I have ever read or heard on the History Channel indicates that while they had little or no fear of the Sherman in any of its variations, they were absolutely terrified by the Jabos (literally "Hunter Bombers"). The fact that the Germans could not move their armor by day evidences the effect these aircraft had on the Panzers.

 

[binder001]

Louis, You are quite right about the psychological effect of Allied airpower! Whether the aircraft actually destroyed tanks or not, you are right - they DID paralyze German tactical movements during the day. Rommmel saw this in North Africa and Italy and tried to warn other German commanders in the West. My statement about inflated claims is not meant to belittle the efforts of Allied aircrews who worked hard and braved a lot of ground fire to stop German forces. It's just been proved over the years that many a pilot believed he destroyed every target he shot at. These are young men in a fast moving vehicle who are getting short looks at their prey while watching for the ever-present enemy ground fire AND the occasional enemy air intervention.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Flyboys certainly inflate their scores, but I don't think the Germans would have been that frightened if the ground attack planes weren't very effective.

 

[sceic2]

In the heat of battle, men (whither they are pilots or individual ground pounders or officers on ships) often, like in any witness situation, remember things that either did or did not happen. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. Add to that common factor the stress and excitement of battle, it is no wonder that confirmations of kills are a requirement.

That after battle assessment often is flawed too. The only way some "kills" were confirmed was after the war when the enemies records are reviewed. The Japanese often over inflated naval kills. The USS Saratoga was sunk at least 10 times throughout her career. She finally died during atomic bomb testing. Fighter pilots, who have no ego at all have a strong feeling of competition from their peers to become either an ace or outnumber their peers in kills.

The battlefield in WWII became the most complicated in history. It is no wonder that claims were made that were later found to be not as they were remembered or recorded.

I wish I could have some of my toys in my office. It would mean that I would get even less work done, what with my computer just sitting there saying, "go ahead, go on-line, there are updates on K&C to look at, the Forum at Treefrog must have some new posts, and you can always look at my screen as I show you the great toys that are out there." Yeah, my computer talks to me, so what. No, I am not delusional, MY COMPUTER IS. Michael

 

[OzDigger]

Actually while we are on the subject of Typhoons, do any of you out there know if many King Tigers were knocked out by Typhoons or other fighter bombers?.I know a lot of KT's were abandoned by their crew's etc,but i was wondering if the Typhoon was still as deady against KT's as it was against ordinary Tigers and Panthers.
Rob.

Following examination of several battlegrounds, sources estimate that only about 100 German tanks were knocked out by fighter-bombers during the entire Normandy campaign. Note that the Germans were rarely able to recover even the intact tanks because of their continued retreat during that campaign, so the numbers are more reliable here than in most other battles of WWII.

In contrast the USAF's 9th Airforce and the RAF's 2nd TAF lost over 1,700 aircraft between them from groundfire etc. The 60lb (overall weight) HE rocket was certainly capable of destroying even the larger tanks however accuracy was very poor. An average of 200 rockets had to be fired for each hit, and about 20-30% of rocket 'hits' failed to explode.

In addition most claimed 'tank' kills were found to be soft skinned vehicles such as trucks and armoured cars because the high attack speed, limited visibility and effective AA fire made accurate pilot observation difficult. You can imagine the combined effects of rocket smoke, explosions, and clouds of dust together with the clouds of engine exhaust from tanks etc being quickly moved 'out of harms way' could deceive pilots into thinking they had made a kill.

None the less, ground attack aircraft such as the Typhoon and P-47 were very effective indirectly against tanks because they could destroy the tanks logistical support provided by trains, troops, and softer skinned vehicles - especially fuel trucks.

 

[Louis Badolato]

So how many German tanks were confirmed knocked out by allied tanks during the Normandy campaign? And how many allied tanks were knocked out by German tanks during this campaign? I think you will find that the airpower was far more effective than the armor. I know that during operation good wood, the British lost the better part of 300 tanks in a couple of days without knocking out more than a handfull of German tanks, if that many. I still don't buy that our armor had any chance against the German Armor without air supremacy.

 

[Rob]

I'm sure your right on a one to one basis.Can't underestimate the effect of sheer weight of numbers though.And the trouble is however good a weapon is there is often a better one.For all their power and morale destroying properties look what happened to the Tigers/panthers at Caen.Tossed around like carboard boxes when the R.A.F went in.It must have been awful knowing you may well be sat in the best tank on the battlefield,but that means squat if a plane that you never see is going to swoop down and blow your tank to kingdom come.Us Brits made a huge error in not surging ahead in tank developement after WW1 and paid dearly for it.But thank god for the R.A.F (and the U.S.A.A.F)

 

[panda1gen]

I have a reference book called 'Panzers in Normandy' which refers to the power of a 500lb (plus?) bomb throwing a tiger upside down as well as some tank casualties from fighter bombers, but no numbers of total casualties that I was able to find.

There were also odd references to firefly tanks destroying german heavy armour. Am I right in thinking there were only around 500 fireflies ready in June 44 - around one for a troop of four or five tanks? They lost the hull machine gun and did not have a fifty on the roof either. There was also the challenger version of an enlarged cromwell.

I would love to see some cromwells, challengers and fireflies if you are listening Andy? Bet you can improve on Frontline. What about the funnies - AVREs?

Air power - possibly mediums as much as typhoons etc were undoubtedly destructive against tanks - but I agree with Ozdigger - perhaps more important was the limitation to the tanks greates asset - mobility? The horse drawn (remember the wehrmacht was mainly a horse drawn army), soft skinned and lightly armoured vehicles in particular were very vulnerable to cannon fire which was more accurate than the rockets and destructive from above on lighter armour where there was some. This meant that the germans were often struggling for fuel, ammo, and parts.

The Stuka Ju87G with twin 37mm cannon on the eastern front and the hurricane with twin 40mm cannon in the desert were also great levellers earlier in the war.

As for flak, perhaps we might have some light mobile flak in due course?

 

[binder001]

Louis,
Are you interested in JUST the Normandy campaign, or the whole combat across France? Normandy is not a "fair" (nothing is in life!) evaluation between German and American armor. The Germans could sit tight in close terrain forcing the Americans to come across limited and predictable avenues of approach. Operation Goodwood wasn't about the technical merits of the Sherman or Cromwell, it was about a major frontal assault on a prepared position held by a well-equipped and determined opponent. Judging the effectiveness of Allied armor at Goodwood is like evaluating all Napoleonic cavalry based on Balaklava.

Read Steve Zaloga's Osprey "Campaign" series book on the Lorraine campaign. The US 4th Armored Division all but wiped out three Panther brigades during open combat, using most 75mm Shermans with a few 76s and some M18s from the attached 704th TD Bn. Tac air certainly helped make a major difference, but it was Wood's 4th Armored, plus other units of Patton's Third Army that took out the best that von Manteuffel could bring up, PLUS the US forces gained ground.

 

[panda1gen]

I also agree that Goodwood was not a clear comparison either. The strategy Montgomery had from the start of the Overlord operation was to 'write down' the german armour - drawing it around Caen as the open ground would dictate their commitment for fear of a breakout.

A combination of all arms including AT guns - even the British 6 pdr was effective at short range - infantry. tank and artillery for the army as well as naval gunfire and of course the air forces did exactly that, so that when the panzers were forced to counter attack at Mortain to prevent the US breakout from St Lo, there was little left. By the end of July most panzer divisions were down to company strength in tanks. I read an account that reported some panthers destroyed on the journey to the start line for that Mortain counter attack by fighter bombers though.

It was carpet bombing by the heavies that helped open it out for the breakout at St Lo and more arguably, Caen itself. You have to admire the handling of the allied armour after the breakout though.

 

[Louis Badolato]

I didn't pick Normandy for the comparison, that was the reference used by one of the other forum members in indicating the number of German tanks destroyed by aircraft (100) so I merely stated that I wondered how many German tanks were knocked out by Allied tanks during this campaign. However, if you want a real German Tanker's view point on Allied Armor vs. Allied air power, read the book written by Guderian's son about the Greyhound Division. They simply did not fear our tanks. Further, I don't know anything about the battle you are referencing, but how much did the Allied supremecy in (1) fuel, (2) ammunition, (3) air power and (4) artillery play into the defeat of these German divisions? Were the Germans properly equipped, armed and fueled, or was this a situation where the Allies lost a boat load of tanks, until the Germans ran out of fuel and shells, and then the Germans were overrun? It seems funny to me that none of the many veterans who served in our armored divisions have a kind word to say about the Sherman, none of the panzer crewman whose books I have read or interviews I have watched have anything good to say about the Sherman, and every western front battle I read about involves Sherman tank losses of about 7-10 times that of the Germans, but on this forum, the Sherman has even been favorably compared to the T34?