Close Combat Series :: View topic - P47 vs German armour

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge

#1: P47 vs German armour Author: Mikaell, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:38 am
—
Does anybody know if the rockets carried by the P47 Thunderbolt are capable of destroying Panzer IV's and Panthers?

#2: Author: Piper_1,

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 3:49 pm
—
Those same rockets will kill a King or Hunting Tiger too !It's a shame that Whittman is not around to tell you how good they are.

#3: yep they can... but since they hardly hit their target Author: pibzedog, Location: Paris (France)

Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 3:33 pm
—
yes the can destroy anything. here in France, there's a magazine (le fanatique de l'aviation = the air enthusiast) that sums up this issue. They deal with Thyphoons over Normandy and specialy in Mortain.
A) The rocket itself consists of 7,67 kg of explosives.
B) how to proceed ? against target protected with AA guns : dive from 8000 ft in a 60 degree angle and fire the load at 4000 ft. agains soft target : dive from 3500 ft in a 25 degree angle & unload Embarassed

C)the trouble is to reach the target : with positive or negative G + speed + wind = lack accuracy. They state a report that say that according to the 2nd Tactical AF, you had a 2% chance/opportuny to reach a tank with your 8 rockets.
D) Nevertheless, the typhoon/P47/P38 attacks had a terrible impact on the tank crews. In the magazine, they say the German crews were panicked during these attacks, although more when the lacked experience, which was often the case in 1944 & 1945. In Normandy, there were more tanks destroyed thanks to AT rockets fired from the ground than from 3 inches rockets fired from planes...
To sum it up : the rockets hardly ever reach their targets but they frightened the crews. AT rockets fired from the ground (bazooka/PIAT) had a better score Rolling Eyes

#4: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 2:47 am
—
i also seen lower closer attacks on film.
also fighter planes fitted with 20mm cannons
use to fire at the road in front and under the tanks (also from behind)
as they has success in getting the 20mm to richochet up thru the floors.

#5: Author: W_Model, Location: sweden

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 12:53 pm
—
What I can understand is that the Typhoon and the Thunderbolt didn't carry the same rocket armament.
The Typhoon carried the british RP (rocket projectile) 3-inch rocket, which was designed to be used as anti-aircraft barrage in the 1940's. It was then adapted to be launched from aircrafts like the Hurricane, Typhoon and Mosquito.
The P47 used the M-8 rocketlauncher. It was a 3-tube, 4,5-inches "bazooka" system with poor accuracy.
In mid 1944 the HVAR (High Velocity Air Rocket) was introduced to the american air force. The rocket was more powerful and much more accurate than the M-8 or RP systems.

#6: Re: mmm Author: God4Saken, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 1:29 pm
—

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:

i also seen lower closer attacks on film.
also fighter planes fitted with 20mm cannons
use to fire at the road in front and under the tanks (also from behind)
as they has success in getting the 20mm to richochet up thru the floors.

I would have thought that the floor of any such tank would have been heavily armoured to prevent damage from running over AT and AP mines, and most likely be impervious to 20mm cannon fire. My understanding was that the pilot fired his cannon as an aiming device for his rockets. He'd set up his attack dive, fire his 20mm or 12.7mm main guns to bracket the target in his attack run, then observed the fall of shot to correct the aim. When the bullets were hitting the tank, that was his cue to fire his rockets. The rockets were very effective because of their trajectory, in that they'd generally strike the tank from above (Or damage the treads from the side). Tank armour is always weaker at the top, where the threat-assessment is seen to be the least and naturally strongest at the front, then the sides. To take advantage of this, the US army developed the SADARM smart AT weapon (Seek And Destroy ARMour 155mm artillery shell) which was used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

#7: Author: W_Model, Location: sweden

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 8:49 pm
—
another nice munition is the M93 Hornet. It's an AT mine that uses sound to identify targets. When the sound of an enemy tank is identified the Hornet jumps 100 m up in the air, there a IR-sensor acquire the heat-signature of the tank. Small propellant charges aligns the munition with the target and fires a EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator), aka "slug", thus penetrating the top of the tank and disableing it.
That's a nasty mine if your in a tank...

#8: Helpfull replies Author: Mikaell, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 12:19 am
—
Thank you all for you replies. Now, I'm off tank hunting!

#9: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 3:07 pm
—
my grandad was in british intelligence and in normandy from DDay.
i asked him about what claimed the most tanks,by way of air attack
his answer shocked me too.
but as he explained to me
the fighter bombers only had so many rockets or small bombs,both not the most accurate weapons in the world,esp ww2.
so after they ditch there rockets/bombs they still have a couple thousand clips tucked in the wings,where he could make a few passes all with more accurate fire.
and no german planes to fire them at.
so they use to attack from rear preferably as a chance of hitting fuel/engine,also most rear of tanks exposed slightly higher,or the front of tank,a smaller chance.
here r some floor thicknesses for some popular german tanks.

pulled from achtung panzer.
tiger ausf.E 25mm
tiger (P) 20mm
jagdpanzer iv 20mm
panther sdkfz171 16mm
panzer iv 10mm
panzer iii 10mm

once i saw their thicknesses i knew it could be done.
as u can see in the tigers they made an improvement in design.
and the tigers problem was weight,so they would not of added it unnecessarily.just increase fuel consumption,slower speed of tank,cost more money,use more resources.
mine warfare was more a problem for the allies,as they were attacking.

#10: Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:32 am
—
Straight from a pilots mouth

http://www.orvuus.com/schrecken/video/tb1.avi

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 4: Battle Of The Bulge

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1