Quoted Text

---

So what specifically are you refuting , Robin ?
Keep your emotions out of the answer , please .

---

The internet has made it possible for various strange people to make their voice heard by a worldwide audience.

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

So what specifically are you refuting , Robin ?
Keep your emotions out of the answer , please .

---

The internet has made it possible for various strange people to make their voice heard by a worldwide audience.

---

cough cough

I don't see any specific counter to the video's numbers , nor does the video maker dismiss the effectiveness of air attacks on morale , maneuvering etc .
Lke Gerald inquired : Did you watch the entire video ?

Thank you for picking one single sentence out of those that I wrote.


/ Robin

So we're basing effectiveness on number of hits versus number of rounds/rockets (whatever) fired?
Ever seen the research into the number of 5.56 rounds fired for each "kill" in Vietnam? Similar arguments - suppresive fire was part of it, and has to be taken into account, kept their heads down and kept them out of the fight, yada, yada, yada...

If you doubt what an aircraft can do to a tank, why not climb inside a T-55 and let an A10 take one pass at it. See how your theories hold up. I've witnessed it firsthand.

Ever seen the research into the number of 5.56 rounds fired for each "kill" in Vietnam?

Quoted Text

---

So what specifically are you refuting , Robin ?
Keep your emotions out of the answer , please .

---

Hmmm, what am I refuting?
First of all I have a deep scepticism against a lot of things being said/shown on Youtube. Some producers have their own agenda, some just want to make a buck, which is perfectly OK but sometimes it leads to following the old rule for newspaper producers: Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Agendas come in many different forms, religious, political, economical, conspiracy theories et.c.
The internet has made it possible for various strange people to make their voice heard by a worldwide audience.
In short: I tend to be sceptical.

I have a hard time believing that the Ju 87G, the Il 2 and various other airplanes used for the ground attack role were total wastes of time and effort. One airforce may be misled but so many at the same time? Did they copy each others mistakes?
When is a weapon system a failure? When it misses in how many percent of the cases? Is it scary enough if a fighter-bomber can take out a tank in 10% of the attacks?
How many of the projectiles fired by fighter planes against other aircraft, regardless of type, did actually hit and kill something? What is the percentage of fired naval artillery shells actually hitting their target?
In modern times the hit ratios are climbing up but we still have not reached 100%.
How many of the bullets fired by the MG 42, and others, actually hit something else than the countryside?

Trying to prove something by showing that the claimed kills were actually far higher than the actual kills doesn't cut it with me.
If the appearance of a fighter bomber in the sky made everyone run for cover then that plane is efficient in some sense. If the enemy is hiding in the bushes then they are not moving toward the front.
This is in the same general area as but not quite the same thing as:
是故百戰百勝，非善之善者也；不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也
One possible translation:
"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"

If the beancounter fights a war he counts the number of enemy units destroyed, another way is to count the number of enemy units prevented from fighting at all.
If fighter bombers in the air can halt enemy movement then it is a clear win in my books. The tanks can rust to death for all I care as long as they do not roll onto the battlefield.

With some clever use of statistics it could be shown that most weapons systems were inefficient. By restricting the evaluation criteria it could be shown that many useless systems are efficient. U-boats were a deadly threat to shipping but most freighters got through, the number and size of sunk ships were sometimes exaggerated by the u-boat captains. Was the u-boat efficient or not?

As long as the video producers get a lot of clicks/views ....

/ Robin

The Bismarck was not sunk be the Royal Navy, they simply forced Lindemann and Lütjens to sink her themselves ....

In the beginning of the video he shows statistics for hit/miss for bombs, rockets and guns.
The guns supposedly hit with 32 out of 120 which comes to 26% (let's say 25%) but the rest of the video mostly talks about the rockets and to some extent on the bombs.
Could the 20 mm Hispano, the Typhoon carried four of them, penetrate the roof of a German tank? Pz IV had 10-12 mm on top and penetration for AP used to be roughly the diameter of the projectile. The 12 mm at a 45-degree angle becomes 17 mm so maybe the 20 mm could punch through.
I would have like to see this aspect discussed in the video.
/ Robin

Could the 20 mm Hispano, the Typhoon carried four of them, penetrate the roof of a German tank?n

I agree with Robin on this one. It is easy to judge and focus on details, but this way you loose the focus on whole picture.
With such approach, for example V1 and V2 was complete failure, and waste of money. I wonder why they bothered chasing those V1's after all.

Just for the heck of it I looked up the armor penetration for M8 armor piercing ammo used in a 50 caliber machine gun. 17mm at 90 degrees at 100 yards. Depending on angle of attack and altitude the roof of many tanks would sustain some penetration.

The M2 AP cartridge is able to penetrate 19mm of steel at 90 degrees from 500 meters, the M8 API 16mm from similar angle and distance.

Quoted Text

---

The M2 AP cartridge is able to penetrate 19mm of steel at 90 degrees from 500 meters, the M8 API 16mm from similar angle and distance.

---

But rounds fired from a strafing aircraft didn't strike at 90 degrees. More like 45 degrees, or much less, making the 19 mm armor effectively thicker.

In terms of DIRECT effectiveness, it is safe to say that airstrikes did not meet the expectations: direct hits with bombs and rockets were quiet hard to achieve due to inaccurate aiming and/or weapons, especially on a moving target; ...

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

The M2 AP cartridge is able to penetrate 19mm of steel at 90 degrees from 500 meters, the M8 API 16mm from similar angle and distance.

---

But rounds fired from a strafing aircraft didn't strike at 90 degrees. More like 45 degrees, or much less, making the 19 mm armor effectively thicker.

---

Of course, these are standard values to be used as reference only. The optimal diving angle in AT role was around 30 degrees. That’s why I wrote previously that aiming at the engine deck is a better bet: destroying the cooling system of a tank forces the crew to abandon even if the rest of it completely intact. Depends on the on the actual battlefield-conditions, the tank is temporarily or permanently, but out of action.

Quoted Text

---

The M2 AP cartridge is able to penetrate 19mm of steel at 90 degrees from 500 meters, the M8 API 16mm from similar angle and distance.

---

But rounds fired from a strafing aircraft didn't strike at 90 degrees. More like 45 degrees, or much less, making the 19 mm armor effectively thicker.