Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Tank losses to air attack
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 02:35 AM UTC
In case it matters, the HS-129 was no more designed as a tank killer than the Sturmovik. It was to replace the HS-123 for ground attack. Other aircraft were adapted to fly low and slow with cannon like the Hurricane and Stuka. Not to kill tanks necessarily but to kill anything they could fly over. They didn't put that 75mm cannon in the nose of a B-25 to kill tanks.
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 03:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
They didn't put that 75mm cannon in the nose of a B-25 to kill tanks.
No, they didn’t. The 75mm cannon equipped B-25G/H wasn’t developed for ground-support role at all (although probably happened from time to time) but for anti-shipping strikes in the Southern-Pacific. AFAIK, the Hs-129-b3 was equipped with a 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun to bust...well, (mainly) tanks.
Removed by original poster on 06/01/18 - 16:00:41 (GMT).
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 04:06 AM UTC
The Hurricane Mk.2C (4x20mm cannon) was a successful ground-attack aircraft, however lacked the necessary punch to deal with enemy armor. Both the Mk.2D (2x40mm cannon) and the Ju-87G (2x37mm cannon) were developed to fill the lacking AT capabilities of their respective air forces.
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 04:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextThey didn't put that 75mm cannon in the nose of a B-25 to kill tanks.
No, they didn’t. The 75mm cannon equipped B-25G/H wasn’t developed for ground-support role at all (although probably happened from time to time) but for anti-shipping strikes in the Southern-Pacific. AFAIK, the Hs-129-b3 was equipped with a 75 mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun to bust...well, (mainly) tanks.
The statement I was responding to said that the HS-129 was designed to kill tanks. It wasn't. However, the Yak-9, Stuka among others were given cannon to kill tanks. Yak and Lagg fighters with heavy cannon in their noses were used to attack tanks. The B-25 was for ship killing like the cannon armed Mosquito. The B-25 gun nose modifications that the B-25H built upon were originally for ship strafing. Needed a big target like a ship, not a tank.
d6mst0
#453
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 1,925 posts
Armorama: 601 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 05:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The B-25 was for ship killing like the cannon armed Mosquito. The B-25 gun nose modifications that the B-25H built upon were originally for ship strafing. Needed a big target like a ship, not a tank.
That 75mm in the nose caused more harm to the B-25 then to the enemy ships and I believe the 75mm's were removed later in the war as the pilots complain about the B25 being to nose heavy and hard to control. No matter how much counter weight they put in the rear of the B25 would not correct the problem.
urumomo
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 05:18 AM UTC
Really interesting interview here IMO :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-IxiZyGRk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-IxiZyGRk
babaoriley
Joined: June 23, 2017
KitMaker: 195 posts
Armorama: 179 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 07:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
:D
About the experts, history detectives etc... Its not only Youtube, its also all over the place, tv etc. Too much misleading information, or tales without much facts to back it up. These people dont share their own experience. They share their opinion, but in wrong form. Therefore, some people might think that what once was somebodies opinion, is actually a fact.
Take an example about extraordinary chipping of paint in Tunisian campaign. Somebody says sand, then wind, then third person says sandblasting. Yeah, realy. Then GREEN TIGER story. One says why not, everything can happen during war. Well with history and science it works other way. I hasn't happened, unless one can prove it. But then again, if guy would say: "You know, i think aircraft were not that efficient on attacking armor", i believe it wouldn't sound that convincing on Youtube. There is huge difference between "i know" and "i think".
People should read more books.
Yes, and they need to read more than one on a particular subject, as some books are out of date, some are written by people with their own agenda, and some just contain errors of fact or interpretation. Back when I had to write and defend research papers for senior history seminars I learned quickly that relying on just one source was unwise, and that primary sources carry a lot of weight.
And then there are those shows on cable TV, I'm sure most of us have howled at their blunders. Showing film of a T-34 tank in a discussion of the battle for France in 1940 doesn't inspire much confidence in a show's depth of research. Then their talking-head "experts" say things which suggest they've read only one book on the subject, and the wrong one at that.
As for YouTube, you can say anything you want with no bibliography, no footnotes, no list of citations, but if you have some nice graphics you'll probably get a lot of clicks. That's what passes for historical research for the PlayStation Generation I guess.
urumomo
Joined: August 22, 2013
KitMaker: 675 posts
Armorama: 667 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 07:26 AM UTC
Aight - I didn't post the entire internet here .
I'm aware that there is a lot of incorrect info out there .
I'd like to keep this thread topic confined to specific info presented in the videos posted or data on ground or surface attack generally .
If someone has info that contradicts what was presented please share it .
I'm aware that there is a lot of incorrect info out there .
I'd like to keep this thread topic confined to specific info presented in the videos posted or data on ground or surface attack generally .
If someone has info that contradicts what was presented please share it .
ReluctantRenegade
Joined: March 09, 2016
KitMaker: 2,408 posts
Armorama: 2,300 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 08:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
That 75mm in the nose caused more harm to the B-25 then to the enemy ships
That’s a bit of a stretch, to say at least. The biggest problem was high muzzle velocity of the gun and the fact that the plane had to keep a straight during the attack run (during which the aircraft was vulnerable to AAA fire), however these were largely offset by the immense and accurate firepower that could inflict serious damage even to a destroyer.
Quoted Text
I believe the 75mm's were removed later in the war as the pilots complain about the B25 being to nose heavy and hard to control.
The guns were eventually removed because worthwhile targets for the 75mm guns had become scarce; it was replaced by a pair of .50 cal MGs which together with the rest of the MGs and the bombs were sufficient to deal with the remaining targets.
Ringleheim
Joined: September 04, 2009
KitMaker: 184 posts
Armorama: 183 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 12:23 PM UTC
When evaluating the effectiveness of air attacks on German columns in WWII, one must remember that maybe something like 20% of the entire Wehrmacht was ever mechanized.
I would imagine strafing runs could be fairly effective against horses and wagons.
Also, the Browning 50 caliber machine gun is a beast. Lots of aircraft had 6 or 8 of them! I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that even in an armored vehicle.
I would imagine strafing runs could be fairly effective against horses and wagons.
Also, the Browning 50 caliber machine gun is a beast. Lots of aircraft had 6 or 8 of them! I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that even in an armored vehicle.
Mrclark7
Joined: June 04, 2017
KitMaker: 503 posts
Armorama: 477 posts
Posted: Friday, June 01, 2018 - 06:07 PM UTC
geez, do some research if its that hard to understand "what" knowledge he may have.
aka Nicholas Moran
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Chieftain+historian
aka Nicholas Moran
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Chieftain+historian
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.