PDA

View Full Version : Bombing tanks



neural_dream
01-05-2009, 03:37 PM
Again I'm interested more in reality rather than the game. What bombs can get what tanks and where should the bomb hit the tank to disable it? Ignore the game for the time being, as it's well known that it doesn't model tank armour properly.
Would a fab-50 kill anything? Why did I-16s carry these? Weren't their cannon equally/more effective against ground troops and tanks?
Would a 250lb kill anything? A SC250? What bomb would be needed to disable a T34/76, a Tiger or a King Tiger?

And one last question. How can you tell how many times an aircraft can bomb if you only know its bombload? If it carries 2xFab-50, can it drop them one by one or only together? What if it's 2xSC-500?

neural_dream
01-05-2009, 03:37 PM
Again I'm interested more in reality rather than the game. What bombs can get what tanks and where should the bomb hit the tank to disable it? Ignore the game for the time being, as it's well known that it doesn't model tank armour properly.
Would a fab-50 kill anything? Why did I-16s carry these? Weren't their cannon equally/more effective against ground troops and tanks?
Would a 250lb kill anything? A SC250? What bomb would be needed to disable a T34/76, a Tiger or a King Tiger?

And one last question. How can you tell how many times an aircraft can bomb if you only know its bombload? If it carries 2xFab-50, can it drop them one by one or only together? What if it's 2xSC-500?

general_kalle
01-05-2009, 04:10 PM
basically the planes drop the bombs so it keeps balanced.
if theres a bomb on each wing it wont drop just one of them, you can be sure about that, if its two bombs on each wing and one in the middle it will drop one bomb from each wing in pairs and lastly the one from the middle.

Zeus-cat
01-05-2009, 06:38 PM
Tanks are lost in many ways in battle. Bombs do not have to get direct hits to take them out.

If you dropped a big bomb near a tank the crew would be incapacitated or killed. The tank could still be in serviceable condition, but the crew would not.

Many tanks were lost to relatively minor damage too. A tank that lost a track would have to be destroyed by its own forces if they were losing ground.

I have seen a number of photos where German tanks were blown onto their sides by bombs or rockets. These tanks were lost to the Germans even thiugh there was little damage to them.

A number of the tanks

WTE_Galway
01-06-2009, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Tanks are lost in many ways in battle. Bombs do not have to get direct hits to take them out.

If you dropped a big bomb near a tank the crew would be incapacitated or killed. The tank could still be in serviceable condition, but the crew would not.

Many tanks were lost to relatively minor damage too. A tank that lost a track would have to be destroyed by its own forces if they were losing ground.

I have seen a number of photos where German tanks were blown onto their sides by bombs or rockets. These tanks were lost to the Germans even thiugh there was little damage to them.

A number of the tanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed. In fact the tank didn't necessarily have to take damage to be lost.

Air attacks were often not that effective but scared hell out of the tank crews to the extent that after enough near misses they may abandon the tank. This was seen as one of the main benefits of allied rocket attacks late war even though the rockets invariably missed. The target tanks would start to stay hidden in daylight and sometimes even were abnadoned.

RockyAlexander
01-09-2009, 02:56 PM
The 365th "Hell Hawks" routinely used 500-lb GP bombs to annihilate German panzer columns. A well-placed 500-pounder would easily overturn a King Tiger or blow it off the road. Throughout the latter two weeks of August, '44, more than 700 tanks were destroyed in the Falaise Pocket; the majority of those losses were the result of the constant tactical bombardment by P-47s with 500-pounders.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3493/36450254xl5.jpg

Aaron_GT
01-09-2009, 04:29 PM
This (which was in the strafing thread) might be worth looking at: http://web.telia.com/~u1831339...ticles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

I_KG100_Prien
01-09-2009, 05:01 PM
Sorry for the bad quality, don't have a scanner so I took a photo out of a book of mine with my digi-cam.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/gerekeh/STUG018.jpg

The caption is blurry- but that is the result of a large explosion.... doesn't say the source of the explosion but I'd put my coins on a bomb.

M_Gunz
01-09-2009, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This (which was in the strafing thread) might be worth looking at: http://web.telia.com/~u1831339...ticles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That one report stands in opposition to so much else including film that I'm very wary of it.
It's supposed to have been made by a team from all branches of US service but really I wonder who decided what and wrote that,
one big running fight between US service branches has been "The Battle of the Budget" has been and still is very real.

Simply if air power was as weak as they make out then the men on the ground would have known that as fact long before 1944.
So how is it that the reinforcement of Normandy was slowed down so badly? Why did the heavy armor not simply proceed knowing
they would be safe by prior experience? It seems simple enough that prior experience taught them the opposite.

Armor heading for Normandy did not have to keep support elements with them, they were going directly to join with friendlies.

There's a film called Thunderbolt with introduction by Jimmy Stewart where they show the wreckage caused by aerial bombing in
Italy including German tanks not just sitting abandoned by far. Was that just props set up? Sure it was.

M_Gunz
01-09-2009, 05:59 PM
There was here years ago a link to Russian footage filmed at Kursk that showed tanks blown and flipped into the air.

Here's modern info, consider WWII ammo about 3/4 or more as powerful. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Blast is caused by tremendous dynamic overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete (high order) detonation of high-explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500? prior to bomb case fragmentation. It is essential that the bomb casing remain intact long enough after the detonation sequence begins to contain the hot gases and achieve a high order explosion. A consideration when striking hardened targets is that deformation of the weapon casing or fuze may cause the warhead to dud or experience a low order detonation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). For surface targets blast is maximized by using a general purpose (GP) bomb with an instantaneous fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated by excessive burial. For buildings or bunkers the use of a delayed fuzing system allows the blast to occur within the structure maximizing the damage caused by the explosion.

Fragmentation is caused by the break-up of the weapon casing upon detonation. Fragments of a bomb case can achieve velocities from 3,000 to 11,000 fps depending on the type of bomb (for example GP bomb fragments have velocities of 5,000 to 9,000 fps). Fragmentation is effective against troops, vehicles, aircraft and other soft targets. The fragmentation effects generated from the detonation of a high-explosive bomb have greater effective range than blast, usually up to approximately 3,000 feet regardless of bomb size. The fragmentation effect can be maximized by using a bomb specifically designed for this effect, or by using a GP bomb with an airburst functioning fuze. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a little more, again modern explosives but the basics are the same. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/warheads.pdf)

It won't let me cut&paste but the first 3 paragraphs under blast warheads tells about pressures, shockwave and blast attenuation
which is how fast & how far, note the part about "approximately 16 charge radii", the bigger the bomb the wider the blast gets
something of a number there. 200,000 atmospheres reduces fast but it's still a big number -- 14.7 lbs/sq inch per atmosphere,
figure sq inches of tank facing and inside the blast sphere but you still gotta get close.

How big a blast sphere would a 50 lb bomb make?

Aaron_GT
01-09-2009, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's supposed to have been made by a team from all branches of US service </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a US report AFAIK, just some person's opinions, but it contained some useful statistics.

I don't agree with all the conclusions but several assessments were made by the USA and UK and the effect on tanks was felt to be limited, but the effect of strikes on supply columns, etc were felt to be effective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why did the heavy armor not simply proceed knowing
they would be safe by prior experience? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The use of rockets in the West was pretty new which might be a factor.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the abandoned tanks noted in the article were due to fuel shortages which the author seems to discount.

M_Gunz
01-09-2009, 06:24 PM
There was here years ago a link to Russian footage filmed at Kursk that showed tanks blown and flipped into the air.

Here's modern info, consider WWII ammo about 3/4 or more as powerful. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/bombs.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Blast is caused by tremendous dynamic overpressures generated by the detonation of a high explosive. Complete (high order) detonation of high-explosives can generate pressures up to 700 tons per square inch and temperatures in the range of 3,000 to 4,500 prior to bomb case fragmentation. It is essential that the bomb casing remain intact long enough after the detonation sequence begins to contain the hot gases and achieve a high order explosion. A consideration when striking hardened targets is that deformation of the weapon casing or fuze may cause the warhead to dud or experience a low order detonation. Approximately half of the total energy generated will be used in swelling the bomb casing to 1.5 times its normal size prior to fragmenting and then imparting velocity to those fragments. The remainder of this energy is expended in compression of the air surrounding the bomb and is responsible for the blast effect. This effect is most desirable for attacking walls, collapsing roofs, and destroying or damaging machinery. The effect of blast on personnel is confined to a relatively short distance (110 feet for a 2000 pound bomb). For surface targets blast is maximized by using a general purpose (GP) bomb with an instantaneous fuzing system that will produce a surface burst with little or no confinement of the overpressures generated by excessive burial. For buildings or bunkers the use of a delayed fuzing system allows the blast to occur within the structure maximizing the damage caused by the explosion.

Fragmentation is caused by the break-up of the weapon casing upon detonation. Fragments of a bomb case can achieve velocities from 3,000 to 11,000 fps depending on the type of bomb (for example GP bomb fragments have velocities of 5,000 to 9,000 fps). Fragmentation is effective against troops, vehicles, aircraft and other soft targets. The fragmentation effects generated from the detonation of a high-explosive bomb have greater effective range than blast, usually up to approximately 3,000 feet regardless of bomb size. The fragmentation effect can be maximized by using a bomb specifically designed for this effect, or by using a GP bomb with an airburst functioning fuze. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And a little more, again modern explosives but the basics are the same. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/warheads.pdf)

It won't let me cut&paste but the first 3 paragraphs under blast warheads tells about pressures, shockwave and blast attenuation
which is how fast & how far, note the part about "approximately 16 charge radii", the bigger the bomb the wider the blast gets
something of a number there. 200,000 atmospheres reduces fast but it's still a big number -- 14.7 lbs/sq inch per atmosphere,
figure sq inches of tank facing and inside the blast sphere but you still gotta get close.

M_Gunz
01-09-2009, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The use of rockets in the West was pretty new which might be a factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The use of rockets in the East was well known to the Germans.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the abandoned tanks noted in the article were due to fuel shortages which the author seems to discount. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly they checked the fuel level of the abandoned tanks?

I just look at this report vs the effect of air power on armor throughout the war. You don't have to destroy major numbers of tanks
to cause them to change tactics, even to abandon vehicles. What losses of bombers per mission did it take to change bombing tactics?
When infantry charges, how many get shot down before the rest take cover -- except for extreme cases like Banzai-type charges?

Back in the later-mid 70's a former Ft. Hood tanker told me that close strikes by artillery did give concussions to crew members,
that some of the shockwave went through the armor, transmitted by the armor. Outside you would be turned to jelly, inside your
head would ring and nose might bleed. Other people here say that's BS. I asked a WWII vet at the VA who worked in tank recovery
what effect close hits had and he shivered and said "they felt it, buddy". He wouldn't say more, I'm guessing he didn't want to
remember what he'd seen and I didn't push. What I haven't found is written witness... that means it must be BS?
So here's a bunch of guys looking at the aftermath of battle and seeing tangles of unidentifiable wreckage and some intact tanks
working out their own story, I'll take the evidence of the guys who actually fought in or dealt directly with the battles over that.

Commanding officers don't balk over maybes either, how many said "never mind the planes, get to the front"? How about none?

RockyAlexander
01-09-2009, 11:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
This (which was in the strafing thread) might be worth looking at: http://web.telia.com/~u1831339...ticles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After doing some further research, I'm inclined to believe that the article is correct. Seems that an extensive ORS investigation conducted shortly after the Mortain battle revealed that indeed only 46 German tanks were destroyed: 20 by allied ground forces, only 9 by airstrikes, 11 were abandoned or destroyed by their own crews. The cause for the inoperability of the remaining 6 was undetermined.

Typhoon and Thunderbolt pilots apparently claimed 391 tanks destroyed throughout the Falaise battle. The ORS report concluded that the actual number was less than a hundred. Still not an insignificant number. But of the 880 tanks reportedly fielded by Panzer Group West during this time, minus 72 that actually made the escape, it's estimated that as many as 650 were abandoned or destroyed by their crews. This abandonment can be directly attributed to the fighter-bombers, even if the kills were exaggerated.

Aaron_GT
01-10-2009, 02:22 AM
That's where I would tend to agree - the interdiction of supplies and panic by crews are probably the bigger factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">it's estimated that as many as 650 were abandoned or destroyed by their crews. This abandonment can be directly attributed to the fighter-bombers, even if the kills were exaggerated </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't see that you can attribute all the abandonment to fighter bombers as some will be due to supply columns being interdicted by ground troops, artillery, roads and bridges captured, etc.


M_Gunz wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The use of rockets in the East was well known to the Germans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on what the crews in the West had heard about the effectiveness. In the West crews continued to abandon attacks even after the breakout from Normandy whereas you would have expected them to have realised that rockets were not effective so the fear seems to have been persistent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What losses of bombers per mission did it take to change bombing tactics? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In terms of direct losses it seems about 3 fighter bombers to every tank lost, but then most of the fighter bombers would be attacking general targets of opportunity so the losses
might be the same even if no tanks had been attacked. If you add in some of the abandoned tanks it tips things the other way but determining which abandoned tanks have been abandoned due to air power and not due to ground forces or other causes is another matter!