My search did not turn up a good answer for me. I have a couple of question about the British Typhoon, and any other fighter that carried rockets. I guess the P-47 was also used as a "Tank Buster".? Anyway... I know it varies fro one scenario to the next, but generally speaking: 1. How easy could Just One Typhoon hit a tank.? 2. Were those wing-mounted rockets armor piercing.? I often see in videos that the Panther/Tiger tanks were very vulnerable to attack from a Typhoon or a P-47. How effective were they.? The rockets were not guided. Are there any statistics on what the "Average or Normal" number of rockets had to be fired to wreck a Panther or Tiger.? I realize that is a lot of questions, but you guys get the gist of what i am asking. Thank You
It was not at ALL easy to hit a tank with rockets from the air. As I understand it, the number of tanks claimed killed by the RAF turned out to be highly exaggerated. I don't know about # of rockets fired per tank kill, though. At least one of the rockets used was the "Tulip", which wikipedia tells me was the RP-3. I don't know if that will help you track down any more information.
The chance of a direct hit was very small. Fire 1000s and you are bound to get some direct hits. A direct hit would be fatal to any tank and a near miss fatal/damaging for all other targets Rockets are best measured by the fear of a hit they instill and that fear prevented free movement.
Typhoons also carried canon "One of the main British fighters to use the Mk. V was the Hawker Tempest Mk. V Series II, which mounted two cannon in each wing.[9] Ammunition types available included Semi-Armour Piercing, Incendiary (SAPI) and High Explosive, Incendiary (HEI)." "rom late 1942 the Typhoon was equipped with bombs and from late 1943 RP-3 ground attack rockets were added to its armoury. With those weapons and its four 20mm Hispano cannon, " It wasn't just the rockets that were effective, but how effective API from the canons were against a variety of thicknes's of armour plate I do not know TD
The 60 lb Rocket projectiles, when fired in salvo (all together or 2 at a time) delivered a similar barage as a naval cruiser or battery of 6" guns. The 25lb (solid shot) rocket projectiles, originally designed for antitank, could (and did) sink a U-boat or small ship. The canon just added to the confusion and were ideally suited to beat up light armour or softskin transports. The "Bomphoon" was a dive bomber with maybe 2 x 500lb bombs. Not sure about american rockets, but the .50 calibre machine guns were very effective. "Tulip" was a pair of rockets mounted on a Sherman tank, by the Guards Armoured Division. Rocket projectiles and twin 40mm canon were also fitted to the Hurricane, but not at the same time! I hope that this helps Lawrence
Hispano 20mm Armour Piercing Ammunition So, it was decided in June 1942 to develop a composite rigid projectile capable of defeating the armour of German tanks at all combat ranges and be designed to fire from standard service fighter equipment. The design consisted of a duralumin envelope with a tungsten carbide core weighting 57.5 grams, the total weight of the projectile was around 96 grams. Penetration and ballistic trials were carried out in January 1943 and these left the stability of the projectiles in doubt but penetration was very good. Several modifications were made to improve the stability of the rounds, in May 1943 a trial was carried out against a Panzer Mk IIIH with wooden mock-ups for crew, the results were impressive as the crew were shot to pieces but the poor accuracy of the shot was still noticed. The associated table seems impressive to me anyway - 67mm penetration at 200 yds 0 deg This from a non ammunition expert - so dont shoot me just yet TD
Although unconnected it does give a great example of the accuracy of the RAF in delivering CAS. In Greece in 1944 the accuracy of the CAS provided by Beaufighters allowed troops on the ground to call down rocket fire on targets just 50 yards away. Gus
OK.....Thanks Guys/Gals. This gives me some more food for Thought/Search. It's really any topic. Making rifles. Knitting sweaters, Tire manufacture.....not just WWII. But WWII was a Huge and Hugely Complex event. I always assume that the topic of any 1-5 hour video could easily generate a book of 200-900 pages. So Yeah...you see a few videos and "Tank Busters" are mentioned as being "Devastating" and "Striking Fear" in the enemy. You see some Typhoons and a bunch of burning tanks. But THAT makes you winder what really happened. Thanks Again
'Rocket Firing Typhoons in Close Support of Military Operations (Joint Report No. 3)' produced by No. 2 Operational Research Section of 21 Army Group calculated a 0.5% chance of hitting a Panther with a rocket and 140 projectiles needed for a 50% chance of a hit. From Montogomery's Scientists: Operational Research in NW Europe, T. Copp, ed.
'A tire' is what you're wearing. So probably something to do with clothing manufacture! Anyway fits in with Knitting sweaters! Tim
Just been reading a bit more of this document - HyperWar: The Victory Campaign [Chapter 8] and came across this reference What were probably the largest and most effective of the Typhoon attacks were delivered between 6:40 and 7:40 p.m. by 12 aircraft of Nos. 181 and 182 Squadrons R.A.F., which fired 96 rockets at tanks a few hundred yards south-east of Verrières and believed they hit three. Our artillery fired red smoke to indicate targets to the aircraft. At one stage, through some mistake, a round of red smoke fell on Lt.-Col. Rockingham's headquarters and led to a brief rocket attack being made upon' it. Luckily, no casualties resulted. TD
This is the report relating to aircraft v tanks http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/9-Chapter-Three.pdf The popular history of WW2 has aircraft as great tank busters. The truth was WW2 fighter bombers were not very good at hitting point hardened targets. There are some very angry notes in the files of the BRA 2nd Arny when he discovered that despite claims of precision bombing the RAF had no aircraft capable of hitting the concrete bunkers covering the D day beaches. Another truth is that airforce claims were much higher than actual casualties by a factor of two or three, if not more. close air support was also very expensive in aircraft. 9th AF scaled background attack missions over Normandy at the end of June 1944. Fewer missions were flown in July. It is quite possible that the German flak won the physical attrition battle in terms of aircraft shot down v tanks knocked out. I don't think this has been analysed in any academic study. This does not mean that aircraft had no effect on the armoured battle. It is clear from German accounts that the morale effect was huge and that aircraft inflicted heavy casualties on MT and railway and restricted German road traffic in daylight. The many German tanks blown up by their own crews for want of fuel were indirect victims of airpower. Add to this the inter service competition for resources, glory etc and plentiful film of aircraft apparently blasting the hun, and it is easy to see how the myth was sustained.
Copied over the years so rough & ready and to be seen as a guide rather than a hard total: The USAAF start strength and combat /non-combat losses by month were: Fighters June 3,382 540/158 = 20.64 July 3,046 326/143 = 15.40 August 3,480 546/81 = 18.02 And: 2nd TAF, front-line strength of 80 squadrons, or some 1,348 a/c Franks book RAF Fighter losses Jue 6 -Aug 31 786 A/C 421 lost to ground fire /flak The number of times AC attacked tanks were be very small in comparison to all the other targets.
This is typical air force uncritical self promotion. D-Day1944 Air Power Over the Normandy Beaches and Beyond, Richard P. Hallion, Air Force Historian Air Force History and Museums Program 1994 https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/24/2001329767/-1/-1/0/AFD-100924-019.pdf There was an analysis by 8th Air Force in August 1945 about their losses to Flak. OK Eigth AF were a strategic rather than tactical force, and only rarely took part in close support. However, their flak suppression losses on Op Market Garden are sobering. cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/2806