P-47 vs German Tanks - Why rockets outperformed bombs and machine guns in attacking armor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- WWII German tanks armor was too thick for the P-47s machine guns bullets to penetrate, but they did strike the vulnerable air intakes with some success.
While bombs would destroy the tank, errors in bombing accuracy were large, making dive bombing not very effective. P-47s equipped with HVAR air to ground rockets, were considered one the best US anti-tank weapons.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 80 | คู่เอก "รักษ์ vs ยอดนำชัย"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ckLMRorsMeY/mqdefault.jpg)
That 50-60% accuracy rate is just based on what the air crews said. If you compare it to actual German losses, you´ll find that rate to be about 10 times smaller.
My father served in ground crew support for P-47s and had a friend in my home town who worked at the air force base with my dad. He was a P47 pilot from his group; when I was growing ups who was quite the story teller. He claimed to have flown over 100 missions and that he would fly so low to the ground the German AA guns couldn't get him. He said he was a terrible shot with rockets aiming at tanks, as were most of the pilots but a. few were very good, and they did most of the rocket fire and other pilots flew cover or straffed.
Joint Report No3 - Rocket Firing Typhoons in Close Support of Military Operations, and this can be found on p.176 of the link. It can be seen at Table II that the report assessed that 140 rocket projectiles (RP) would need to be fired at a Panther to achieve a 50% chance of a hit. This was the stationary one, painted white, in the open, no AAA fire.
In combat conditions, and assuming all rockets fired, you are probably talking a 1-2% success rate per attack, not 50% from a P-47. And this is success measured as HITTING it, not destroying it.
I saw that. But are we talking about the same rockets here? Perhaps the US rockets had a flatter trajectory? Better range? etc...
@@billd2635 the US rockets were slightly different, but not enough to make them twenty times as accurate.
@billd2635 the difference is one is an actual study under somewhat combat conditions, and the other is based on pilot testimonies.
No hate to pilots, it's basically impossible to see preciselg was your results were from a plane mid attack, and it's natural to kinda assume the best.
@@kirotheavenger60 and the RAF test was in pretty ideal conditions too. They tested with cannon too, IIRC, and hit percentages were also pretty low. It was a tough task for pilots to achieve. I can see why they might want to be optimistic about their hit chances to make the risks they were taking seem worth it. It would be a natural human reaction.
Man your videos about planes are one of the best on TH-cam . I absolutely adore this content
Totally agree.
As I’ve stated in the previous video, USAAF ground kill claims, particularly against German armor, were grossly over estimated. Post war research actually examining destroyed enemy AFV by aircraft demonstrated that such kills fell far below pilot claims. For example: in the German armor counter attack at Mortain, USAAF & RAF claimed 252 armored vehicles destroyed (122 USAAF & 140 2nd-TAF). However, large scale, highly detailed ground investigations after the conflict carried out by the British No.2 Operational Research Section in the claimed regions found that only 49 armored vehicle could possibly be attributed to aerial kills by USAAF & 2-TAF. Even out of that number, only 21 could be positively determined to have been knocked out by air-strikes - 6 Panthers, 3 Panzer-IV, 11 APC (Sdkfz-250 & 251), & 1 Armored Car (It should be noted that 15 of these were destroyed by rocket attacks, two by bombs and four [all APCs] by 50-cal & 20mm ). This comes to a kill claim inflation rate of about 450% if we include all possible claims --- with confirmed kills an inflation rate of about 1000%.
Surprisingly, attacks against “soft” vehicular targets in the area examined didn’t fair any better. Of a 168 destroyed or possibly destroyed soft transportation vehicles claims by pilots, only 43 could possibly be attributed to aerial kills and of this a bare 12 could positively be identified as aerial kills, although there’s a much higher likelihood that abandoned, self-destroyed, or other soft vehicle losses were due to air-attacks compared to AFV with similar fates.
The No.2 Operational Research Section’s study on the subject: “No.2 Operation Research Section with the 21st Army Group June 1944 to July 1945” also covers other aerial kill claims such as “The German Retreat from Normandy to Seine,” and “Air Attack on Enemy Armour in the Ardennes Salient.” Similar results are also found in these highly detailed reports. For example, the USAAF claimed 90 Tanks & other AFV destroyed over the examined Ardennes region, after an extensive ground examination only 19 were possibly destroyed by aircraft, and a mere 7 confirmed destroyed by USAAF (4 tanks, 2 SPG & 1 light armor).
It should be noted, although the overall effectiveness of aerial strikes against ground vehicles were exaggerated, air-to-ground rockets WERE by far the most effective means of destroying enemy AFV & Transport.
Details of the Study "Report No.4 “Air Attacks on Enemy Tanks & Motor Transport in the Mortain Area, August 1944”
Allied Fighter Bomber Kill Claims: (pp.174 [Table I]):
2-TAF: Enemy Armored Vehicle Losses: 84 destroyed/ 35 possibly destroyed/ 21 damaged = 140 total
IX-USAAF: Enemy Armored Vehicle Losses: 69 destroyed/ 8 possibly destroyed/ 35 damaged = 112 total [Overall total Armored Vehicles 2-TAF + IX-USAAF = 252]
2-TAF: Motor Transport: 54 destroyed/ 19 possibly destroyed/ 39 damaged = 112 total
IX-USAAF: Enemy Armored Vehicle Losses: 94 destroyed/ 1 possibly destroyed/ 21 damaged = 116 total [Overall total Motor Transport 2-TAF + IX-USAAF =228]
Results of Ground Investigation (pp.175 [Table II])
Total Armored Vehicles Destroyed or Abandoned: 78
Number destroyed by US Army (ie. ground units): 29, Destroyed by Crew (self-destruction): 4, Abandoned Intact: 9, Unknown Cause: 15. Number known destroyed directly by 2-TAF & IX-USAAF: 21 (6 Panthers, 3 Panzer-IV, 11 APC, 1 Armored Car).
Total Motor Transport Vehicles Destroyed or Abandoned: 50
Number destroyed by US Army (ie. ground units): 7, Destroyed by Crew (self-destruction): 1, Abandoned Intact: 4, Unknown Cause: 26. Number known destroyed directly by 2-TAF & IX-USAAF: 12 (4 cars, 6 Trucks, 2 Ambulances, 1 Motorcycle).
Thanks for Posting.
Excellent episode about one of the overlooked aspects of the ETO.
My dad was in the 99th Infantry Division during WWII. The division had landed at Le Harve, France in October of 1944 and moved into “the quiet sector” of the northern Ardennes forest.
The 99th, along with other adjacent US forces, endured the longest artillery barrage on the Western front at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge. The 99th pulled back west to consolidate their front during the initial days of the German attack. They ended up on the Elsenborn Ridge where US artillery helped stop the German advance.
In the early days of 1945, the 99th began attacking east from the Elsenborn Ridge, attempting to recapture ground lost to the Germans.
As the weather improved, US fighter-bombers began attacking exposed German units. In the snow, the German vehicles stood out in sharp contrast.
While dad told me there were several different aircraft involved in the ground attacks, the P-47s stood out.
One thing that the US and British fighter groups began using were forward observers. Usually pilots, assigned to different infantry units, they had radios that allowed them to directly communicate with pilots of attacking aircraft. The results were devastating to the German vehicles.
Dad told me, that he was glad the P-47s were on our side!
Close air support is still a vital element of US military doctrine.
A study by British military historian Stephen L. McFarland has shown that the effectiveness of fighter-bombers against German tanks may have been overestimated. According to this study, Allied fighter-bombers such as the P-47, P-51, and Typhoon directly destroyed about 100-150 tanks in Normandy.
My Dad flew F4U Corsairs in WWII, Pacific Theater and used the rockets on occasion. He found their accuracy to be very good.
If shooting at say a pillbox seeing the rocket hit next to the pillbox does not necessarily mean said pillbox is destroyed. This does not mean the people inside the pillbox are having a great time. Each rocket was the equivalent to a 5 or 6 inch inch artillery shell. The most effective use of rockets in WWll was likely in pre landing bombardment during amphibious assaults. One LSM(R) could lay down hundreds of rockets in one salvo. Later LSM(R) ships had 40mm Bofors mounts converted to fire spin stabilized rockets. The converted 40mm mounts were tied into the vessel's fire control system. Some of these vessels were still in-service in the 1960s. First with 10 mounts firing 2 rockets per mount. Later ships had 20 mounts. Each mount capable of firing around 20 or more rockets per minute iirc.
It's noteworthy though that fighter-bombers attacking tanks had a reputation far outweighing their actual effectiveness.
British testing showed that even under ideal combat conditions, rocket accuracy was in the 5% range, and battle damage assessment of German tanks showed that the great majority were destroyed by ground based gunfire, not air attack.
Aircraft, of all nations, overclaimed tank kills by about 10-1 compared to how much they actually destroyed.
It is notable though that the vulnerability of German engine radiator grills to strafing and airburst artillery was mentioned in multiple places. It's easy to believe many German tanks founs themselves immobilised following a strafing attack, but a replacement radiator would not take them out of the combat for long.
However few tanks work after their fuel browser and ammunition truck have been shot up by airpower.
This.
This is exactly what came to mind as soon as I saw the thumbnail, irrespective of the quality of content.
I agree with what you have said here. My thoughts were that rockets were terribly inaccurate and that Fighter Bombers were relatively ineffective against ground targets, but the evidence presented in this vid is compelling, and they may have been more effective than I thought. It is so difficult to know conclusively the truth.
Have you heard the story of how one radiator in a Tiger I being punctured led to the loss of the whole Tiger platoon? Short version is that trying to tow the Tiger I back to the repair shop overloaded the drivetrains of the other three, resulting in the Germans having to blow up all four themselves when forced to retreat. So no, losing a radiator might not be a small thing after all.
The effectiveness should be gauged by how the combat readiness was affected, if they never arrive or arrive late then the fighter bombers were very effective....
More consideration might be given to the question. How much more effective would the P-47 have been, if the USAAF had used Napalm as extensively in the European theatre, as much as in the Pacific theatre.
@downunderrob, I think napalm would have made fighter bombers more effective,p. I read thanapalm was the most effective weapon by planes against tanks in Korea.
@@stevehofer3482By the postwar ORD study, napalm was the top killer of T-34/85 tanks.
my understanding is that by the time napalm became a usable weapon,
the war against the big h was in the endgame phase.
at that point most of the combat was taking place in cities and towns,
and setting those on fire would have been verging on counterproductive.
most of*(edit) the napalm in the Pacific was used on IJA fortifications on islands.
Oh yeah for sure. Why not find even more horrible ways to carry out the war...
@davidkavanagh189 Fire has been a legitimate part of organised Warfare since Ancient Greece.
Very interested in how ground troops needing air support would set that up. The logistics, communication, how resources were allocated, etc.
CabRank system, based on FOAs and radios. The impression that there was no CAS for Market Garden is a common misconception. There were some hiatuses during airdrops but the big issues were undertrained FOAs with the troops and failures in radio equipment (not of the type shown in A Bridge Too Far, which is nonsense in this regard). Due to failed long distance radios, sometimes commands had to ve relayed through three or four networks, before they got to USAAF or RAF to then call in aircraft. There were 11 squadrons of just Typhoons assigned
@@wbertie2604 interesting. It would make a good video for this channel
@@Roddy556 as i understand it, the cab rank system was shared in the chain somehow in a way I don't fully understand. So you might use your forward air observer to call in a mission and get a P-47 or a Typhoon depending on what was available.
Market Garden flew (for some reason I remember the number) 238 sorties on the first day, but I'm not sure how many resulted in contact as they couldn't stooge around the battlefield all day.
Targets were marked with smoke and friendly fire could and did occur if units used the wrong smoke colour for concealment. Yellow might be all they had for concealment, but if a fire mission was called for two miles away and yellow was the target indicator colour of the day then in the days before GPS, Allied troops could and were attached.
There was also a free fighter element in designated areas and a D-Day reconnaissance unit drawn from the legal profession was wiped out as it advanced to well and far and into such an area.
There's some great gun camera footage from a following Typhoon showing the lead Typhoon at a high angle putting rocket after rocket right down the center of some railroad tracks.
One thing the Germans got very good at was putting train tracks and marshalling yards back into service.
@@mpetersen6- Yep, thats typical history for competently handled rail systems. Railway can often be built in less space, quicker and faster than highways, mile for mile. Easier and faster to repair too, when you point guns and tell them to hurry.😢
The Allied pilots tended to grossly overclaim armor destruction. The P47s were VERY effective at immobilizing German armor by destroying bridges and by shooting up the supply trucks. Any tank is a gas hog and they need a constant stream of resupply to maintain effectiveness.
According to the Operational Research of RAF tests of firing at a white painted Panther, stationary, in the open, with no threats in good weather, it would take 140 rockets to have a 50% chance of just hitting it, even more to destroy one.
In other words, to achieve the 50% figure in 1944 and assuming all 6 fired at one tank, it would take about 24 stories. That's just to get a 50% success rate against one in ideal conditions. You are probably talking double that with battlefield smoke, weather, AAA fire, etc.
Allied fighter bombers also had a huge morale effect. Just the sight of them was enough to disrupt enemy ground movements & organisation.
Grossly overstating but yes
It did happen
American Centricy Attackers still did great when using actually practical weapons like 500-2000 Pounders
Rockets and MGs are horrible against armor
Shocking revelation, I know
I only believe the claims of German pilots. These have all been fact checked by Goebbels himself!
@@ComfortsSpecter rockets were found to be more effective than bombs, simply because were so much more accurate.
But bombs were more dual purpose
Even if the .50 cal weren't penetrating, the sound from inside the tank of them striking the outer plate had to be terrifying.
Yes, the P-47 with 8x .50 guns fireing at an average rate of 800rpm (13.3rps) per gun! delivers 107rps (rounds per second) on the convergence point. Likely quite noisey for the 1 or 2 seconds its on target. so- more than twice 50hz electrical line frequency.
I appreciate the arguments, but over 50% would be a great kill ratio with modern antitank missiles.
I think it was only about 5% or less for the British fighter bombers,so unless the American pilots had amazing skill and exceeded the British pilots in kill numbers
Ricocheting 50 calibre rounds into an engine, given the grilles, sounds unlikely for anything like a Pz. III onwards. With the various TDs or converted French vehicles you might have a chance. But with s strafing attack on a tank, if you managed to get more than 10 rounds on an engine deck at all, I'd be amazed. Add in angles, chances of ricochets would be better than 0, but not by much. It did cause inexperienced of crews to bail out. From all I've read, bombs were effective, guns and rockets not every effective against tanks, although great against soft ones.
A famous test was by the RAF - white painted Panther in the middle of Salisbury Plain, static. Hit rates with cannon were few. With rockets worse. I have the details saved SOMEWHERE.
The trick was to hit under the tank, the 50cal rounds would ricochet into the soft underbelly
Half second bursts aren't a lot of rounds, but there's a decent chance of some also knocking out optics and other bits and bobs, if the pilot's a good shot.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 I don't think you'd be able to deliberately target 8-inch square (at the largest and best angle) vision slits at 200mph from an initial closing range of about 400 yards on s potentially moving target.
@@brucepoole8552 absolute nonsense. At the angles involved, a perfect 50 calibre round would not have been able to penetrate the underbelly (standard armour, not soft). After being deformed by bouncing on a surface, the chance of penetration was even less. So from zero chance to zero chance. And from a dude Angle, wheels and tracks were in the way, so you'd need to attack from ahead or behind, and from ahead the rounds would have zero chance of it penetrating the frontal armour. It's a myth that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
@@wbertie2604 strafing wasn't *very* effective against tanks, but it could and did destroy the radiators/fans, which would disable the tank (although a relatively short and simply repair).
Late war some German units began welding raised metal plates over the intake grills to prevent this
Next do the Stuka w/twin 37mm in Rudel's hands.
I highly highly doubt the account of 50 to 60% accuracy of HVAR rockets fired at tanks
I highly doubt you’re qualified to highly doubt this claim
@@guaporeturns9472
I doubt
Therefore I might be.
I’m sure I ought to doubt.
@@xx1352 But you might not be , or would that be might be not..?
hmm 🤔
@@guaporeturns9472 claims in NW Europe were assessed in 1944 or 45. From memory, against tanks, based on claims versus actually destroyed tanks, accuracy was probably closer to 5%.
I feel it's important to note that the chart at 7:45 shows *claimed* kills, not actual recorded kills. BDA and post-war studies revealed that fighters only hit a fraction of their claimed kills, not to say CAS can't be effective because the psychological impact and simple disruption against enemy formations and convoys in the rear was very effective, but WWII CAS was far more show and tell than actually lethal.
I agree with a number of commenters regarding this article. Post war assessment of the effectiveness of P47 rocket attacks against german tanks was vastly overstated. The figure of. A mere 5% of german tanks were destroyed by the air attacks.
Many of the German tanks were abandoned by their crews, had mechanical issues or were out of fuel. If you really look closely you can see how hard its to actually hit a tank with rockets. No disrespect to the brave P47 pilots, but just another false narrative coming out of WW2 propaganda. Just like the strategic bombing campaign by the USAAF. All hokum. 90% of what any narrative coming out of WW2 is false.
@@johnciummo3299 i wouldn't even say this myth was "WW2 propaganda", it springs simply from an honest over assessment of their effect reported by the pilots
Imagine you're diving on a tank, you let loose a salvo of rockets, you're confident your aim is good, the tank erupts in a cloud of smoke and explosions as you're pulling up and away, and you see the tank has stopped moving now. That's definitely a kill!
Except it's not
Errr, no….. P-51 “tank busters” dropping a still classified mythical smart weapon at low level, shallow angle and high speed in built up urban terrain before the tank can cross the bridge is the most effective anti tank fighter bomber.
Can anybody help here , what is this “ mythological weapon “ ?
@@jonathangriffiths2499He's referring to the final combat scene in the film Saving Private Ryan, where a p51 which wasn't used in this roll drops a remarkably accurate bomb on the frankentiger just as it's about to cross the bridge and secure it for the Nazis!
There were Sherman's approaching from the US side but I can't remember if they met the religiously required 5 to 1 ratio to knock out the tiger if it had secured the bridge
These are theost tecnical vids about any subject. To he fair there very dry so i have to be in the right mood so i save them up.
Thanks doing exceptionally good work
Later production tigers had their roof armour increased to 45mm calculated to stop most 75mm and 105 mm artillery shells
Very informative vid sir. Have you ever wondered making a video about the tiny tim rockets? They are so massive
The Jug was my favorite all-purpose plane of the war. But this doc runs contrary to what I have heard documented of British experiments with Typhoons
using rockets. They had terrible results, but I dont think their rockets were the same.
While not an overall bad summation, some relevant details are missed. The Panther tank is missing, aka Mk V. Arguably the Corsair (late WWII would have 20mm cannon) was equal to the P-47 (which the USAF dumped after WWII and fought in Korea with P-51 of all things). The Navy developed more Corsair versions and its 20mm cannon in Korea would be more effective.
regardless if the 50s can penetrate or not, I can't imagine that crew being effective while all those 50s are hitting your tank.
I see a LOT of comments claiming gross exaggeration by the pilots.........what about gun camera footage?????
Thank you! I always wondered about the ricochet theory after reading about it many years ago.
4:32 Which document indicates AP penetrates 15% more than API?
The core, jacket, and base plug are the same. The only difference is the point filler, lead vs IM-11. The API has a higher muzzle velocity. Some army docs show APIT penetrates even more because the burning tracer provides a base bleed effect, which increases the ballistic coefficient, yeilding higher downrange velocities, even though the core is lighter.
All I can add is that AT rounds with no filler (i.e., solid metal shot) out-penetrate analogous ones with explosive filler. Of course, they also do less post-prenetration damage.
GEEEZ ! They had to get danger close for those attacks.
3:30 That's where the phrase "The whole nine yards" comes from. 9 yards of ammo belts. Returning pilots would tell debriefers that they gave em the whole nine yards of ammo.
More P-47 videos are appreciated.... My father flew a P-47.
Great video...👍
You have a great channel
Thanks for this episode as The Thunderbolt one of my favorite Aircraft.. The P -47 also launched of Carriers during the Saipan invasion.. was that the only time ..?
Launched after airfields were secured.
Many disagreements over the effectiveness in the comments. But the fact is that the Germans would not move during the day thus cutting their speed and therefore their range by 40 percent.
Fighter bombers denied the enemy use of the battle space 50 percent of the time.
Many thanks!
Great video as always but very important to question and cross reference the claimed kill rates of fighter pilots, be it air to air or air to ground kills.
One has to wonder how German tanks were destroyed prior to the P-47/HVAR.
The 56th FG tried the bazooka tube rockets. They fired 59 of 60 issued and rejected their further use.
P-47 pilots tried to get their .50 rounds to ricochet into the tank's belly armor. I do not know how successful this was....
There were claims by the pilots that this was very effective even on tiger tank. I haver been hearing them talk about it all my life, but there is no way that a richochet could penetrate the 1" bottom armor (tanks were armored against mines. If you listen to pilot reports, they destroyed many more tanks than were built in the first place.
One factor would be the road surface. If out in open ground l have a hard time imagining a bullet ricocheting off of dirt Just how committed n were hard surface roads in Western Europe at the time.
@@mpetersen6 Not really. The bottom armor was the same thickness at the top armor and it has already been determined that the .50 API rounds could not penetrate that unless it hit at 90°.
@@jfess1911 It would have 0% chance of penetration
@@mpetersen6I'm guessing only the really main roads might be asphalt, and they'd get torn up pretty quickly by tanks driving on them.
Would a bullet even ricochet off asphalt, it's still pretty soft material?
What about the Army L-4 Cub spotter planes (known as Grasshoppers) who found the tanks for the P-47s and USA artilliary? I know of one famous Cub pilot who even mounted rockets to the wings and destroyed some tanks himself!
@@michaelgill7248 he claims to have destroyed some tanks.
It's somewhat questionable if he ever succeeded, especially at destroying "Tigers" as he claims to.
No one's found any German report about scout planes rocketing their tanks - which you would think would be an unusual development worth reporting, which German units were generally pretty good at (for example, they immediately reported back about British 40mm Hurricanes when they were first used).
Plus the general theme of pilots massively overclaiming tank kills and bazookas generally not being very effective at all when fired at long range or at an angle (as would be the case from a plane), it's unlikely he actually destroyed anything.
Really appreciate your content thank you. Have you looked at the British rocket accuracy testing vs a stationary captured panther? The number of hits was sub 5% in absolutely perfect conditions- was the British 6” vastly less accurate than US 5” or were US perceptions overly optimistic as were early British evaluations?
Pilot perceptions were overly optimisic, from both the US and UK perspectives.
Part of the reason the UK conducted such a test was because they were noting a mismatch between the tanks claimed destroyed by the air and the results seen on the ground
Did "Bazooka Charlie" actually destroyed Germany tanks, or only disabled them? The guy in a L-4 Grasshopper armed with 6 Bazooka rocket launcher on the wing struts.
It's unlikely he destroyed anything. Bazookas really weren't effective at the range and angles an aircraft would be attacking from, and there's no known reports from the Germans regarding this new type of attack. Which is notable because the Germans were normally pretty hot on reporting things like that.
There is a study of recovered destroyed tanks. Both sides. It found a very high percentage of troop launched bazookas and such had the highest kills. It was rare to find rocket damage. Less than 10 percent. Thus pilot exaggerations.
Turns out BDA is hard when you are flying away at 300 mph and thousands of feet in the air. Couple that with nerves, adrenaline and multiple pilots counting the same "hits" and it's no wonder why all sides never accurately reported kills.
Ignition and cooling engine components, and sighting equipment have vulnerability to nearby explosions, besides the crew experience.
A near miss from a 500lb bomb is going to stop a tank.
Maybe not permanently, but it's gonna be a real pita.
A big risk was inexperienced crews bailing then being killed by the blast from the bombs. Experienced crews tended to stay inside. The tank might still experience a manouvre kill but the crew would tend to survive absent a direct hit. An exception was a Tiger destroyed, with crew, by a B-17 attack which was straddled with bombs and flipped upside down, killing the crew via blunt trauma injuries
Napalm is also effective but it was not used a lot, if at all, in Europe.
I want to see videos of the rockets actually hitting a tank before I will believe it.
Did P-47's or any ground attacking fighters endeavor to use their bombs and rockets first before using their ammo in order to shed weight quickly from their fighter planes? In the event that they would encounter enemy fighters,I would assume they would prefer to be as light on weight as possible.Just a thought.
@@rayl.clemonsjr.4210 yes, when ordnance was carried it would generally be used first
@@kirotheavenger60 Thanks!
Was it a rocket that killed that German tank at the conclusion of "Saving Private Ryan"?
Bomb
No, it was Capt Millers 1911. If the tank was close enough that Miller is shooting a .45 at it. Any hit with a bomb would likely kill Miller outright.
@@briancisco1176 it's not clear what destroyed the tank. The film obviously makes it clear the P-51 did, but the P-51s aren't carrying any rockets and you don't see any .50 strafing (not that a .50 could do that damage anyway).
It's probably *supposed* to have been a rocket, and they just couldn't get any rocket equipped P-51s to film with (which would make sense, since rockets weren't really their gig).
Disabling a tank, any tank, by damaging the tracks will pretty much take it out of the fight, any aircraft with multiple large cal. machine guns or rockets or bombs could take any tank out of the fight by damaging the tracks or the drive system. So the idea that a tank has to be destroyed to be affective is a misconception. The Russian pilots learn this early, damage the drive system and the German crew would abandon that tank and that was as good as destroying that tank.
Tracks are pretty tough in there own right, optics and pericope glass on the other hand would likely be unusable after being hit. They could also find a lucky gap in the engine louvers and mess up a radiator or fuel/oil line. Other than that it would likely do little than shake up the crew inside.
If they were knocking out tanks, I'm sure we would see plenty of gun camera film of it. All I saw were soft skin vehicles shot at. Destroy the supply trucks, you stop the tanks.
Rockets and bombs didn't have cameras.....
@@kenneth9874 The P-47 does.
@@walterschumann2476 gun cameras....
@@walterschumann2476 gun cameras....
@@kenneth9874 Go to " WWII 5.0 inch HVAR air-to-ground rocket, attacking with the broadside firepower of a Light Cruiser " to see footage of rockets in action.
They had cluster bombs but weren’t clued in on using them against tanks.
No dedicated ground attack 47 was developed. Such would have included turbocharger not useful at low levels removed to save weight, cost, etc. Cockpit and perhaps engine cowling and spinner armored. At least some 50 cals replaced with cannon. 47N style inner wings to increase fuel capacity and loiter time. Similar modifications would have made for a very effective GA P-38. Such fighterbombers would have been most useful in Korea.
Rename the channel Jugtube. I think you'll get a bump....
Oh, and now we'll hear from Oberst Hans Ulrich Rudel. He has some things to say as well.
Aces are largely propaganda tools. Rudel especially so.
@@downunderrob Rudel is the very definition of reputation exceeding his exploits. He destroyed but a fraction of what he claims
@kirotheavenger60 It's well known the Nazis encouraged their pilots to excess. But even if you are correct, can you name another pilot who could come close?
Yeah the Commonwealth Typhoon and Tempest pilots, plus the Il-2/10 guys from Frontal Aviation, would like to challenge this assertion.
Even if they were more effective, they aren’t USAF aircraft and thus aren’t being compared here
Did you even watch the video, multiple times he mentions specifically that he is considering US weapons systems
He asserts that the P-47 is a top US tank destroying weapon. He does not mention the other nations weapons, though we can infer that rockets were the most effective.
I would argue the P47 was superior for attack, even though it was fortuitous that it was good for ground attack because it wasn't designed for that role.
The il-2 was shot down and droves and the p-47 had excellent survival statistics. The p-47 is much faster and can defend itself well in a dog fighting sense, certainly compared to the Il-2. The p47 head excellent range was durable, had a much less vulnerable engine even though the engine on the aisle 2 was armoured. Perhaps airport engines are less vulnerable to freezing and cold temperatures as well
Yes, guys, we get it. We saw it and we accept that it is the focus of the video.
However, we are all aware that the USAAF did not operate in a vacuum. They were not alone.
Comparisons are inevitable. Particularly considering the narrators assertion in the last moments of the video.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🇺🇸
FIRSTIES ?
;-p
Ciao !
Err anti tank guns?????
8:45
@@randomnickify There is nothing at the mentioned timestamp regarding anti-tank guns
It explains Germans we're afraid to even move their asses because they could be straffed at any point. Anti tank guns did not have that effect :)
2:08 they didn't have data on the pz V panther? It's strange that it's not included.
They were all in the repair shop.
holy moses rockets. where did that nickname come from?
05:47 surefire huh? I see what you did there…or rather, “they” did there…
Very interesting I had no idea. I would have thought the bombs would do more damage