Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by davebender

Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.

I thought flame throwers used diesel fuel as the accelerant?
Was there a change at some point, or is that erroneous information?



Elvis

[lesofprimus]

The number of actual German tanks that were destroyed by single engine ground attack during the Normandy Campaign has been totally blown out of proportion... Just a small portion of those actually claimed were confirmed....

[davebender]

Flame weapons aren't picky. You can use any flammable liquid. Thickened gasoline would have been the most common during WWI and WWII.

[Elvis]

Ah, I see.
Ok Dave, thanks for answering my question.


Elvis

[Clay_Allison]

From reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that tank killing was just not all that good in WWII from the air.

[davebender]

That's my impression also. Some good tank busting technology existed. However napalm, AT cluster bombs and the R4/M rocket were deployed too late and / or in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.

[BombTaxi]

I'm sure the poor buggers on the receiving end would beg to differ

I am sure that total kills were overclaimed (as were kills of many things in WWII), but the morale effect on the Germans in Normandy of flights of Typhoons circling overhead waiting to pick them off must have been dreadful, especially when the LW was becoming less and less capable of stopping it from happening. I don't have specific numbers of tanks claimed to hand (although I will certainly look for them), but I am confident in saying that the effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed...

[davebender]

Effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed

That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.

[Clay_Allison]

Originally Posted by davebender

That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.

Don't forget how much fuel the german armor needed. Kinda hard to run your tank when the fuel truck gets its butt chewed off by a P-47.

[Fireaxe888]

The Il-2 had PTAB-2.5-1.5 HEAT bomblets-it carried 198 and any one of them can penetrate the armour of a heavy tank.That really must have hurt

[parsifal]

The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly. Vehicles of all kinds were generally safe unless forced to move in daylight. Once that happened, the position of the vehicle was exposed, and its ability to survive greatly reduced.

However not being able to move meant that it could be more easily targetted by ground formations. It could be flanked, bombarded sniped,,,,etc. In other words, its risk from ground forces was much increased because it could not move, but if it did move, its risk from the air was greatly increased. This gave air power a force multiplier many times that achieved by its actual kill rates

During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes