The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm saying tiffy, the four times 20mm are far better than eight .50cals...........

[DAVIDICUS]

There is also the issue of rockets. I understand that the American rockets mounted on P-47's were much more destructive than the rockets that the British mounted on their Typhoons.

From: http://www.usaaf.net/ww2/dday/ddpg8.htm

"There is, however, an interesting report from Montgomery's 21st Army Group that questions the alleged success that British air-to-ground rockets enjoyed against tanks and motorized transport."

----------

In 1944, America introduced the The 140 lb. HVAR rocket, affectionately dubbed the "Holy Moses" because of its impressive destructive effect.

The below excerpt indicates that the American rocket could penetrate 75mm of armor or four feet of reinforced concrete at 1,000 ft.

From: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:C...ient=firefox-a

As deadly as the P-47 could be on the German war machine, it became even deadlier shortly after D-day when the first American rockets that could be fired from the wing of a fighter plane arrived. (The British had used rockets from their airplanes, but they were not powerful enough to take out a German tank).

"Our rockets were the first ‘high velocity' in use," he said, "they could penetrate 4 feet of reinforced concrete (and 3-inch armor) at 1,000 feet."

The rockets were developed by Cal Tech scientists. Park said they were manufactured in the Los Angeles area. The plant was turning out 100 a day, delivered directly to the front lines on Army C-54 transport planes.

Fifteen airplanes in the 406th were initially equipped with the new U.S. rockets (half of the P-47s were eventually fitted with the weapons).

Once the pilots learned how to maneuver their planes into a proper position to accurately hit the target, they took off from England and flew to France a few weeks after the Normandy landing looking for tanks out in front of American troops to test out their new weapons. Park spotted his target, set his aircraft, and launched a rocket taking out a pair of tanks that were rumbling along in the countryside. With that shot, Park became the first pilot ever to take out an enemy tank with a rocket fired from the wing of an airplane.

The Rocket contained a Navy 5-inch shell in a 6-foot tube that was filled with rocket propellant. Firing the weapon was a little more difficult than dive bombing, according to the former P-47 pilot.

[KraziKanuK]

I didn't know a 5" American shell was more powerful than a 6" British shell.

This is worth reading, http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/norm.../airpower.html

[trackend]

It seems that a lot of what is written varies considerably David
This item I found seems to contradict the item you posted regarding how effective the RP used by the British was.

The relatively cluttered launch rails used by the RP usually reduced the speed of the carrier aircraft by a good fraction, but the rockets were effective enough to make the reduction in performance worthwhile. The Typhoon was so devastating in attacks on German armor with the 60-pounder that it became known as "Rockoon".

Another artical refers to 7th august during the Mortain battle http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60...to4_p08_gb.htm
all these following sites seem to confirm the Tiffy as one of the best tank whackers around
http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/mortain.asp
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/hawker-typhoon-1b.htm
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Typhoon.html

So bearing this in mind as I have said before I go with the veterans whom I have spoken too that told me they saw Tiffys slaughter even the heaviest of German Tanks.
Im not saying the US didnt have powerful rockets but they tended to favour bombs.
Sqaudrons of Typhoons on the cab rank system proved their ground support role with claims of between 120 and 150 tank kills during the D-Day campaign.

These are some figures for the Type of rockets used by the Tiffy ect
RP Aircraft ground attack rocket
Rocket Motor Tube
3¼" diameter 55¼" long
Total weight of 21.3kg (47 lb) w/ 25 lb AP head
11 lb cruciform stick of cordite - the main propellant charge.
Maximum Velocity of 480 m/sec (1,575 ft/sec)
60 lb Shell, HE/SAP
60 lb Shell, HE/GP, Hollow Charge
18 lb Shell, HE
25 lb Shot, AP
25 lb Head, Solid, A/S (Anti-Submarine)
60 lb Shell, Practice, concrete head (Training only)
12 lb Head, Practice, (Training only)

One last thing I cant forget my favourite plane. A Stringbag became the first aircraft to claim a U-boat kill using rockets (A/S) 23rd may 1943 off the Irish coast so just because the warhead is not large does not mean its not effective, even if it is launched from a 100 knot plane.

[KraziKanuK]

from the link I posted

"Neither is the Mortain attack an example of unusually low efficiency for the allied air forces. It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results"

"Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost. Air power only accounted for about 6 % of all the lost Panthers investigated. Those investigations showed above also included other types of tanks. Of 40 Tigers only one was hit by air weapons, of 121 Pz.Kpf.Wg. IV nine were hit by air weapons. Evidently allied air power was not really capable of destroying large numbers of German tanks"

[mosquitoman]

That Stringbag was piloted by Sub Lieutenant Harry Horrocks of 819 Squadron from HMS Archer, apparently the rockets were designed to be fired short of the target as they curved upwards to hit underneath the waterline

[trackend]

I never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many acounts from numorous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why.

[KraziKanuK]

Originally Posted by trackend

I never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many acounts from numorous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why.

Not my findings.

One I can think of quickly is that at 300+mph when one sees an explosion, the conclusion would be the target as destroyed. hard to tell what was done when you are a mile or more away from the target.

Did you read the link?

[Udet]

Gemhorse:

Most late fighters of WWII would be deadly straffing troop concentrations, not only the P-47.

Hitting targets with air-to-ground rockets was a task a million times more difficult than the many of you apparently recognize.

Less than 3% of all the rockets launched either from RAF or USAAF fighters ever hit the mark.

Read the articles of Niklas Zetterling, you may find it interesting; also it well help you learn both the RAF and USAAF failed big time in destroying German armored formations advancing to the frontlines in the Normandy campaign.

Other than very relevant delays caused to panzer units trying to reach critical points of the front, the damage allied fighter-bombers did to German tanks was minimum.

Finally, i have seen about a dozen of German guncamera shots, showing Typhoons equipped with rails under the wings to place the rockets, getting chewed and swallowed. RAF ground attacking planes fitted in such manner saw its manouverability impaired, and became easier preys for German interceptors.

[DAVIDICUS]

Trackend,

The article you posted directly below only mentions "allied fighter bombers."

http://www.normandiememoire.com/NM60...to4_p08_gb.htm

The three articles you posted directly below make no mention of the effectiveness of British rockets.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/gallery/heritage/mortain.asp
http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/hawker-typhoon-1b.htm
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Typhoon.html

I don't know where that quote you posted about the "Rockoon" came from or what it is supposed to convey. Is it supposed to reflect the awesome power of the Typhoon's rockets of is it just a cutesy name for the Typhoon as a rocket launching platform?

I have no doubt that the Typhoon was a good tank buster. That fact can be established without the use of rockets. (A 500 lb. bomb will take out a tank.)

I am only questioning the effectiveness (presuming a hit) of British vs. American rockets, and hence their contribution to the Typhoon vs. Thunderbolt as the better ground attack plane.

There must be data out there from tests concerning the destructive force of these rockets that will put this issue to rest.

[trackend]

I didn't mean they where your findings personally KK and yes I read it
Here's two of the items from those links David
The Typhoon IB, affectionately known as the "Tiffy", distinguished itself particularly in the Battle of Normandy, where it decimated a large concentration of armor ahead of Avranches, disposing of 137 tanks, and opening the way for the liberation of France and Belgium.I have to agree KK the statistics dont match.
From the beginning of 1944 the build up of 2nd Tactical Air Force resulted in more and more Typhoon squadrons being formed and by D-Day there were no fewer than twenty-six equipped with the type. The Typhoon reached the height of its fame operating as a tank destroyer. again as you point out KK

It does seem to me that if these rockets where so crap as these authors are saying why produce 3000 odd aircraft and fit a large number of them with the things surly some one would have cottoned on and said or done something after the first few hundred if they had been so ineffective.

And as I say I have spoken to some veterans one of whom said he was trapped outside of a woods he believed somewhere near Beuville but wasnt to sure not long after D-Day by three tanks with infantry support one was a Tiger the position was attacked by Tiffys when they left the tanks had been destroyed, and he mean't destroyed.
Now I'm not going to infer that this fella is lying but the statistics that are shown in that link do intimate that unless of course the records aren't as accurate as they believe them to be war does have a lot of grey areas and not every casualty is accounted for as it is total deaths for WW2 vary considrably depending from where the information is gathered (even official sources) in saying that I'm sure most of what they say is fairly on the mark.
Although I haven,t read this yet (perhaps one or you blokes has already) I have a feeling it may show a different view to the discussion
The day of the typhoon by John Golley
This account of rocket Typhoon operations over Normandy in the weeks immediately following the D-Day. It is written by a former ground attack pilot who flew 73 missions with 245 Squadron over Northern France in 1944-45.

[Erich]

I think we also have to seriously think if any P-47 or Tiffy pilot was able to cirlce back, land and observe his kill(s) as confirmed........have to say that didn't happen.

Ju 87 D-5 the best

[Udet]

Hello teddy bears:

Got to tell you, no Typhoon squadron ever came even close to anything that would resemble decimating a panzer division. Ever.

Someone typed here that even "an entire German division surrendered to a P-47 squadron" (!). Too much allied mythology. Sorry but the argument is laughable. And I can assure you I can trace the German OB (this includes infantry and armored divisions; Heer and SS) for the Normandy campaign, and such a thing did never ever took place.

Niklas Zetterling reports were based on ALLIED analysis of German panzers destroyed through Normandy, and it was themselves who realized that air-to-ground rockets were extremely unaccurate to aim, and that their pilots had gone mad filing claims of panzers destroyed.

Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks.

The greatest effect of those massed air-to-ground attacks conducted by RAF and USAAF were to seriously delay the arrival of Germa armored units to the front.

That they hit some panzers with rockets, sure: but it was a very rare event.

[DAVIDICUS]

Well, now I'm frankly not sure what to make of this issue. If indeed as you have said,

"Furthermore, it would surprise you to know, it was the aerial attackers who took the biggest casualies, when they were greeted by flak batteries and ground fire from panzergrenadieren of the panzer divisions across Normandy. So instead of panzers, more Allied ground attack planes died during such attacks."

then I would still prefer the Thunderbolt as the Typhoon had a liquid cooled engine with a chin mounted radiator just begging to be hit by anything the Germans threw up at it.

However, your assertion that more allied ground attack planes perished in such attacks than Panzers is a pill too hard and odd to swallow. Do you have any reliable source that supports this claim?

This "teddy bear" says you are clearly engaging in revisionist history if for no other reason that the weight of recorded history as written and widely acknowledged runs contrary to what you say.

Please elaborate further on this issue.

[trackend]

Isn't almost everything on this sight to an extent revisionist history Dave as I don't know many guys on here who served in WW2 and even then comments made by service personnel can at best be second hand if they did not participate in the actual action.
For example I luv the swordfish but Ive never seen one in combat and I wasn't at Taranto or when they attacked the Bismark so all my info is from books etc as far as this thread goes I am trying to learn from it.
By taking a different tack it seems to have brought out more comments I can only say what my limited knowledge runs too that's why most of my replies have a question embedded in them

I Never knew that KK I stand corrected (all that bleeding typing for nothing) It just seems strange that there's so many account's from numerous sources including eye witness that are different from your findings any ideas why?.

Whats your take on it Dave? ( there you go another question )
Having said that we could end up with a situation where each comment has to be backed by documented evidence which speaking for myself would make for a boring site as all we would be doing was to correlate written data into one place on each subject and it would be quicker to post something like, Subject Typhoon and everyone just posts what documentation they have relating to Typhoons, wouldn't that be a bit boring?
Speaking for myself I enjoy the personnel views of all you guys even if I don't always concur and it would be a shame to loose that.
Ive finished waffling now, carry on chaps.