Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills

[James A Pratt III]

I believe the main cause of tanks catching fire in WW II were from most to least:
1. ammo
2. gear stowed on the outside of a tank
3. oil or fuel stored on the outside of a tank
4. fuel

I don't have much info on hand on tanks under air attack from the tank men's point of view. I do have the following books:
"Brazen Chariots" Robert Crisp a fine book on what it is like in tank combat

"Mr Churchills Tank" David Fletcher A fine book on this tank.

In both books tanks are hard to sometimes kill. Despite what you see in movies ect.
Fletcher has one Churchill taking 38 50mm hits, 6 75mm hits and 8 British 6 pdr hits! the latter by accident. Another account has a Churchill taking a 88 mm round through the front and penatrating to the engine no crew casualties. Then there is a Churchill that was hit by 4-75mm rounds from a Panther all penatraed the armor but no casualties.

Air attacks rare on the Churchill. The book has one destroyed in Tunisa by a divebomber that hit the tank of 51 RTR with 2 bombs 1 on the nearside track and 1 that hit the engine starting a fuel fire. In Normandy 16 Jul 44 the 153 RAC was attacked by 12 FW-190s with MGs and bombs no casualties and they claim one aircraft shot down.
I have read somewhere that the Germans had to fire 11 rounds from an 88 mm to kill one tank.

I would also like to point out;
Germans in Russia all or most Russian tanks are refered to as T-34s
US 1944-45 all or most German tanks are called Tigers
Russians 1943-45 all or most German tanks are either Tigers or panthers, all or most sp guns ect are called ferdinands. Half tracks are also called tanks

[Juha]

The rockets were too inaccurate for it to be worth aiming at a specific spot, the probability of a hit was really low. According to Price, the probability of getting at least one hit with a salvo of eight rockets was 0.7%. The British tested air-to-ground rocket fire against a Panther standing alone in an open field, and indeed, the probability of a hit was very low. Was it as low as Price says, maybe not. I tried to dig up the above report, but I coudn't find it on my hard drive. But as I recall, at least a flight's worth of Typhoons were needed in order to have a reasonable probability of hitting a tank. According to Price, on August 7, 1944, the Typhoons used 2088 rockets and 80 tons of bombs in 458 sorties, of which 294 were in the Mortain area, where 7 tanks were disabled/destroyed with rockets and 2 with bombs.
It must also be remembered that sometime around 1942, the British started teaching anti-tank gunners to aim at the tank's center of mass and no longer at a specific point. So it was considered better for the aimers of stationary cannons to aim at the center of the target. In the end, the tank is quite a small target. Tiikeri I size was 6.32 x 3.56 x 3.00 metres.
Similarly, the idea that all planes attacked from the same direction is not very reasonable. A mobility kill would require a hit to the roadwheels or tracks and they were identical on both sides of a tank. Of course, also a rocket hit to the engine compartment cover will stop if not destroy the tank, no matter if it was attacked from the side or behind.
The instructor may well have given the advices as the veteran remembers, but those instructions did not make much sense.

[Franek Grabowski]

Well, the pal was quite clear in his recollections, It was a few years ago that I have corresponded, and in no position to check it back, but he was perfectly clear that they trained on a range and checked effects themselves, and were clearly told, that they cannot destroy a tank, but they can disable it for a critical period of time. This was not Normandy, it was later.
Normandy was the first campaign where RPs were massively used. Thus the weapon must have been perfected. Then obviously the statistics does not have information about tanks hit but not disabled. RPs were much more effective against softskin vehicles. Then there was a psy efffect as well. RP attack was scary and this took the toll.

[Juha]

I agree that rockets were effective against softskin vehicles and its had significant psy effect even to tank crews. A direct hit might have devastating effect even on Panther tank.

Hawkins grenade, aka Grenade, Hand, Anti-Tank, No. 75 could brake the top armour plates of the Panther tested, its contained .99 lb of ammonal or TNT. The reason was brittleness of the top armour plates of the Panther. 60 lbs SAP head of the RP-3 rockets contained 12 lbs/5.5 kgs TNT/RDX/Amatol. So a hit on the top plates of an AFV should be lethal up to and including Panthers and maybe even to a Tiger I. It's been almost 50 years since I dealt with these things, but I'd say side hits on German AFVs lighter than the Panther could be devastating. And a hit on running gear could easily be a mobility kill to all AFVs.

[Franek Grabowski]

They were also very effective against shipping, but this was a big target, easy to hit.
I have heard a second hand story told by a German vet, I think about Normandy, that when a fresh but inexperienced unit came under attack of Typhoons, they were not badly hit, but they were completely knocked down by psy effect. I do not think it should be underestimated.

A properly fires rocket should be lethat for a tank, but of course it would have to hit it at proper place and angle. Still, a near miss or bad hit should be enough to cause some effect like a damage, etc.
I think that the problem is that everyone takes for granted the results drawn from Normandy alalysis, but not conclusions drawn and improvements introduced. The other fact is, that the losses in softskin vehicles providing supplies for tanks were often decisive, and I think the major reason of complaints of German commanders.

[James A Pratt III]

on youtube the Chieftain has a presentation "When Your tank is Attacked by Aircraft" It says to drive towards the attacking aircraft at a 45 degree angle. This makes sense because the pilot is going to have to use deflection to hit the tank. Also any cannon fire that hits the tank is going to hit at an angle and may bounce off. I would also say that the turret will be pointed at the plane and the gunner would be firing at it.

[James A Pratt III]

In warspot.ru tank section page 114 there is a post "General Badanov's raid on the 24th TCs raid on Tatinskaya airfield during Operation Little Saturn. It mentions the tanks using speed and manuvering to dodge aircraft. It has tanks losses as "Minimal" but motor vehicles not so. It mentions german aircraft usually attacked form behind.

[knusel]

Was the Hawker Typhoon the most effective tank killer aircraft of the Western Allies ?

[Juha]

Or Hurricane IID, 40 mm Vickers S gun vas very accurate, and its 3 lbs AP shot penetrates 58 mm of armour at 20 deg from 400 yards with A/C speed 350 fps (385 km/h). Did well in North Africa and Burma. But as underpowered plane it was practically defendless against enemy fighters and vulnerable to AAA, British concluded that German Flak in the ETO was much too effective for them and rockets were much more effective aganst soft vehicles and ground troops.
Of course if RAF would have thought that gun armed anti-tank A/C was very important and demanded more Merlin 27s and so made possible more power for Hurricane Mk IVs. But that would have meant less Merlin 25s and so less Mosquitos. And Mossies were deemed more important planes.

[Franek Grabowski]

I recall reading an article on Hurricane IID, and as I recall there were several issues, this apart of performance, noticing that once RPs were fired an aircraft turned into a potent fighter, and thus no escort was required. Also, I believe it has been noted, that contrary to Africa no clear approaches were possible in Europe. Interestingly, some aircraft had been delivered to the SU, but saw no combat.
I am aware of no stats awarding ground targets to pilots.