Il-2 pilots with 10 or more aerial kills

[knusel]

Is a tank automatically disabled when a bullet penetrates its armour ?

[James A Pratt III]

No. It sort of depends where the tank is hit. If a round penatrates the armor and detenates the ammo or sets the tank on fire. This will destroy a tank. If a tank takes a hit that wrecks an engine or breaks a track or if the driver is KIA this will disable a tank. Note it often takes more that one round to destroy a tank and it also depends what sort of tank it is and what it gets hit by and where.

I can see where a IL-2 hits the engine deck of say a Pz IV with a rocket and wrecks the engine. Note the rockets were very inaccurate.

[knusel]

Hello James,

which part would you aim at when you attack a tank by plane (e.g. a Tiger) ?

Cheers,

Michael

[HGabor]

Sorry to interrupt... but I guess the pilots were happy if they hit the tank ANYWHERE during a fast and low pass under intense defense fire. Aiming a part of a tank from the air...? I think that is just an illusion. (Unless you just aim it in the 'middle' hoping that at least you will not miss it.

Gabor

[knusel]

Hello Gabor,

of course but if memory serves we well I read reports of airmen aiming at the enemy aircraft's "engine", "cockpit", "gunner" or at a distinct engine of a four-engined bomber. Therefore, I thought that it was at least the intention of the tankbuster aces to hit the tanks at a distinct point.

I wish you a good Thursday evening,
Michael

[HGabor]

True, but in a dogfight, or fighter attack the speed difference between the two planes was not significant, as the attacker usually followed (pursued) the victim, having a much better situation for aiming. Plus even smaller caliber ammo (from multiple guns with high firing speed) could set an aluminum plane on fire much easier than a steel tank, which required precise hits with larger ammo - obviously from larger weapons having slower firing speed.
Also, for ground targets, the speed difference between the attacker and the ground target was several hundred km/h (much bigger than in the air), giving a much smaller chance (shorter striking time) to score an efficient hit - if the pilot did not want to crash into his target. Two completely different situations, I would not even compare the two!

Gabor

[Franek Grabowski]

Gabor
My late pal, RAF pilot, recalled that they were trained to aim particular areas of a tank, and he noted it was possible. They were fully aware that they could ot destroy a tank, just disable with their rockets, so the tactics was to hit suspension on a particular side of a collumn of tanks, so no parts could be borrowed to cobble them together, forcing to wait for tech support. The goal was not to destroy th enemy, but to delay reinforcements to the frontline or to disable them on battlefield to allow ground troops to destroy or overtake them.
Franek

[HGabor]

Franek, this might sound convincing, but in fact it is not. From a side attack 2/3 of a tank (especially Pz. IVs) was the wheel/suspension system, so by simply hitting the target you had a good chance to hit what you though you have aimed at. This is not 'aiming', this is just successfully hitting a barn from the side. It was not accidental that the Soviets developed the more effective PTAB bombs, the forefather of the modern cluster bombs which simply covered the target after low passes as a carpet without any precise aiming. Few years ago I found one of these beasts and the yellow TNT inside looked very convincing that it was not safe to sit in a tank when Sturmoviks circled above your head.

Gabor

[Franek Grabowski]

I was a doubting Thomas as well, but my pal explained to me that with IIRC Gyro Gunsight it was possible to put rockets into a reasonably small target. So small I could not believe but I have been explained that on a range they could check it themselves.
The forefather of cluster bomb was German SD-2. Soviets tried to develop more effective weapons, but with a rather rudimentary sights, they could hardly been much effective. In general, it was much safer to be in a tank rather than outside of it during air raid.
Franek

[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