ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...
...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"
..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."
..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this
was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."
These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!
So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.
This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.
So apparently the major cause of German Tank losses on the Western Front was cowardly tank crews who blew up or abandoned their vehicles? Wonder what they were afraid of?
In case you read the link, your question doesn´t make any sense. In case you haven´t, stopp trolling.
The tanks were abandoned near a bridge, which could not be passed by the heavy tanks.
In the second case, there wasn´t enough fuel to break from the encirclement, so the crew destroyed the tank to prohibit the capture of an intact vehicle.
Just to make you feel even more bad:
The Allies lost about 1200 fighterbombers in the first days of the invasion in France for destroying about 20 tanks.
If you want to see real tankkillers you have to look at the Ju87 with 37mm PAK or the Hs 129 tank cracker.
ju 87 destroying landing boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg
HS 129 in interdiction role: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTleVTB-_g
So please, get real, fighter bombers were not the right tool to handle a tank problem.
Else the German Luftwaffe would have used them in this role! But there were major problems:
The planes were to fast to aim, the plane was to fragile to stand flak
Luftwaffe even tried an automatic Panzerschreck mount on FW190gs, but it didn´t work.
Lateron it was planned to mount wire guided antitank rockets (X7) in twoseat fighterbombers, but time went out and the war was over before it was really worked out.
Planes had to be slow to be able to hit a tank and they had to have the right punch. Both was not true for fighterbombers.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"