Tiffie vs Panther

Ju87G

There is some footage of Rudel at Kursk taking a second or third volley from his Paks to destroy targets..
Link here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg 😮

Peter C Smith is quite critical of the claims of tanks destroyed by Typhoons at Falase…and that the rocket claims were inflated for propaganda reasons…

A panzer or panzer-grenadier division of 1944 would consist of hundreds of vehicles, the vast majority of them unarmoured, and relatively few tanks. Much of the transport of an infantry division, even in 1944, would have been horse-drawn.

While rocket-firing Typhoons may not have destroyed many tanks by direct-hits or near-misses the destruction of the accompanying ‘soft-skinned’ transport would have been just as, if not more, effective.

Re tankbusting cannon, there is a degree of truth here. 6 Squadron’s Hurricane IIDs allegedly destroyed the equivalent of two panzer divisions in the Western desert in 1943. No doubt that they were fearsomely effective, but the old Hurris would have been horribly vulnerable in Europe in 1944-5.

I think its Hurricane at war Vol2 (am at work, can’t check) there is a breakdown of a raid by Hurricane 11D’s on some canal lock gates, shambles, last offensive operation in Europe if I recall for Hurri’s?

The hitting power of the Hawker Typhoon.

A couple of shots from my uncle’s albums.

175 Squadron – Typhoons.

Mark

…a shot published, on occasion, usually with an incorrect caption.

Peter C Smith is quite critical of the claims of tanks destroyed by Typhoons at Falase etc – says that cannon armed JU-87’s were far more effective and that the rocket claims were inflated for propaganda reasons – with 8 60lb rockets being the same as a destroyer broadside, I guess you have to hit somewhere close? what would you take, 15 rounds or so of cannon ammunition or 8 (or 16) rockets?

Not sure about the Stukas, but Hurricane IIDs tended to fire three ‘salvoes’ of two shells on each attack run, correcting for aim between each, and would apparently expect to hit with at least one salvo.

The tankbusting Stuka may have been great on the Eastern front but it would have been fighter fodder in Europe, plus it took an experienced fighter to get the best out of it.

Re tankbusting cannon, there is a degree of truth here. 6 Squadron’s Hurricane IIDs allegedly destroyed the equivalent of two panzer divisions in the Western desert in 1943. No doubt that they were fearsomely effective, but the old Hurris would have been horribly vulnerable in Europe in 1944-5.

Peter C Smith is quite critical of the claims of tanks destroyed by Typhoons at Falase etc – says that cannon armed JU-87’s were far more effective and that the rocket claims were inflated for propaganda reasons – with 8 60lb rockets being the same as a destroyer broadside, I guess you have to hit somewhere close? what would you take, 15 rounds or so of cannon ammunition or 8 (or 16) rockets?

True..

The Tiffies delivery service does tend to be “misguided” sometimes,thats why they had 8 rockets each and attacked in one or two Squadron lines.A Firefly (Upgunned Sherman) would be a more efficient choice.:diablo:

How many volleys of rockets did it take to finally hit that immobile tank?

Looked like several.

How many volleys would it take you to hit a relatively small object with an unsophisticated rocket projectile with no guidance system other than ‘point and shoot’ while travelling at several hundred miles per hour? I think the fact that it was hit at all is pretty amazing.

The Tiffie’s results rather speak for themselves anyway.

How many volleys of rockets did it take to finally hit that immobile tank?

Looked like several.