Were German Tanks Vunerable To American Planes?

I have noted that the JU-87 pilot Hans Rudel at least claimed the destruction of many tanks, Russian, I suppose. He of, course flew a purpose built dive bomber with air brakes. He flew a version with 2-37 mm cannon that I also presume had armor piercing shells. I also suppose that most cannon tank kills occurred by attacking the rear or possibly side of the tank.

My question is, how effective were American planes in anti-tank roles against German medium and heavy tanks? The Americans (we) had no designed dive bombers in numbers in the European Theater but only fighter bombers that could glide bomb with, I expect much less accuracy than the Stuka. Their heaviest armament were the 50 mm guns. Did they kill German medium and heavy tanks or simply kill their ancillary services? Regards,

John Phillips

Their main weapons against armoured vehicles were rockets. They were quite capable of knocking out the heaviest tank hitting anywhere but the frontal armour. In practise it was difficult for them to score a hit on such a small target, but the mere threat of the attack forced tanks to hide, retreat or in some cases to be abandoned.

A stationary tank could be bombed. The allied fighter-bombers were capable of fairly accurate placement of bombs in the hands of a good pilot. In addition, even light and medium bombers could mount effective attacks against small targets if conditions allowed them to fly low enough and visibility was good. Even when strikes were not achieved, the threat of attack affected tactics. German tanks preferred to wait for low cloud or darkness before coming out in the open.

In the reality of combat, artillery, of tank destroyers and infantry with bazookas and mines were just as much of a menace to German tanks as air

: designed dive bombers in numbers in the European Theater but only : fighter bombers that could glide bomb with, I expect much less : accuracy than the Stuka. Their heaviest armament were the 50 mm guns. : Did they kill German medium and heavy tanks or simply kill their : ancillary services? : Regards,

The US never really developed specialist anti-tank aircraft units like the Germans, but several types were used in the anti-tank role. By the spring of '44, for example, some P-47 units were equipped with 4.5 inch anti-tank rockets and proved very effective. Generally, the US relied more on anti-tank rockets than big cannons put on aircraft. The P-39 was used very effectively as an anti-tank aircraft (it had a 37mm cannon), but mainly by the Soviets. The US used the aircraft mainly in the Pacific where there wasn't nearly as much armor to attack. Generally speaking, the .50 cal ( or 12.7 mm ) machine guns found on most US aircraft were not likely to kill a main battle tank. They were often effective, however, against lightly armored vehicles like halftracks, SP guns, etc. The US also used medium bombers (like the B-25) against

armor, and classified some aircraft as 'A' (attack) vice 'B' (like the A20). The British had some handy anti-tank variants as well. The Hurricane Mk IID had two 40mm cannons and was used extensively in North Africa, but didn't fare so well later in the war. There was a Mosquito variant with a 57mm cannon that was also used to hunt U-Boats.

well dont forget the allies had rockets on their plane's, I dunno if they where AP og HE rockets

The A-36 variant of the P-51 Mustang was a dive bomber. This had the less powerful engine and was not suitable for high altitude work. Those few that were manufactured were deployed in a close support, dive bomber role.

The P-39 as flow by the VVS was almost exclusively an air superiority fighter. Seldom used in the ground attack role. The 37mm ammunition for its gun was all shipped from the US. No armor piercing rounds were shipped. Russian operational aircraft were designated by a Russian phrase which roughly translates as 'Support of the ground forces'. The phrase applied to virtually all roles assumed by recon, bombers, fighters, and ground attack aircraft assigned to an army front. Support of the ground forces in the West meant ground attack. In the East, it could mean almost anything. In the case of the P-39, support of the ground forces meant gaining air superiority over the front. Excellent book on the P-39 as used by the VVS is 'Attack of the Aircobras'. Don't have it handy, so can't cite the author.

Hardly at all. Post battle surveys showed that considerably less than 10% of all tank kills were directly attributable to aircraft fire.

You may be overestimating the accuracy and effectiveness of the Stuka as an antitank weapon. Rudel is suspected by some historians to have over-claimed on his kills.

I think you mean .50 caliber (12.7mm)

Mostly the latter. By a wide margin. A tank that cannot refuel or rearm is effectively a large heap of scrap.

The browning M-2HB may not have had the penetration of the 37mm, but it did have significantly more penetration than most aircraft machineguns when loaded with API (Armor Piercing Incendiary). If memory serves, somewhere in the 25-30mm range. This is sufficient to penetrate the deck armor on most tanks of the time. The bombs and rockets carried by the Jabo's here also quite a hazard to tanks, as near misses could still cause damage that can put a tank out of action. The real threat the Jabo's presented to the tanks was to destroy the soft skin support vehicles and supporting infantry.

I think you mean .50 caliber or 12.7mm. American planes only really became effective against armor with the advent of the 5 inch High Velocity Aircraft Rocket. These could be pretty accurate with training and experience and I have read of pilots going back to Falaise for example to view tanks they had killed.

John Dupre'

Yup, Soviet. The accuracy of these claims, like all pilot claims, is open to question.

He of, course flew a Probably the top. The 37mm gun was not a particularly good AT gun by then, but tank horizontal armor is always pretty minimal. My idea of a good aiming point would be the engine grates behind the turret, but this is only a guess.

Not very. 20mm cannon fire was ineffective, and .50-caliber machinegun fire more so. Bombs and rockets could kill tanks if they hit, but they rarely hit. Probably the only good way for aircraft to kill tanks was to have small AT guns mounted, and the Western Allies found that such aircraft suffered excessive casualties from light AA fire.

The only good study I know of was British, but there really was little to choose between Typhoon and Thunderbolt in the ability to kill tanks. The study found that very few German tanks had been destroyed by aircraft.

Typically, the ancillary services. That was enough.

Moreover, air attack had a considerable morale effect. German tank crews would feel very exposed in their tanks, and many of the less experienced ones apparently abandoned their tanks (where they were actually safest) and of course on a battlefield there are always reasons why a crew might not be able to get back in.

What worked most effectively was to follow up an air attack with a ground attack in the next few hours.