The new bomb fuzing needs to be an option.

[JPerro]

would this quote change your mind?

They've said the first victim of the war is the truth.

Modern literature on WWII is replete with accounts of devastating air strikes on tank units. There are many stories about dozens or even hundreds of enemy tanks being destroyed in a single day, thereby destroying or blunting an enemy armoured offensive. These accounts are particularly common in literature relating to later war ground attack aircraft, most commonly the Soviet Ilyushin II, the British Hawker Typhoon, the American Republic P-47, and the German Henschel Hs 129. All these aircraft have the distinction of being called ‘tank-busters’ and all have the reputation for being able to easily destroy any type of tank in WWII.

Now what's the truth?

Case 1 - Normandy

During Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs (Rocket Projectiles).

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively.

Unfortunately for air force pilots, there is a small unit usually entitled Research and Analysis which enters a combat area once it is secured. This is and was common in most armies, and the British Army was no different. The job of The Office of Research and Analysis was to look at the results of the tactics and weapons employed during the battle in order to determine their effectiveness (with the objective of improving future tactics and weapons).

They found that the air force’s claims did not match the reality at all. In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs (less than 3% of those claimed). Even worse, only 3 out of 87 APC examined could be attributed to air lunched RPs. The story at Mortain was even worse. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack. This is again around 4% of those claimed. When the results of the various Normandy operations are compiled, it turns out that no more than 100 German tanks were lost in the entire campaign from hits by aircraft launched ordnance.

Case 2 - Kursk

Luftwaffe

In July 1943 the German Citadel Offensive (battle of Kursk) was supported by several types of apparently highly effective ground attack aircraft, two of which were specialist tank killing machines. The first was the Henschel 129B-1/2. Made in modest numbers (only 870 of all types) it was specifically designed for the anti-tank and close support mission. The second was the Ju87G-1, armed with two 37mm cannon also specifically designed to kill armour. These aircraft, along with Fw-190Fs, were first employed en masse in the Schlachtgeschwader units supporting Operation Citadel.

They are credited with ‘wreaking havoc amongst Soviet armour’ and the destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks in this battle. On 8th July 1941, Hs 129s are credited with destroying 50
T-34s in the 2nd Guards Tank Corps in less than an hour. There is some evidence that 2nd Guards Tank Corps took heavy casualties on 8th July, but 50 tanks appears to exceed their total losses form all causes.

In fact total Soviet tank losses in operation Citadel amounted to 1 614 tanks totally destroyed, the vast majority to German tanks and assault guns. Further detailed research has shown air power only accounted for 2-5% of Soviet tanks destroyed in the battle of Kursk.(24) This equates to at most around 80 tanks. Again, even if this is a low estimate, where are the hundreds of tanks destroyed by German ground attack aircraft?

Soviet Air Force

On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division.
It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present (the II./Pz Regt 33) with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division. 9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over three months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.
During the battle of Kursk, the VVS IL-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2 000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 3rd Panzer Division’s 6th Panzer Regiment had only 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed! On 11th July (well after the battle) the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks. 3rd Panzer Division continued fighting throughout July, mostly with 48th Panzer Corps. It did not record any extraordinary losses to air attack throughout this period. As with the other panzer divisions at Kursk, the large majority of 3rd Panzer Division’s tank losses were due to dug in Soviet AT guns and tanks.
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s IL-2s, is that over a period of 4 hours they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39) with a grand total of only 67 tanks. This time only 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS! The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector for the Kursk battle, but further south with 1st Panzer Army’s 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year still intact.
In fact total German tank losses in Operation Citadel amounted to 1 612 tanks and assault guns damaged and 323 totally destroyed, the vast majority to Soviet AT guns and AFVs. Where are the many hundreds destroyed by IL-2’s? It appears the RAF and VVS vied for the title for ‘most tank kill over-claims in WWII’.

In addition it is difficult to find any first hand accounts by German Panzer crews on the Eastern Front describing anything more than the occasional loss to direct air attack. The vast majority, around 95%, of tank losses are due to enemy AT guns, tanks, mines, artillery, and infantry assault, or simply abandoned as operational losses. Total German fully tracked AFV losses on the East Front from 1941 to 1945 amounted to approximately 32 800 AFVs. At most 7% were destroyed by direct air attack, which amounts to approximately 2 300 German fully tracked AFV lost to direct air attack, a portion of which would be lost to other aircraft types such as the Petlyakov Pe-2. From 22nd June 1941 to war's end, 23 600 Il-2 and Il-10 ground attack aircraft were irrecoverably lost. Whatever these aircraft were doing to pay such a high price it wasn’t destroying German tanks. If that was there primary target, then over 10 Il-2s and Il-10s were irrecoverably lost for every German fully tracked AFV that was completely destroyed by direct air attack on the East Front during WWII.

Source:

P. Moore, Operation Goodwood, July 1944; A Corridor of Death, Helion & Company Ltd, Solihull, UK, 2007,
N. Zetterling, Normandy 1944, J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing Inc, Winnipeg, Canada, 2000,
F. Crosby, The Complete Guide to Fighters and Bombers of WWII, Anness Publishing Ltd: Hermes House, London, 2006, p. 365. Also M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 56.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 349.
T. L. Jentz, Panzer Truppen, The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Deployment of Germany’s Tank Force: 1943-1945,
M. Healy, Kursk 1943, Osprey Military, London, 1993, p. 66.
D. M. Glantz, J.M. House, The Battle of Kursk, Ian Allan Publishing Ltd, Surrey, UK, 1999, p. 276. According to Glantz and House, these are admitted Soviet tanks totally destroyed but the number is probably higher. In addition a similar number were probably recovered as repairable.
Tank Forces in Defense of the Kursk Bridgehead, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Volume 7, No 1, March 1994,

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by JPerro

would this quote change your mind?

Well if you are only focusing on the mid to late war stuff.
I was aiming at the early war stuff. Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs against heavy Char B tanks?? The 88 canon was not used yet at that time as a anti tank weapon, so how where the French tanks knocked out? Surely not with MG34s? Also the Panzer IV was not yet available in large numbers, although even that tank would have its difficulties against a Char B, as the French tanks where at that time better than the German ones.
Also TD have admitted themselves that the 2sec thing is just a random number they pulled out of the hat.
Some one is just against dive and skip bombing and would like to see bombing refined to high level bombing. A function for which the Ju87 was really built for!
I just have a feeling that the supporters of this random setting are not bomber fliers at all, but fighter jocks that hate being surprised by bombers, but wish to have every opportunity of surprise for bombers removed, and force them into high level carpet bombing. Any poor sod on a server who is silly enough to take a bomber and not have a dozen or more mates along to help, is from that point of view then just too stupid for a bomber in the first place, and should have choosen a fighter instead. From that point of view one could have then set the fusing time to 2min or indefinately.

[JG53Frankyboy]

i recommend to do a new research about the use of the 8,8 against french CharB and british MatildaII tanks in France summer 1940...................
and about the minimum heights of bombrelease of the Ju87.

that the "qualitiy" of the targets in game is sometimes questionable, true.

and to ad:
i also thinking that adding this arming time for the bombfuze was the last thing this game needed
at least in the form it was done....

but i DONT think that it makes divebombing or skipbombing impossible. i am just thinking about how it would be if it would have been implimented from the beginning of IL2 almost 10 years ago.......................................

[Skoshi Tiger]

In all that research did they state how many tanks had been attacked more than once by aircraft? Spotting the difference between a disabled tank and one in fully working order during attack run would be reasonable hard I would imagine.

Did they count all the ones that were temporarily put out of order due to minor damage but still taken out of the battle?

Did they count all the ones put out of action by being forced hulls down and incapable of moving due to the risk of air attack?

I have never been in combat, nor due to my age reasonably expect to be placed into that position. I'm not going to come down hard on the servicemen that claimed a kill on a derelict tank. I expect in all of these battles the pooh was hitting the A.M.D. and if you see your eight HVARs (equivalent to the broadside of a light cruiser) lifting the dirt around the tank that you are targeting I can see that you could assume that you've got a kill. Let’s face how long are you going sticking around to see the final outcome?

In my opinion these instances of over claiming are a natural part of warfare. How many claims for kills were made by the antitank gun crews in the same battles? It is part of human nature to want to hope for the best.

In the sim it should come down to if you accurately target the vehicle using the correct technique and work within the operational parameters of the weapon and the delivery system then you should get the kill. It shouldn’t be artificially made harder so it conforms to the statistics of the war.

Well that’s my opinion anyway!

Cheers

[vparez]

In the sim it should come down to if you accurately target the vehicle using the correct technique and work within the operational parameters of the weapon and the delivery system then you should get the kill. It shouldn’t be artificially made harder so it conforms to the statistics of the war.

So if you line up correctly, and are in range, every gun round should hit bullseye? Every rocket should hit the same spot?

Sorry mate but that is not called a "simulation" that is called an "arcade action game".

[Flanker35M]

S!

Maybe you could provide your EOD/Armament training vparez? Wutz can and so can I Do you think if we work with military we do NOT have access to this kind of data? There are STILL bombs/munition out there that are cleared out by EOD personnel. And they HAVE to know EXACTLY how a fuze/bomb/munition works to safely disarm it or otherwise render harmless..or even to approach it as some fuzes tend to get very touchy with age. So let's hear your professional opinion on this matter, shall we?

[JG52Uther]

Why does the new flyable Henschel have a low level bombing site that starts at 10 meters?
I would guess the Germans in WW2 had some idea what they were doing.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17990

[swiss]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

Why does the new flyable Henschel have a low level bombing site that starts at 10 meters?
I would guess the Germans in WW2 had some idea what they were doing.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=17990

The Henschel manual mentions L.Dv.8 and L.Dv.152 (L.Dv.= Luftwaffe Dienstvorschrift)

LDV8-5

Unfortunately I dont really get it, under "Bemerkungen" they show much shorter arming times.
Anyone can clear that up?

[JG52Uther]

Wutz don't stoop to their level,lets try and keep this on track.

Why do you think the Henschel 129 low level bombsight start at 10 meters,if our bombs don't work unless we are flying at 30 meters...

[Letum]

I know nothing about German fuzes, but as listed in my post on page 11, American fuzes with time delays of 4-15 seconds have Air Travel to Arm distances as low as 100ft, giving them plenty of time to arm in 30ft of vertical fall.

Originally Posted by Me

Fuze: m112,113,114
Type: Impact/inertia with 4-15 second delay
Bombs: All GP bombs
Air Travel to Arm: 100ft
Vertical fall required to arm with a dive angle of 0 degrees:
100kn - 10 ft
200kn - < 10 ft
300kn - < 10 ft
400kn - < 10 ft

I haven't checked, but I believe the m112,113,114 fuzes are all tail fuzes as that's the norm for time delay fuzes.