Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeracer
I think it depends on your definition of "useless". If you mean physically detroying tanks then I would agree.
But I'm sure air attacks were disruptive and damaging to the enemy regardless of whether the tank itself was actually "destroyed".
I think the biggest "effect" though was simply to morale and logistics by forcing the enemy to adapt their movements to allow for potential air attack. Even if the attack never eventuates, or inficts insignificant damage when it does, having to allow for it still burns up vital resources, slows down movement, and affects morale.
|
Personally, I consider claims about tank destroyed largely mythical, beginning with the biggest over claimer in human history (Hans Rudel, but this is my opinion, of course, even if based on simple mathematical analysis).
I agree with you that actual number of tanks directly destroyed from the air was surely low, far from what propaganda said for years. And – in my opinion – the Ju87g was not better than other anti-tank aircrafts with similar performances and armament (the Hurricane IId, for example).
Your analysis of the real impact of air operations is true, and could be largely extended to strategic bombing.
In any case, all of this is clearly off topic. I must apologize with Pershing. Returning to topic, I think that some experiment under controlled and repeatable conditions (scientific method, you know) should be the first step to solution of this problem. My two cents.