![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I came to the Hawker Typhoon page by following a link from the P-51 Mustang page. I was interested there to learn that the Mustang had corrected a major problem by taking its "teardrop-shaped bubble canopies derived from the British Hawker Typhoon". However, the Typhoon page has a picture which does not at all show the canopy, and the article barely mentions the canopy, so I was left wondering about its origins, whether it was innovative or crucial, etc. Since the Mustang had such a storied career and because it outlived WWII, the Typhoon page could perhaps provide more of this story? if anybody knows it... ok, now I see more discussion of this in the P-47 Thunderbolt article, and it mentions that the Hawker Tempest also included this canopy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.5.41 ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed before that cites have been removed from this section - now restored. Statistics are usefulo, but too many are not needed in an encylopaedic article. As it is the effectiveness of the rockets is discussed in the relevant article on the RP3. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Beware of making statements like: "The reason for the inflated regard of Typhoons and other fighter bombers as effective tank destroyers is a result of the myth perpetrated by exaggerated pilot kill claims." that are not backed up by authoritative and verifiable references. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC).
In using terms like "estimated", "verifiably", "at most only" aren't exactly the standard for authoritative, verifiable reference sources. Instead, this seems more like making a WP:Point campaign. FWiW, if there are these undisputed sources, where were they before? Bzuk ( talk) 16:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Once again you are turning this article into a needlessly detailed critique of the Typhoon's effectiveness against tanks - the material about Tiger Is etc is not needed because the point, that the Typhoon did not destroy large numbers of tanks during two major battles, has been made already - by directly comparing numbers of tanks destroyed v numbers of Typhoons destroyed you are producing a skewed set of figures which bear no relationship to the Typhoon's overall effectiveness as a ground attack aircraft; think about it - how many tanks destroyed Typhoons? You have become fixated on the numbers of tanks destroyed at the expense of the overall impact of aerial operations against the German supply echelons, headquarters, troop concentrations etc; without embarking on long explanations and breakdowns of statistics such comparisons are meaningless and do not belong in this article - save it for more specialised websites or the article on the RP-3. Also, you mention 456 tanks but what does this mean? Were they all German? Were they abandoned, destroyed, out of fuel? Were they all tanks or a mix of tanks AFVs and APCs? Thirdly what was the Office of Research and Analysis in this particular (WW2) context? I have googled it under Office of Research and Analysis 2 TAF WW2 and still have no idea. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
While following up some thoughts I had while editing the article I found this on google books. RPs are discussed from page 249 onwards though - as ever - some pages are tantalizingly not shown. Mentions morale boost for the British troops when a Typhoon strike goes in. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the 'Cab Rank' system worked like this. The ground force would have an attached RAF ground controller in wireless communication with RAF operations and also with the pilot's VHF radios. Should he need to call on support from Typhoons or similar, he would radio in, and two Typhoons (or as many as he thought were needed) would immediately take off and fly to the requested target area, and on arrival, call the RAF ground controller on VHF voice radio for instructions, then following up by attacking the target with guns, rockets, or bombs. While the first two Typhoons were attacking the target, two more would be taking off, and proceeding to the area as backup, should the first two aircraft not succeed in destroying the target. Upon arrival, if needed, they also would be guided on to the target by the ground RAF officer, and the initial two aircraft would be on their way home to refuel and rearm. At the same time, a third set of two Typhoons would be taking off, and flying to the target area, again, if needed should the second two aircraft fail to destroy the allocated target. Eventually it would be the turn of the refuelled and rearmed first two aircraft again, and again if needed they would take off and again fly to the target area. The point of this was that the attack would continue as long as it was required, and in theory, the ground controller could call on the entire 2nd TAF if needed, as the Typhoons came on a 'cab rank' system, of 'first come, first served', any available Typhoon could be called upon by the ground controller and directed to attack the target. The Typhoons were based on the Advanced Landing Grounds so the flight time to and from the target areas was only measured in minutes. As soon as one set of aircraft ran out of ammunition, another fresh set arrived to take over from them. And so on.
This system was originated by Arthur 'Mary' Coningham in the Western Desert.
It's called a 'Cab Rank' system BTW, as it works like a taxi stand, where the cabs line up and the one at the head of the line gets the fare. The one with the fare leaves, and the others all move up one, and the new one at the front gets the next fare. Later the original cab returns, and goes to the back of the line, moving up until he is at the front of the line again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 ( talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.150 ( talk) 07:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
The supposed 20:1 overclaim by Typhoon pilots attacking tanks, compared to the usual 2:1 or 3:1 in air-to-air combat, is odd. It does not seem very likely that pilots overclaimed that much, especially considering the unanimous view of German tank crews that when Typhoons appeared, the panzers' day was done. It is worth recalling that the post-battle assessments were made by army officers, who would be keen to show that the air force did nothing and the army did everything. It is also worth recalling that at Mortain, soldiers of the US 30th Division, cut off on Hill 314 with a spectacular panoramic view of the battlefield, saw the artillery and ground anti-tank guns continually re-killing German tanks that had already been knocked out. As soon as the wreck wasn't giving off smoke any more, it was considered 'live' and artillery and anti-tank fire would be called down on it. And this went on for days. The same wreck could be re-killed half a dozen times. And in the post-battle assessment, only a wreck that was found to have been hit solely by Typhoon rockets and by no other Allied ordnance of any kind at any time would be credited to the Typhoon pilot who had in fact killed the thing. It was presumably the same on the Goodwood battlefield earlier that summer. And at Goodwood large numbers of knocked-out German tanks were towed away for possible repair or to be cannibalised for spares, and none of those kills would figure in the army's post-battle assessment. Hence, perhaps, the illusory '20:1 overclaim'. The article probably should not give so much weight to such a flimsy argument. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The actual post-Mortain report by ORS2 can be found by clicking the link here: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA951850
It is evident that ORS2's officers just wandered around the battlefield and made random observations, like opinion pollsters. These observations were not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. It is also evident that, according to ORS2's random survey, the number of enemy AFVs destroyed by the US Army in an entire week, compared to the number destroyed by Typhoons in a single afternoon, isn't very impressive. In regard to Panthers, they found 5 certainly destroyed by RPs (rocket projectiles -- they could not say whether these were RAF or US Ninth Air Force, though most RP strikes were RAF), none destroyed by cannon or machine guns, 1 destroyed by a bomb (again, could have been RAF or Ninth Air Force), 6 abandoned by crew (ORS2 believed abandonment was due to air attack), 4 destroyed by crew, 14 destroyed by US Army (artillery, bazookas or anti-tank rounds), 3 destroyed by unknown cause (too messed up to tell). That gives a total of 6 destroyed by air weapons, 6 abandoned presumably due to fear of air attack, 4 destroyed by crew, 14 by US Army ground weapons, 3 unknown. Since ORS2 attributed abandonment to air attack (German tank crews were only observed to bale out of undamaged vehicles for that reason), you've actually got 12 Panthers accounted for by air attack compared to 14 by ground weapons. Plus 4 'destroyed by crew' for whatever reason and 3 'unknown causes'. When you consider how much more time the US ground forces had to address the problem, with all the advantages of constant proximity, it's surprising that their tally was so little better than that of the air forces.
In regard to Panzer Mark IVs, there were 2 killed by RPs, 1 by bomb, 1 abandoned, 5 destroyed by US Army, 1 destroyed by unknown cause.
In regard to armoured troop carriers: 7 destroyed by RPs, 4 by aircraft cannon or machine guns, 1 abandoned, 3 destroyed by US Army.
In regard to armoured cars: 1 destroyed by RP, 5 by US Army.
In regard to armoured recovery vehicles: 1 destroyed by US Army. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I came to the Hawker Typhoon page by following a link from the P-51 Mustang page. I was interested there to learn that the Mustang had corrected a major problem by taking its "teardrop-shaped bubble canopies derived from the British Hawker Typhoon". However, the Typhoon page has a picture which does not at all show the canopy, and the article barely mentions the canopy, so I was left wondering about its origins, whether it was innovative or crucial, etc. Since the Mustang had such a storied career and because it outlived WWII, the Typhoon page could perhaps provide more of this story? if anybody knows it... ok, now I see more discussion of this in the P-47 Thunderbolt article, and it mentions that the Hawker Tempest also included this canopy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.5.41 ( talk) 14:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed before that cites have been removed from this section - now restored. Statistics are usefulo, but too many are not needed in an encylopaedic article. As it is the effectiveness of the rockets is discussed in the relevant article on the RP3. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Beware of making statements like: "The reason for the inflated regard of Typhoons and other fighter bombers as effective tank destroyers is a result of the myth perpetrated by exaggerated pilot kill claims." that are not backed up by authoritative and verifiable references. FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC).
In using terms like "estimated", "verifiably", "at most only" aren't exactly the standard for authoritative, verifiable reference sources. Instead, this seems more like making a WP:Point campaign. FWiW, if there are these undisputed sources, where were they before? Bzuk ( talk) 16:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Once again you are turning this article into a needlessly detailed critique of the Typhoon's effectiveness against tanks - the material about Tiger Is etc is not needed because the point, that the Typhoon did not destroy large numbers of tanks during two major battles, has been made already - by directly comparing numbers of tanks destroyed v numbers of Typhoons destroyed you are producing a skewed set of figures which bear no relationship to the Typhoon's overall effectiveness as a ground attack aircraft; think about it - how many tanks destroyed Typhoons? You have become fixated on the numbers of tanks destroyed at the expense of the overall impact of aerial operations against the German supply echelons, headquarters, troop concentrations etc; without embarking on long explanations and breakdowns of statistics such comparisons are meaningless and do not belong in this article - save it for more specialised websites or the article on the RP-3. Also, you mention 456 tanks but what does this mean? Were they all German? Were they abandoned, destroyed, out of fuel? Were they all tanks or a mix of tanks AFVs and APCs? Thirdly what was the Office of Research and Analysis in this particular (WW2) context? I have googled it under Office of Research and Analysis 2 TAF WW2 and still have no idea. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆ MTalk 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
While following up some thoughts I had while editing the article I found this on google books. RPs are discussed from page 249 onwards though - as ever - some pages are tantalizingly not shown. Mentions morale boost for the British troops when a Typhoon strike goes in. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the 'Cab Rank' system worked like this. The ground force would have an attached RAF ground controller in wireless communication with RAF operations and also with the pilot's VHF radios. Should he need to call on support from Typhoons or similar, he would radio in, and two Typhoons (or as many as he thought were needed) would immediately take off and fly to the requested target area, and on arrival, call the RAF ground controller on VHF voice radio for instructions, then following up by attacking the target with guns, rockets, or bombs. While the first two Typhoons were attacking the target, two more would be taking off, and proceeding to the area as backup, should the first two aircraft not succeed in destroying the target. Upon arrival, if needed, they also would be guided on to the target by the ground RAF officer, and the initial two aircraft would be on their way home to refuel and rearm. At the same time, a third set of two Typhoons would be taking off, and flying to the target area, again, if needed should the second two aircraft fail to destroy the allocated target. Eventually it would be the turn of the refuelled and rearmed first two aircraft again, and again if needed they would take off and again fly to the target area. The point of this was that the attack would continue as long as it was required, and in theory, the ground controller could call on the entire 2nd TAF if needed, as the Typhoons came on a 'cab rank' system, of 'first come, first served', any available Typhoon could be called upon by the ground controller and directed to attack the target. The Typhoons were based on the Advanced Landing Grounds so the flight time to and from the target areas was only measured in minutes. As soon as one set of aircraft ran out of ammunition, another fresh set arrived to take over from them. And so on.
This system was originated by Arthur 'Mary' Coningham in the Western Desert.
It's called a 'Cab Rank' system BTW, as it works like a taxi stand, where the cabs line up and the one at the head of the line gets the fare. The one with the fare leaves, and the others all move up one, and the new one at the front gets the next fare. Later the original cab returns, and goes to the back of the line, moving up until he is at the front of the line again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 ( talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.150 ( talk) 07:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force. The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
The supposed 20:1 overclaim by Typhoon pilots attacking tanks, compared to the usual 2:1 or 3:1 in air-to-air combat, is odd. It does not seem very likely that pilots overclaimed that much, especially considering the unanimous view of German tank crews that when Typhoons appeared, the panzers' day was done. It is worth recalling that the post-battle assessments were made by army officers, who would be keen to show that the air force did nothing and the army did everything. It is also worth recalling that at Mortain, soldiers of the US 30th Division, cut off on Hill 314 with a spectacular panoramic view of the battlefield, saw the artillery and ground anti-tank guns continually re-killing German tanks that had already been knocked out. As soon as the wreck wasn't giving off smoke any more, it was considered 'live' and artillery and anti-tank fire would be called down on it. And this went on for days. The same wreck could be re-killed half a dozen times. And in the post-battle assessment, only a wreck that was found to have been hit solely by Typhoon rockets and by no other Allied ordnance of any kind at any time would be credited to the Typhoon pilot who had in fact killed the thing. It was presumably the same on the Goodwood battlefield earlier that summer. And at Goodwood large numbers of knocked-out German tanks were towed away for possible repair or to be cannibalised for spares, and none of those kills would figure in the army's post-battle assessment. Hence, perhaps, the illusory '20:1 overclaim'. The article probably should not give so much weight to such a flimsy argument. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The actual post-Mortain report by ORS2 can be found by clicking the link here: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA951850
It is evident that ORS2's officers just wandered around the battlefield and made random observations, like opinion pollsters. These observations were not intended to be exhaustive or definitive. It is also evident that, according to ORS2's random survey, the number of enemy AFVs destroyed by the US Army in an entire week, compared to the number destroyed by Typhoons in a single afternoon, isn't very impressive. In regard to Panthers, they found 5 certainly destroyed by RPs (rocket projectiles -- they could not say whether these were RAF or US Ninth Air Force, though most RP strikes were RAF), none destroyed by cannon or machine guns, 1 destroyed by a bomb (again, could have been RAF or Ninth Air Force), 6 abandoned by crew (ORS2 believed abandonment was due to air attack), 4 destroyed by crew, 14 destroyed by US Army (artillery, bazookas or anti-tank rounds), 3 destroyed by unknown cause (too messed up to tell). That gives a total of 6 destroyed by air weapons, 6 abandoned presumably due to fear of air attack, 4 destroyed by crew, 14 by US Army ground weapons, 3 unknown. Since ORS2 attributed abandonment to air attack (German tank crews were only observed to bale out of undamaged vehicles for that reason), you've actually got 12 Panthers accounted for by air attack compared to 14 by ground weapons. Plus 4 'destroyed by crew' for whatever reason and 3 'unknown causes'. When you consider how much more time the US ground forces had to address the problem, with all the advantages of constant proximity, it's surprising that their tally was so little better than that of the air forces.
In regard to Panzer Mark IVs, there were 2 killed by RPs, 1 by bomb, 1 abandoned, 5 destroyed by US Army, 1 destroyed by unknown cause.
In regard to armoured troop carriers: 7 destroyed by RPs, 4 by aircraft cannon or machine guns, 1 abandoned, 3 destroyed by US Army.
In regard to armoured cars: 1 destroyed by RP, 5 by US Army.
In regard to armoured recovery vehicles: 1 destroyed by US Army. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)