Airmen vs tanks in "Aviation Awards..." by Neal W. O'Connor

[AlbertWarsawPoland]

Hello Gentlemen,

I'm interested in aircraft vs tanks incidents during WW1. I know that "Aviation Awards..." series contain some descriptions of such incidents. For example Hermann Ritter von Lechner's tank kills are descibed in volume 1. I know that in the same volume there is also info about Robert Ritter von Greim who also attacked tank once, however I'm not sure if this incident is described (I don't have the book yet).

I'd also like to know in which volumes there is info about Ernst Udet and Theodor Osterkamp, who are also known for attacking tanks. In case of Osterkamp it is probably volume 5, but I'm not sure. Are their tank kills also described?

Maybe there are some other descriptions of tank kills by other airmen in "Aviation Awards..." series?

Please help, I plan to collect all 7 volumes of "Aviation Awards..." but in the first place I'd like to buy volumes containing descriptions of such incidents.

Cheers,
Albert

[R Gannon]

Hi Albert

There has been a debate about these attacks, somewhere here in Forum and at the Greatwaraviation site. I would not be too quick to call them kills!

On the data given in Udet's book, his claim must relate to 21 Aug 18 and an attack on what was clearly a Whippet tank from 6 Battalion of the Tank Corps supporting the opening day of British Third Army offensive towards Bapaume. Possibly one supporting British 5 Div who crossed over the Arras to Albert railway embankment. Udet's account tells of an attack on five tanks attempting to mount the rail embankment. One, apparently under his fire, turned over when attempting to climb down off the embankment.

Js 34's Obln Greim & Vfw Putz were credited with disabling tanks on 23 Aug 18 to south of Somme near Chuignolles. These claims were made in relation to an attack by the Australian 1st Division supported by 24 Mk V tanks of 8 & 12 battalions. Now there is considerable visibility on this attack in CEW Bean's AIF in France Vol VI and whilst some tanks were disabled by gun fire, there is no evidence to support claims of any tank being disabled by attack from the air. It is also doubtful as to whether German armour piercing ammunition could penetrate Mk V tanks (or indeed Whippets). I'm not saying the pair did not attack tanks, but only that the claims that their targets were disabled were probably a little optimistic. I mean at one point two tanks turned broadside to German fire so as to allow protection to infantry and artillery officers, as they planned a further advance. Maybe German ground observers mistook this as two tanks disabled?

As to the Osterkamp claim, there were no British tank battalions on the Ypres sector in Oct 18. All 16 battalions were deployed with British First, Third & Fourth Army's well to the south.

I must admit that I only have Vol II of the Aviation Awards, and would be very interested in the details of the von Lechner claims.

Cheers Russ

[AlbertWarsawPoland]

Thanks fot the reply, Russ.

You are right - "kill" is in some cases of airplane attacks on tanks an exaggerated word.

However for me the biggest problem is inability to find confirmations of most above mentioned incidents (Greim & Putz, Osterkamp, Udet) in books about WW1 tanks. Only losses suffered due to von Lechner's attack, which was probably the most successful airplane attack on tanks during whole war, seem to be confirmed in "Treat 'Em Rough!: The Birth of American Armor, 1917-20" by Dale E. Wilson. However Americans confirm loss of only 3, not all 5 tanks used in that action and Lechner's attack seems to have been unnoticed - they thought they lost all the tanks to artillery, mortar and machine-gun fire. Airplane was not mentioned.

Osterkamp claimed that he attacked a tank on Oct 2, not 18. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[R Gannon]

Hi Albert

The US incident appears the same as the 23 Aug affair, where no one on the Aust/British side seems to have witnessed any aircraft specifically attacking tanks. German aircraft are noted as flying over the rear area of the attack and dropping some bombs, but to little effect.

As to Osterkamp's claim, yes 2 Oct 18, but no British tank battalions were attached for British Second Army offensive 28 Sep - 4 Oct, which recaptured the old tortured Ypres salient and more - for what should be obvious reasons. As pointed out, they were all committed to the offensives further south where the ground was better suited to tank operations.

Was the Lechner affair in regards US 301 Tank Battalion?

Cheers Russ

[AlbertWarsawPoland]

Was the Lechner affair in regards US 301 Tank Battalion?


No, it was 345th Tank Battalion equipped with Renault FT light tanks.

[R Gannon]

Hi Albert

Thanks for that. If you don't know US 310 Tk Bn were equipped with British Mk V's and were operating with British Fourth Army in support of the two attached US divisions - US 27th & US 30th (attached to Aust Corps). And on 29 Sep 18 they all played their part in British Third & Fourth Army's breaking of the Hindenburg Line.

Cheers Russ

[AlbertWarsawPoland]

Hi Albert

Thanks for that. If you don't know US 310 Tk Bn were equipped with British Mk V's and were operating with British Fourth Army in support of the two attached US divisions - US 27th & US 30th (attached to Aust Corps). And on 29 Sep 18 they all played their part in British Third & Fourth Army's breaking of the Hindenburg Line.

Cheers Russ

Yes, 301st was the only American heavy tank battalion which saw combat :)

[AlbertWarsawPoland]

Questions from the first post in this thread are still valid ;) I will be most grateful for any help :)

[Barrett]

Semi-related:

I just posted this in Other WW I aviation:

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-wwi-aviation/59212-tanks-aa.html

Regarding a Brit tank destroying a Drachen with onboard cannon.

[MikeMeech]

Hi

Machine Gun fire from aircraft in WW1 was very unlikely to knock out a tank. The British carried out trials with aerial attack on Tanks, report in TNA, AIR 1/1074/204/5/1665, dated 2 March 1918. On MG fire on tanks it states:

"Machine Gun Fire appears to be quite harmless, partly owing to the fact that the strike of the bullets will always be at a fairly acute angle."

However, it also states that:

"The Infantry following Tanks present a very vulnerable target to Aeroplanes, especially in a "snake" formation."

The report also contained details of bomb attacks on tanks and attacks on field guns.

The air support for British tanks in 1918 by 8 Sqn. (FK.8) and 73 sqn. (Camels) included attacks on German field guns used in the anti-tank role, against which they were quite successful. The anti-tank gun was considered the greatest threat to the tank, which was so, MG fire from aircraft not so.

Mike