# The Best Anti-Tank Aircraft of World War 2....



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2008)

One Poll thats missing here is the Tank Killer, so here it is.... The regular thread is quite informative, and I recommend anyone who votes here to read through the previous thread(s) and sducate themselves on some of the information that has been pumped into this site over the years.....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/best-tank-killer-ww2-continued-625.html

Another thread on topic....
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/tank-busting-armaments-whats-best-setup-439.html

Tony Woods Site....
TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 23, 2008)

I have to go with the Ju87G on this one...after all Hans-Ulrich Rudel did destroy hundreds of tanks with it...


----------



## Desert Fox (Feb 23, 2008)

Honourable mention to the Ju-87G, but my choice is the IL-2M, efficient, versatile and deadly.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm gonna say the Hurricane IID because it was brutally effective in North Africa and Tunisia, and if worse came to worse, you still had a plane that performed well enough to run away. Also, I would have given more time for the Brits to develop the 47mm anti-tank gun that they were trying to fit to the Hurricane, or even just the squeeze bore modification for the 40mm, and kept the Hurricanes in service longer.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 25, 2008)

As always, I voted for the Fw 190F-8 Panzerblitz 2... Truly devestating rocket rounds that thwarted many a breakout attempt by the Ruskies.... Fast, maneoverable, armored, a very stable platform....


----------



## joy17782 (Feb 25, 2008)

well it a hard pick this time but for the love of the ju 87 i got too pick her, she was a very good platform , slow but cant have everything can you


----------



## drgondog (Feb 25, 2008)

I also picked the 190F. Doesn't do any good in the weeds if you become a victim to other predators. I have often wondered what the deficiency of the Soviet doctrine was for the Ju 87D to last so long on the east front.

The Stuka was toast in the MTO and ETO after 1943


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm going for IL-2M - good, versatile and well armed and armored. 

Ju-87G is also a good one, packing a good punch, but wasn't agile.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Feb 27, 2008)

Is that a Typhoon or Tempest?


----------



## Thorlifter (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm going with the Hurricane also. Probably would have voted for the P-47 or Typhoon because of their ability to fight there way out of trouble, but I don't like the rocket setup. Somewhere on this board we discussed the accuracy of the rockets being about 5%. I'll take the Hurricane shooting 4 20mm cannons over the rockets and the Hurricane can still fight it's way out of trouble. The Ju-87 and Il-2 were absolutely NOT dogfighters and needed cover to survive.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 27, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> Is that a Typhoon or Tempest?



Judging by the thickness of the wing's root section, I'd say it's a Typhoon.


----------



## Evilnine (Feb 27, 2008)

The Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik known to the German soldiers as "Schwarzer Tod", "Black Death"


----------



## Mangrove (Feb 28, 2008)

Evilnine said:


> The Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik known to the German soldiers as "Schwarzer Tod", "Black Death"



And as "Maatalouskone" ("agricultural machine") among the Finns, but IL-2 wasn't a very deadly plane at the Finnish Front. 

For example on the 4th June 1943 6-10 IL-2s attacked the Finnish aerodrome at Nurmoila covered by eight fighters. For twenty minutes they strafed, bombed and fired rockets but the only damage was the holes in the runway. [1]

Finns probably shot down more IL-2s than the Iljushins killed Finnish soldiers and equipment. The total number of shot down planes is somewhere in 400 - 450 at the Finnish Front.

[1] T-19282/91. Finnish National Archive Service.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Feb 28, 2008)

Mangrove said:


> And as "Maatalouskone" ("agricultural machine") among the Finns, but IL-2 wasn't a very deadly plane at the Finnish Front.
> 
> For example on the 4th June 1943 6-10 IL-2s attacked the Finnish aerodrome at Nurmoila covered by eight fighters. For twenty minutes they strafed, bombed and fired rockets but the only damage was the holes in the runway. [1]
> 
> ...



What were the Fins using to battle the Soviets?
I just know it wasn't the Gladiator!


----------



## Mangrove (Feb 28, 2008)

16KJV11 said:


> What were the Fins using to battle the Soviets?
> I just know it wasn't the Gladiator!



Backwoods Landing Strip - Finnish Air Force Aircraft
Welcome to the Finnish Military Page (FMP)


----------



## dcasuta (Feb 29, 2008)

I voted for Ju87G. I think that for an old designed aircraft like that...was more that devastating on the russian tanks. The next logical choise was IL-2 (good armour...).
I judge after the number of kills, and the facts are for the Stuka.
We (the romanian army) had Ju87, Hs129 and also IL-2(10). Our pilots loved the Stuka and the Hs129.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 29, 2008)

dcasuta said:


> I voted for Ju87G. I think that for an old designed aircraft like that...was more that devastating on the russian tanks. The next logical choise was IL-2 (good armour...).
> I judge after the number of kills, and the facts are for the Stuka.
> We (the romanian army) had Ju87, Hs129 and also IL-2(10). Our pilots loved the Stuka and the Hs129.



The issue with making judgements about any aitcraft in WWII for any discussed mission - is the timeframe.

While the Axis forces had air superiority over the enemy battlefield a slow, relatively defenseless aircraft could be very effective.. once the air superiority was lost, the Stuka created a logistics problem on scarce Luftwaffe resources - namely I must draw fighter escort from other duties to provide escort to the Stuka... and still not a guarantee that the Stuka's will reach the target if enemy fighters are encountered.

Another factor is raw speed. The slower the cruise, the more time the opponent has to be alerted and react to the threat.

It virtually disappeared from West in late 1943 and when it ventured out, like on D-Day the one attempt (as near dusk) by SG103 was virtually wiped out in minutes.

That is why it makes sense for me to ask which system was a.) lethal on ground vehicles and tanks and, b.) was able to defend itself., and c.) fast.

Lightnings, Corsairs, Tempests, Typhoons, Thunderbolts, and Fw 190's fit that vision for me. All had heavy firepower, ability to carry both rickets and bombs, were fast and (varyingly) agile at low altitudes. I then went to radial engine, then selected.

The only reason I picked the 190 is that my impression is that a.) it had greater all around firepower with rapid firing 20mm cannon, and b.) it matched up well with other fighters it was likely to encounter down low, and c.) radial engine in general more survivable to small arms fire.

just a different perspective, doesn't make my view 'correct'


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 29, 2008)

U pretty much mimicked how I feel about it as well Bill.... I love the 87G and the 129B, and feel that the 129B was the best DEDICATED tank killer, but overall, the 190F-8 Panzerblitz is/was the best of all worlds combined....
 
Those of u voting for the IL-2 need to get better edumacted....


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Hmmm... This is about the best anti-tank aircraft, not the most versatile a/c, and for that reason the Hs-129B-2 seems to be my fav in this category.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 1, 2008)

maybe the perspective could include "which one would I prefer to fly over or beyond MLR against an enemy with capable fighters"

The Hs 129 was outsatnding in the East. Like the Ju 87D, it was a 'no show' in the West. It seems to me that one qualification for Best is that it should not only perform its intended design but also have a good chance of matching a takeoff with a landing. Both were ridiculously easy to shoot down

Dan - it seems our perspective, while in agreement, has no buy in as we are the only two idiots picking the Fw from the list..maybe we need to be more "edumacted" also.


----------



## Udet (Mar 1, 2008)

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion German troops called the IL-2M "Black Death". The silly nickname was surely the direct consequence of an efficient bolshevik propaganda job.

"Black Death"? Dying or getting killed in a war is, per se, something "black" enough in my view. For some odd reason the bolsheviks seemed to believe dying due to IL-2M attack should be "blacker" than dying, say, due to an artillery barrage or the rifle fired by a young guy herded from Kyrgyzstan to the front.

The top speed of the IL-2Ms and Stukas was nearly identical by the way...and do not forget the Stuka had a non-retractable landing gear which added to the drag factor.


Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.

I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.

I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.

Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.

Yup, that the soviets continued producing large number of planes during the whole war is completely true, but the human factor represented their main problem: they never recovered from the hammer delivered by the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942, nor had the timeframe and springboard to produce pilots with adequate training. They went through emergency after emergency, even if such emergencies were of different nature during the several phases of the war in the east.

From June 22nd 1941 until the end of the 6th Army in Stalingrad, it was mainly and mostly about survival, with some of the most crushing and horrifiying losses of men and material in the history of wars. Keyword here: SURVIVAL.

The first half of 1943 was a time when nobody could yet be sure of the outcome in the east; the Wehrmacht was far from being defeated, so the survival issue could not yet be erased from the soviet list of critical issues when the soviets were now confronted with a new emergency: the western allies had landed in North Africa (late 1942)...an emergency of political nature.

The political emergency in Moscow became increasingly critical in the same year: when the battle of Kursk was raging (summer 1943) the western allies landed in Sicily. Also there was the allied build up in southern England to launch Overlord.

During 1944, when the soviets launched "Bagration", and after its succesful termination -enduring losses as catastrophic as those of the Germans during such operation- they could finally remove the survival issue from their lists of concerns, but the political one remained critical and would only worsen.

The western allies had successfully landed in Normandy and were steadly advancing toward Germany. So the soviet command was hard pressed to advance as fast as possible using all material and human resources at their disposal.

They never had the time to properly train their pilots!

The Pokryshkins and their lucky pupils made very rare exceptions.

If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.

Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.

The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 1, 2008)

Udet said:


> Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.
> 
> I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.
> 
> ...



I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.

I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority? 

Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France

and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.

Which scenario has higher loss percentages?

Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17? 

It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944

So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support? 

Regards,

Bill

PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

Bill,

During BoB the Bf-109 could only loiter for 15min over the UK before having to go home, that's why He-111, Ju-87 Ju-88's got pounded the way they did, they didn't have escorts. The Bf-109 did very well on its on though, acquiring itself a ~2:1 kill ratio.


I can agree with you and Dan on the FW-190F-8 though, I'd certainly choose it if I wanted to accomplish my mission with great success and then come home afterwards. However as a dedicated AT a/c nothing really beat the Hs-129 Ju-87, both proving extremel effective in the role when air cover was available.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 1, 2008)

I agree with u Soren and Bill, and Adrian too... Its all about surviving till the next mission to effectivly plug another breakthrough attempt... 

The IL2's were decimated partly because of the tactics they employed...


----------



## Udet (Mar 1, 2008)

_


drgondog said:



I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

Click to expand...

_


drgondog said:


> *
> Bill, also i do not think of any significant improvements that could make the Stuka better than it was; there were some improvements made to the Stukas during war though. When the war commenced, the main version was the B. When the D version entered service there were some modifications made to the oil cooler and also featured a more aerodinamic shape, plus a new engine (Jumo 211-J), new propeller, plus extra armor and better defensive armament with the MG 81 Zwilling installed.*
> *
> The only way to give Stukas higher survability would have been to have a larger number of JGs deployed in France and/or Low Countries for 1944. This, in my view, could have been attained had the Germans heeded my advice (8) ): disband all ZGs by the end of 1943 and most of the KGs -do not launch the futile Steinbock raids in the beginning of 1944!!-, convert the biggest number possible of bomber pilots to fighter pilots and revamp the aviation industry for producing single-engine fighters mainly. Also this would have saved them fuel enough to put the necessary number of single engined fighters in the air.*
> ...



Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!)  

Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!


----------



## drgondog (Mar 1, 2008)

Udet said:


> _
> *
> Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!)
> 
> Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!*_


_
Briefly, here is the background.

Three sqaudrons of Rudel's Ju 87's were covering Model's retreat from Konev.

*I did some more checking including Rudel's Stuka Pilot. His 15 ships were not attached to the other two squadrons, according to his statements on pages 148 and 149.*

The Frantic III force was 76 P-38's from 82nd FG plus 56 Mustangs from 31 st FG plus some ships from 5th PRU. The mission was to attack Mielec Poland to destroy LW manufacturing and repair facilities. The two Fighter Group force along with the bombers from 15th AF landed at Poltava on July 22

On the 25th the two fighter forces were briefed to attack Mielec. It turns out that Mielec was also a base for Rudel's Gruppes. They found a motorized Wermacht column near the base and the 307th FS attacked Model's troops. Shortly after the strafing attack the 307FS encountered the 40+ Ju 87s attacking the Russian army and bounced them near Jaroslaw. They overflew Rudel and caught his other two squadrons.

*Rudel's account places "300 Mustangs" in the attack. In fact there were a.) never more than two Groups of Fighters involved in any action for any Frantic Mission. On this day 16 Mustangs of the 307FS split up into two sections of eight, one flying top cover. The eight ship attack section claimed 20, were awarded 17, with Brooks, McElroy and Didear getting three each.

One flight each of the 308 and 309 FS caught 6 more scattering from the original bounce point.

What I find interesting is that even a pilot like Rudel would claim "Three hundred Mustangs" attacked when a.) only 56 were within 800 miles of that site, and only 24-30 actaully were involved in the fight. I have never fully understood this 'order of magnitude' overestimation - but then I was never there.

This is a common thread from many Luftwaffe accounts in the period when there were relatively few Mustang Groups combined in 8th, 9th and 15th AF*

In Rudel's book he recalls this mission as the only time he jettisoned his bombs.

The soviet hosts at Poltava did not believe the claims until the reports filtered back from their front line units and much vodka was apparently consumed that night.

The final score for the missions flown between 22 and 25 July resulted in 40 air awards plus acknowledgement from Russians of nearly the same destruction of aircraft on the ground plus many vehicles shot up on the roads.

General Strothers made a formal offer to General Permonoff to arrange US tactical air support - but offer never acknowledged after that.

When you get squared away with an email address I will send you the article Jim Brooks wrote about this specific mission in the North American Retirees Bulletin, Fall 1944. Interestinly (for me) it also has an article written by Al White (NAA B-70 Test Pliot) about the Frantic VII mission my father led. 

And yes they (wolfies) have 'diplomatic immunity' simply because of 'silent disobedience' which they practice with great skill and enthusiasm. They are far smarter and more agile than I am. We took 12 of 13 out for a long walk to our north creek and they bounced a covey of quail, chased a deer which went over the vineyard game fence (designed to keep deer out but 'failed design', tromped around in the vineyrad, and in general raised merry hell.

Hope you get over here so they can practice their begging on you!

Adrian, which one would you have picked as 'best'??_


----------



## airboiy (Mar 3, 2008)

hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 4, 2008)

No, it doesnt deserve mention in any thread besides Night Fighters....

OMFG, it had a cannon in the prop??? Which prop, the left or right hand one??? The first, second or third propeller blade???? (Its called a propeller HUB u Meatball)

WOW, amazing...... I guess it was the best tank killer with that cannon in the prop....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 4, 2008)

airboiy said:


> hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.



It is the P-63 King Cobra not the P-61 Black Widow which was a night fighter.


----------



## Robsoar (Mar 9, 2008)

The B-25H/J with the 75mm cannon was pretty devastating too!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 9, 2008)

And the B-25 has what to do with Tank Killing???

Nothing......

Stay on topic......


----------



## Udet (Mar 10, 2008)

Bill Hello:

Sorry...for one moment i kind of forgot about this thread.

Thanks again for providing further detail on Rudel´s units meeting with USAAF fighters. Very interesting.

Now your question: as best i´d definitely pick the Stuka. When either air force enjoyed nearly complete air superiority the Stuka proved its full worth as perhaps the ultimate aerial method of destruction, and no other plane deployed in the tank-killing role came close to match the record of the Stukas.

With this i´d be referring to the Ju 87 D; even if the G-1 fitted with the 37mm cannons too proved successful tank killers.

Many people have said to me "but it was a very difficult thing to hit a moving tank with the bombs the Stuka was to launch during the dive". Perhaps. But who says it was necessary to put the bomb through the turret hatch of a tank to either destroy it or to a least knock it out, or to at minimum put the tank crew out of commission?

See some shocking evidence (already posted on another thread i opened):


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA09htDvr9s_

Again i´d referr to the "Operation Cobra" launched by the USAAF to hit the elements of the Panzer Lehr around St. Lo during 1944. It took them nearly 2 days to finally hit the German units, not before killing, vaporizing and wounding a large number of their own soldiers. This operation involved more than 350 B-17s flying in an environment of nearly complete air superiority...and they simply could not find the mark, and when they finally managed to hit the Germans, losses of equipment due to the carpet bombing were not as disastrous as allied literature enjoys portraying. Yes, there was an allied break-through after the carpet-bombing, but a significant number of Panzer Lehr tanks and vehicles were still in service. Furthermore, from reports of some Panzer Lehr commanders it was clearly stated very few tanks were destroyed by the bombs of B-17s.


And do not forget that for this operation, there were also USAAF fighters involved attacking ground targets...that given the nature of the target (Panzer Lehr) a significant number tanks and other AFVs were around.

Had such a task been assigned to Stukas, and with air superiority similar or identical to that enjoyed by the allies over Normandy, it would have taken them Stukas half a morning to exterminate the enemy target, with way less resources invested. How do i substantiate this assertion? Very simple: consider the advance of the US/British armies through Normandy in mid 1944. Again and again, they enjoyed nearly complete air superiority and they had a seriously nasty time in gaining extra yards through their sector. How come? See the same case now for Germany: the advance of the Wehrmacht was utterly crushing and overwhelming even in weeks where the enemy air force was not yet annihilated (First months of Barbarossa in the USSR, or Poland, or France, or the Balkans, even in North Africa during the first months of Rommel). *Hence the evidence the Stuka did not require anything like "complete air superiority" to successfully and brutally fulfill assigned missions. 
*

Had the U.S. developed a plane similar to the Stuka, i can think of them having a more convincing and sound advance through Normandy during 1944.



So all in all, the Stuka is the best.

I have German guncamera footage of Fw190s and Bf 109s dealing with RAF fighters Tempests/Typhoon fitted with those aluminium rails under the wings for installing rockets...they seemed easy victims as well and exploded in huge fireballs.

None of the Allied planes deployed in the ground attack mode destroyed as many enemy tanks as the Stukas did; reading Niklas Zetterling´s works on the matter can be of great help to understand how overrated the P-47s, Typhoon and Tempests are when referring to anti-tank missions.

Huge delays caused to German armored units marching to the front were the main effects ever attained by those allied planes trying to hit German columns.


On another approach -off topic-, having read and studied a good deal on the Normandy campaign, Opeation Cobra being the issue here, helped me training my views Germany could have fared a far more wiser and more efficient aerial war against the 8th and 15th AFs.

The fact a formation of more than 300 B-17s was sent on combat mission to an area clearly identified and detected where enemy elements were blocking the allied advance (St. Lo sector), flying in skies that to a great extent were secure, meaning their side enjoyed nearly complete air superiority, and they could not find the mark, and when they finally did, other than severe disruption and negative impact on morale the Panzer Lehr was not put out of action speaks of the great inaccuracy in USAAF bombing methods.

(Even when fighting in the horror of Stalingrad, where positions held by soviet soldiers in many cases were no more than 50 meters away from German infantry units, when the Stukas were called and vectored to hit the target, there is no single report indicating the Stukas ever hit their own men, flying in a far more complicated battle environment; yup, given the distances and dimensions of that urban fight German troops too had to duck when the Stukas dived, but i have not come across one single report indicating Stuka bombs ever hit Wehrmacht elements even within a bloody city).

Instead of devoting the bulk of the Luftwaffe to Reichsverteidigung, a considerably larger number of German fighters could have been alloted to effectively support German ground forces in the west.

Fighting with almost zero air-support the German soldiers proved their excellence and preparedness on the battlefield. Think of a scenario where they can enjoy aerial cover.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 10, 2008)

You make good points Adrian. At the end of the day it largely depends on air superiority and the mission a tank killer had to perform (and when - in the timestream of the war)

And you will get no argument from me to consider the B-17 in this role - lol.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2008)

Very good post Udet.


----------



## Udet (Mar 11, 2008)

Bill and Soren and Dan:

Why would you think the RAF/USAAF failed so miserably when performing the ground support role in Normandy?

The fact they had to call B-17s to deal with enemy armored units should be regarded as sufficient argument to counter the allied tales of P-47s, Typhoons and Tempests "wiping out" entire German armored columns.

My idea is that if the fighter-bombers of both RAF/USAAF had indeed been successfully performing their ground attack missions the bizarre idea of calling B-17s would have never been considered.

Niklas Zetterling´s works not only came to shatter this generally accepted allied versions....he also pointed to the fact losses of planes and pilots endured by both RAF and USAAF during those missions were way higher than losses inflicted on Panzer units.

I will understand the notion of different doctrines, but how come a military power such as the USA failed to acknowledge and recognize the brutal effectiveness of the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe symbiosis when on the offensive?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 11, 2008)

Udet said:


> Bill and Soren and Dan:
> 
> Why would you think the RAF/USAAF failed so miserably when performing the ground support role in Normandy?
> 
> ...



I don't think they underestimatedthe symbiosis. I do believe they cut out the effectiveness of the Ju 87 in that equation however... at least in the West from 1944 forward.

It might be an interesting thread to see what the worst days were for Ju 87 units... but June 6 with 355th FG at Normandy and Frantic III (July 25th?)with 31st FG in Romania are two possibilites. In both cases the units were severely punished and totally in effective.

I am not aware of another significant excursion of Ju 87s in the West after those two disasters..

Given a choice - I'll take the A-10.. BTW I get to fly the simulator at Davis Monthan AFB when we have the 355th FGA there in April. I am so looking forward to it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

Udet,

Here's something interesting about the American use of B-17's for bombing:


*Interview with German FallschirmJäger veteran Heinz Puschmann who served at Cassino, Normandy and again in Italy:*

_"How did you view the Americans compared to the British?

Different; a different style altogether.

In what respect?

Because when the British fought, the same as the New Zealanders – they’d fight even if they didn’t have air support. The Americans – if they didn’t have air support, they wouldn’t go. That was the same at Casino. When I was talking to that New Zealand captain we were saying that when the British planes came over, we ran for cover. When the German planes came over, the British ran for cover but when the American planes came over, everyone ran for cover!! Two thirds up the hill at Casino were Ghurkhas the Ghurkhas were nearly wiped out by the bombing. They missed Clark’s (?) headquarters, they bombed so far back. When the British bombers came, they hit their target. It was different altogether.
"_


----------



## drgondog (Mar 12, 2008)

Soren said:


> Udet,
> 
> Here's something interesting about the American use of B-17's for bombing:
> 
> ...



Well, there is an objective statement. 

I always knew American soldiers were gutless wonders Soren but it takes a pure bozo to make a blanket statement like that!. 

Ask the same Prussian Gentleman if he was around Monte Defensa when the 1st Special Service Force kicked hell out of a couple of German battalions off the hill after scaling the 'unscalable' cliff.

How about Mussolini Canal when those same troops plus 2nd Battalion of 504PIR stopped the Germans dead in their tracks at Anzio every time they tried to break through.

What about St.Vith and Bastogne and Stavelot in the Bulge when there was zero air cover.

Why do you have to bring this kind of crap into this forum?


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2008)

Wow! Easy there! I'm not the guy who said this, a veteran FallschirmJäger did out of his experience fighting the Americans at Casino. Also he never called the Americans gutless, he just said they wouldn't go unless they had air-support, something which isn't surprising considering who was holding the castle. (The green devils)

The American soldiers didn't demand air support to go anywhere, there are plenty of examples of that, and the Americans displayed just as much courage as all the others.

Now cool down Bill, it wasn't meant as a blow against the Americans, just an addition to what Udet said about the inaccuracy of US bombing.


----------



## Fokker D21 (Mar 27, 2008)

To know which aircraft is the best tank killer, you would first have to know which anti tank weapon system is the best.

According to William/Gustin's book "Flying Guns" anti tank guns like the MK 103 with Hartkern ammunition had the highest succes rate. Armour piercing was almost as good as the modern GAU-8 carried by the A10.

Special anti tank bombs as the Soviet PTAB with hollow charge were, according to the Soviets, the best way to take out medium tanks.

Rockets used by Typhoons and P47's seemed to have been less succesful against heavy armour. According to British reports out of a 223 Panthers destroyed in 1944 only 11 were taken out with rockets. The tactical fighters on the western front seem to have been more succesful taking out support vehicles and hampering enemy supply lines. Furthermore most air to ground rockets had a hit probability of less than 10 percent (including British RP and German panzerblitz and panzerschreck).

If a big gun (30 or 40mm) would be the best, you need a stable gun platform. Take for instance a Hurricane IID with two 40 mm Vickers class S versus the Henschel HS 129 with one MK 101 or Mk 103. The first has a hit ratio of about 26 percent, the second a hit ratio of about 60 percent. The Henschel was a very stable gun platform because of its twin engine configuration. The Ju 87G was also quite stable because of its rigid thick wings.


----------



## Fokker D21 (Mar 27, 2008)

Some forum members claim that a good anti tank plane should also include a reasonable chance of survival against other fighters. However a special purpose anti tank plane or even a fighter in the anti tank role will most likely always be at a disadvantage against a pure fighter.

Besides the biggest treat is anti aircraft fire and not enemy fighters for a ground attack fighter. Therefore good armour and redundant (reserve) systems are more important.

A twin engine airplane would be my favorite. I choose the Henschel 129. The only drawback it had were the not entirely reliable engines.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 29, 2008)

Fokker D21 said:


> To know which aircraft is the best tank killer, you would first have to know which anti tank weapon system is the best.
> 
> According to William/Gustin's book "Flying Guns" anti tank guns like the MK 103 with Hartkern ammunition had the highest succes rate. Armour piercing was almost as good as the modern GAU-8 carried by the A10.
> 
> ...



Why would a 'rigid, thick wing' have anything to do with stick fixed and/or stick free Neutral points with respect to Cg?

A 'rigid' wing would be of some benefit to reduce elastic deformation of the outer wing in high g mauever, and perhaps an 'early stall' but why else would it benefit stability as a gun platform?


----------



## Fokker D21 (Mar 29, 2008)

It has not so much to do with CG, but with heavy vibrations and recoil of such large cannons like the BK 37 which can have a great impact on the wings. The Ju 87 G with its stronger wings and heavier weight would be better suited for large guns than a smaller Hurricane.

Mounting the gun in the fuselage (or below) would however be a better choice. No harmonisation, a higher effective range and a more rigid mounting possible.

I made an error in my previous post, I meant the Ju 87, not the 88. My deepest apologies.


----------



## Adolf Galland Fighter ace (Apr 4, 2008)

Like the Stuks mtself, just a workhorse and a great anti Armour platform from start to finish, it did pave the way for Blitz warfare so I amoung many other good ones give it my vote.

*OT*

*Soren*
*Great OOB sig*


----------



## road_apple1861 (Apr 22, 2008)

Im going to have to go with the P-47 thunderbolt, had a good airframe and could pack a punch


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 22, 2008)

Fitted with 5" HVAR's from "Zero length launchers" yes (like the Corsair used), but with the 3-tube 4.5" "Bazooka tube" M10 launchers not so much. These were much less accurate, less effective, and the launchers put a much greater performance penalty.

As RG Lunatic mentioned a long time ago on the other thread, Napalm was found to be very efective weapon against tanks, albeit gruesome.

Cannons are still the best, but put a heavy performance penalty and wing mountings are both inaccurate and put an even greater penalty on performance. THe Hs 129 was probably the best dedicated craft in that case, but development could have gone a bit better. (better engines especially)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

My vote was for the FW 190 F-8 (yes I'm a wurger fan) for the reasons already stated by wurger admirers above.

A question, though. Didn't the powerful recoil of the NS-37 distort the wing of the Il-2 so much that accurate shooting was problematical? (A problem not at all found in the thick and strong gullwing of the Ju 87 AFAIK)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 5, 2008)

Ive heard the same thing before concerning the NS-37 of the IL2 as well Bandit... I believe theres some truth to it, but dont think it was problematical, just slightly more difficult to get the rounds on target...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

Also remember that the NS-37 fired a considerably more powerful cartridge than the Ju 87's BK-37 and did so at a much higher rate of fire.

In any case the Hs 129's centerline mounting would be the best for both stability and accuracy.


How do you guys think the US HVAR compare to the German Panzerblitz II (PB-2)? 
Both were obviously superior to the preceding (USAAF) 4.5" rocket and while the British RP-3 had comperable performance to the HVAR and offered a HEAT warhead, it was mounted on the (unnecessary) bulky rocket rails rather than the "zero length" or "stub" launchers adopted by the USN (later USAAF) and only post war by the British. (I don't know if the RP-3 was fitted to US a/c on stub mounts durring the war)

The HVAR was considerably larger than the PB-2, I believe the velocity was similar (the standard R4M being somewhat higher), though the PB-3 had a HEAT warhead while the HVAR didn't have this until after the war. I believe the PB-2 was mounted in a similar fassion to the R4M with wooden racks of 12 under each wing. The HVAR was mounted on the "stub" launchers, 4 under each wing on the Corsair and 5 on the P-47.

The HVAR were launched in pairs, but I don't know about the PB-2. (the R4M were all luanched at once)

There was also a smaller 2.25" rocket similar to the HVAR, but I don't have much info on that other than it was mounted on the Hellcat.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

I have seen some reports on the accuracy, or let's say lack of it, of all WW II rockets...except for the R4M which I believe was more accurate due to its spin stabilization.

Who has comparision tables on average dispersion of rocket salvoes by different types of rockets at different ranges on the shooting range? And actual pilots reports on the accuracy of rockets in combat conditions?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

The R4M used folding fins for stabilization, albit with 8 fins rather than the usual 4. (4 fins also used in the post war FFAR interceptor rockets of the US)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

And were those R4M fins straight, or offset to create spin? I would like to know as I thought (perhaps wrongly) the R4M fins were offset.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 6, 2008)

I found some refrences to spin stabilization, but none mentioning the fins. It would seem that the fins added spin as I found a refrence on the US 70mm FFAR which used folding fins used to for spin stasbilization. (again, 4 rather than the R4M's 8 )

Edit: I'm still not entirely sure on it. And on the post war US FFAR the spin rate was found to be insuficient for decent accuracy at range. (velocity was double that of the R4M and thus possible range is much farther) Possibly the 8x fins impared greater spin to the R4M than it did the FFAR.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

Dang...I think I've got my facts tangled again (wouldn't be the first time). Am I correct in thinking that of all the air to air and air to ground rockets of WW II, the R4M was the best of a fairly inaccurate bunch?


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 26, 2010)

The Hs-129b with any of the gun packages was just mean. It is exactly what you want in that situation.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 27, 2010)

Almost, the engines that they provided for the 129's power plants were severely underpowered...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2010)

The 129 was certainly underpowered. More powerful engines and she would have been a true tank killer, ground support aircraft. 

For me she is one of the most interesting and favorite aircraft though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2010)

The 129 was certainly underpowered. More powerful engines and she would have been a true tank killer, ground support aircraft. 

For me she is one of the most interesting and favorite aircraft though.


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 27, 2010)

Could they have fit BMW's in place of the french power plants? And, did they ever consider a different power plant? Lord knows they considered almost every gun option possible. I love this plane but have very limited info on, other than the basics. Were they employed in wings, or more like the JU-87-G's? Who were the greatest exponents? Did Rudel ever comment on or evaluate them? Sorry for all the questions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 27, 2010)

dennis420b said:


> Could the have fit BMW's in place of the french power plants?



Probably not.

The French engines were low powered because they were small.

Less than a meter in diameter, under 420kg and just about 19 liters in displacement. 

And since they were replacing the Argus 410 V-12s used on the prototypes that were 450hp, 11.9 liter engines of 315kg weight one has to wonder just how much stretch was left in the design?

Using BMW 132 9 cylinder engines would have upped take off power to 900-1000hp but also upped engine weight to 530kg and increased engine diameter by over 400mm causing an even more restricted view from the cockpit. 
Using the BMW 801s (already in short supply for everything else) gives you a much heavier engine. Larger engines also need larger heavier propellers and installations.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 27, 2010)

Solid answer....


----------



## dennis420b (Jun 28, 2010)

Well if nothing else, at least they didn't have to pay for the R&D for the engines. Nothing like war prizes. I never knew the Gnome Rhône was that small. I thought they would have been comparable to the BMW Bramo in size. Thanks again, any info I get on this plane is a little gift. I have to say I really love this forum at last I can say DB 601, and not get stared at like I am crazy.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 11, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> Probably not.
> 
> The French engines were low powered because they were small.
> 
> ...



I'd gotten the impression that simple lower priority of the project (by the RLM) forced the low-power low-priority powerplants on the design, not necessarily fundamental limits of the airframe. (and the 14Ms also had reliability issues on top of low power)

But, yes, the BMW 801 would be way overkill for the HS-129, if anything the BMW 132 or Bramo 323 would be the most practical alternatives. Both are similar sized and the 323 is a bit heavier, but the model supporting MW/50 allowed 1200 hp. The 132 is probably best though given the significantly better fuel consumption and better power/weight ratio outside of MW/50 (for the 132N and K models at least -comparing max/takeoff ratings).
Even going to the 132 could have a significant impact on range/endurance unless it had significantly better fuel consumption than the 14Ms. (higher weight and drag from the larger engines -maybe reduced somewhat if 801 style fan cooling could be implemented) Unless they could increase fuel capacity, but then that adds weight and if it's too much you're not really any better off. (and even if not excessive, wingloading and roll rate would suffer)

The diameter difference from the 14M to the 132/323 is huge, but weight not nearly as much (power/weight ratio is considerably higher for the latter 2), so that would probably be the biggest factor in physically adapting it to the frame. (had something in the power and size range of R1830 or Bristol Taurus been available, that would have been preferable -the taurus had maintenance/reliability issues, but the R-1830 would seem great)


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2010)

kool kitty89 said:


> I'd gotten the impression that simple lower priority of the project (by the RLM) forced the low-power low-priority powerplants on the design, not necessarily fundamental limits of the airframe. (and the 14Ms also had reliability issues on top of low power)
> 
> But, yes, the BMW 801 would be way overkill for the HS-129, if anything the BMW 132 or Bramo 323 would be the most practical alternatives. Both are similar sized and the 323 is a bit heavier, but the model supporting MW/50 allowed 1200 hp. The 132 is probably best though given the significantly better fuel consumption and better power/weight ratio outside of MW/50 (for the 132N and K models at least -comparing max/takeoff ratings).
> Even going to the 132 could have a significant impact on range/endurance unless it had significantly better fuel consumption than the 14Ms. (higher weight and drag from the larger engines -maybe reduced somewhat if 801 style fan cooling could be implemented) Unless they could increase fuel capacity, but then that adds weight and if it's too much you're not really any better off. (and even if not excessive, wingloading and roll rate would suffer)
> ...



For engines in the 1000hp category they could have used the Gnome-Rhone 14N.

Gnome-Rhône 14N - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Available to the Germans in much more numbers than the R-1830, It would be my opinion that if this engine could have been used instead they probably would have. 
This engine was also being built under licence in Romania and possibly Hungary giving two possible sources of supply less subject to sabotage. It is also the engine the Russians copied as the M-88 but I wouldn't count on being able to swap parts.


----------



## Erich (Jul 30, 2011)

check out your blog .........why ? none of the A/C you depict would even be mentioned as the best of Ground attack A/C


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Feb 3, 2012)

Il-2 has my vote because it was mass-produced at some 36,000.


----------

