# Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued



## Erich (Jan 23, 2005)

not bothered in the least Adler. 

I say 9/10ths of the German students have not been given the "correct" form of what WW 2 was about concerning their country. Not the Politically correct history that came into play back in 2000 onward..............

maybe this makes a bit more sense ?

E ~ 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2005)

Okay I will agree with you on that for the most part.


----------



## MikeMan (Jan 25, 2005)

Best tank killer of WW2 would probably be the IL-2.

Honourable mention to the following:
JU-87 (Twin 37mm version)
Hurricane IID
Tempest
Typhoon
Beaufighter


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2005)

I do not think the IL-2 is the best tank killer of WWII, at all.

The USAAF has worked hard to prove all their fighters were absolutely superior to anything the Germans had (they were not). The soviets have worked likewise.

The Shturmovik has been overinflated by the soviet propaganda.
Even the alleged nickname German troops gave to it, "Black Death" was a very dumb name invented by the soviet themselves.

The German troops never referred to it as such.

It of course made an important contribution for the soviet war effort and certainly inflicted damage to the enemy, but to say it was an extremely efficient tank destroyer is quite beyond the domain of reality.

While it could carry powerful armament like 37mm cannons, rockets and bombs, the IL-2M was not a very stable gun platform. It was an armored pig.

The Germans captured big numbers of intact Il-2s (both the single-seat and two seat versions) and after being tested they could not believe such a piece of crap had been put into massive production. Please do not tell it was for the sole purpose of "reassuring" the German soldiers in the front lines (i.e. the Germans praised the capabilities of the La-7.) who of course knew what the conditions at the front were.

The Shturmovik´s heavy weight armor could be very efficient against personal infantry weapons being fired at them, but against weapons up the mid caliber it was as vulnerable as any other plane of its size. The casualty rate of the IL-2s is perhaps the most frightful suffered by any war plane fielded by any of the nations involved.

The nearly 1 ton of armor fitted to the Shturmovik, providing "all around heavy armor protection" has similarities with the doctrine of the boxes of heavy bombers of the USAAF. The boys of the USA were convinced a massed formation of heavy bombers, each packed with up to 12 .50 cal machine guns could more than deal with the German interceptors all by itself. In the skies of western europe just like in the steppes of the Soviet Union, both notions were proved gruesome failures.

Differences however exist. The USA did not have the absolute contempt for the lives of its men the soviet side displayed, and the heavy bombers eventually received fighter escorts while the IL-2s continued to be sent in massed numbers against the enemy. Sergei V. Ilyushin spent a good part of the war with a gun pointed at his head to produce more and more of those planes.

The Shturmovik could be regarded as the aerieal version of soviet infantry. Many times, when the target was large (armored or motorized units or big concentrations of troops) they would literally charge in large numbers at extremely low altitude, being greeted by a barrier of fire involving every firing tube available, many many times receiving fatal damage, having the soviet pilot -at the very last moment- smashing his plane against the enemy positions, causing terrible losses and damage. But that has nothing to do with quality of the plane.

I have soviet propaganda footage of the Shturmoviks (made right after the war), shown diving with all 37mm blazing, and hell, it had a punch!
From the armament approach, it surely carried toys that could destroy any tank. It surely hit and destroyed panzers but not in the fashion many appear to believe.

All sides overclaimed, that is a very well known thing. Still I do think the best aerial tank busters of the war are the Germans.

Most soviet pilots were hastily trained then put in the cockpit of their machines. Pokryshkin and pupils were exceptions. Losses of soviet aircraft in 1945 alone (Jan 1st-May 9th) made +/- 11,000 aircraft (eleven thousand); does that tell anything?

These of course leads to other lines of discussion, like the alleged reorganization and re-birth of an extremely capable and highly skilled VVS masterminded by Aleksandr Novikov and many others.

A research made by Niklas Zetterling revealed the USAAF and RAF, during the previous months to D-day over Normandy, claimed numbers of destroyed panzers which surpassed the entire order of battle of panzer units in the entire Normandy campaign. In fact they destroyed nearly ten times less panzers than those claimed by their pilots.

The USAAF and RAF were far better trained air forces than the VVS ever was.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2005)

If we're talking how poor the plane was, let's talk about the Ju-87-G. In reality it could only serve on the Eastern Front because anywhere with enemy planes in the sky it was destroyed. 
The Stuka wasn't the greatest tank destroyer of the war, it's in the same catergory as the Hurricane IID. If you want to talk survivability, it'll be the Typhoon because was it'd dropped it's load it was practically a low-level interceptor.


----------



## R Pope (Jan 26, 2005)

The Il2 and its follow-ons were very effective tankbusters because the Russian tactic of the "Circle of Death" was a stroke of genius. It allowed the planes to attack from the rear and hit 'em where they were weakest, while filling the sky with targets and confusing enemy AAA. They were good anti-tank weapons, but vulnerable to air attack due to low speed. In the real world, it would be my choice to fly a Typhoon. To be effective, you have to make it home to fight again tomorrow!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Plan_D makes a good point. One of the main reasons the Stuka was adopted as a tank-buster was that it could no longer function as a dive-bomber. As it was, it was still required local air-superiority. How does this make it any better than the Il-2? Remember, the Stuka only remained in production because the Germans had nothing better to go with.

All in all, the Il-2 was less vulnerable that the Ju-87G and considerably better armed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

i'd take either a tiffy or Mk.IID hurricane...............


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2005)

Plan_D and Lightning Guy:

I have not seen anyone on this thread anywhere affirming the Stuka was the best tank killer of the war.

You should be more direct and address the guy you are directing your comments to.

I said the Germans were the best aerial tank busters of the war, overclaiming acknowledged; the Stuka was used for that specific purpose when fitted with the 37mm guns, but so were the Hs129 and the Me110.

If you want to compare the IL-2 with the Stuka the scenario is not very favorable to the Shturmovik. 

(i)The Stuka was an extremely stable gun platform, a feature the Shturmovik lacked. The nearly 1 ton of armor made it as clumsy as the USAAF heavies and lacked manouverability as well as climbing capabilities.

(ii) Speed? Virtually the same, and the IL-2 had a retractable undercarriage, while the Stuka´s was fixed causing important drag. 

(iii) The sole department where the Shturmovik surpassed the Stuka was the weaponry: the soviet plane could carry powerful 37mm cannons and several arrays of rockets and/or bombs.

(iv) In addition to point (iii), the most impressive thing about the IL-2s was the numbers which saw service.

The IL-2s when caught without fighter support made comfortable preys for German interceptors.

You underestimate the Stuka and opposedly overestimate the IL-2.

In theory perhaps the best tank busting aircraft is that which after attacking the tanks is absolutely capable of defending itself against enemy fighters: neither one of these two planes certainly fit into such category.

Both the Ju87 and the IL-2 were confortable targets for enemy interceptors. 

It is absolutely true the Germans never came up with a sound replacement for the glorious Stuka, and it continued to see service until the very end fundamentally in the eastern front charging against soviet armor and in the west on night harrasment missions.


Now, it appears like concepts are mingled. 

They say the Stuka was obsolete, say, by the mid point of WWII.

Pardon me? 

Had the Luftwaffe had a far stronger presence over Normandy, or say, something near to air superiority, you certainly have swarms of Stukas screaming over the allied beach heads and please go tell the allied soldiers they are being attacked by "obsolete" planes.

So the Stuka receives the obsolete tag because the conditions for operating it had ceased to exist.

During the first years of Barbarossa, when the VVS was getting obliterated, the IL-2 can be considered plainly and flatly obsolete if you apply the logic you do on the Stuka.

So, the IL-2M saw itself raised from obsolence in 1944 when the Luftwaffe decided to sent west many of its fighter unitsto face the heavy bomber threat, giving now the VVS virtual control of the skies in the east?

A similar song can be played on the famous IL-2. It had a performance very similar to the Stuka and caused heavy damage due mainly to its massive numbers and not precisely due the quality of the plane and of the pilots.

From mid 1944 to the end of the war, the swarms of IL-2s operated in a theather were the Luftwaffe had a very modest number of interceptors, and still the formations of Shturmoviks took frightful losses. It helped to get the job done, but it is far from what many of you believe the Shturmovik was.

The Stuka over Britain in 1940, in an environment of no air superiority, a bold RAF, sustained casualties far lesser to those the IL-2s took from mid 1944 and on in eastern skies were the Luftwaffe had a minimum presence.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

Okay Udet. 

The Hs-129 was a virtual death trap in an air-fight and its French made engines were woefully underpowered. I really wouldn't go there. 

The Me-410 wasn't used all that often as a tank-buster (you'd be better arguing for the Fw-190F variants).

You are forgetting another advantage of the Il-2, the UBT gun covering the rear. This was far more effective that the Stuka's rear MG81Z. And the Il-2 was certainly less vulnerable to ground fire.


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2005)

Lightning:

Me 410? Where? I said Me 110; I should have written Bf 110 "Zerstörer" fitted with 3cm cannon under the belly for tank busting missions.

What could the difference between the IL-2 and the Hs129 be for you to not consider the Shturmovik a death trap as well?

The Hs129 almost had the same weight of armor the IL-2 had.

Why is it so homogeneous everywhere you always read about the underpowered engines of the Hs129? It had almost the same speed of the IL-2.


The rear gun on the IL-2M?
Yes, it of course made an improvement when one knows the first models were single seat plane, so what about it Lightning?

It of course gave the plane a minimum level of self defense capability but did not help that much. 

The heavy bomber formations of the USAAF, which were massive, sound planes, each packed with some 12 .50 cal machine guns were many many times obliterated out of the sky by German interceptors when they flew unescorted and some times when having the escorts around as well.

What do you think the fate of a formation of IL-2Ms -a single-engine plane, clumsy, unmaneuverable, fitted with only ONE rear gun- could be when intercepted by German fighters?

Just like the heavy bombers, the rear gunners of IL-2s could manage to shoot down some of the enemy interceptors (Stuka rear gunners did as well); however, far more Shturmoviks would go down.


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

side note.............look at the NSGr night Ju 87D's and text I posted earlier on on these pages. Not used for dive bombing eh in the West or Med ? sorry guys but it is true, even on the Ost front as well.....till war's end.

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 26, 2005)

Udet, how much armour did the Hs 129 have for its engines?

Some stats for you. During the Belorussian campaign the 3rd Air Army only 2.6% of the Il-2s flying a mission failed to return.

When the 87G had fired off its 37mm rounds it only had the mg of the rear gunner for protection. It also had to fly with the equivelent of a 250kg bomb hanging from each wing all the time. All it could do was run while the Il-2 had the ability to go offensive.



*the lancaster kicks ass* you might change your mind about the Typhoon, and the Tempest, if you read a loss list. The number of Sabre failures was very high.


----------



## Udet (Jan 26, 2005)

KraziKanuk:

You make good points.

I do not know how much armor the Hs129 had to protect the engines; what I know is the cockpit was a an actual armored box and that the Shturmovik carried about 90 kilograms more of armor.

I assume you understand I am not suggesting the IL-2M was a piece of shit or the like. As i said, it helped the soviet war effort a lot.

My point is simple: it was not, at all, the marvel accurate wonder ground attack plane depicted.

I do not think it was an efficient tank killer at all.

I have guncamera footage of German fighters pounding the IL-2s and you would be shocked to see how uncapable of manouvering it was; furthermore, for a plane of its size (kind of equal in size to any other single engine fighter) it was as clumsy as a four engine bomber.

In some shots the German fighter opens fire at some 150-200 meters and you see large parts of the IL-2 falling apart, then fire and smoke and that was it.

The heavy armor of the IL-2 as it made a plus under specific circumstances of combat it also turned out to be its own enemy. Slow and clumsy.


Regarding the soviet statistics you mention all I can say it is very unlikely such a loss ratio was ever suffered by the VVS in mid 1944. Where did you find it?

Many Russians are known to take big offense whenever they know or hear opinions telling how mediocre their air force performed during the war.

They protect themselves a lot by saying "all you know is the German (or western allies) view of the war but you still have to know our view, which is yet to be fully disclosed". That is like a big asset they have: to at least momentarily benefit from the hermetism of the soviet union in the post-war, cold war era.

That is the communist and post-communist fashion of the Russians to deal with the Great Patriotic War; to claim they have lots and factual information never ever disclosed to westerners that might prove they "won the war all by themselves".

So? Where is it? Why not to immediately end all these "offensive" debates and discussions that put the VVS into doubt by publishing and disclosing all that valuable data they allegedly have?

Perhaps because they have none?
Or perhaps because what they actually have might exaclty rose to the surface to confirm what many know of the airwarfare in the eastern front?

Still, you made good points Krazi.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2005)

While someone somewhere has different #'s, or will say "They Overclaimed", here are some stats.....

SOVIET UNION 
Top Tank Killers 
NAME TANKS 

Jefimov, Alexandr Nikolajevič 126 
Stěpanjan, Nelson Georgijevič 80 
Kozlovskij, Vasilij Ivanovič 68 
Chalzov, Viktor Stěpanovič 60 
Gamzin, Vladimír Vasiljevič 53 
Kirtok, Nikolaj Naumovič 38 
Polujanov, Grigorij Pavlovič 38 
Čečelašvili, Otari Grigorjevič 34 
Popov, Nikolaj Isaakovič 32 
Rossochin, Boris Gavrilovič 28 
Nosov, Alexandr Andrejevič 27 
Bezbokov, Vladimir Michailovič 26 
Blinov, Pavel Fjodorovič 24 
Lackov, Nikolaj Sergejevič 24 
Stěpanov, Nikolaj Nikotovič 24 
Latypov, Kuddus Kanifovič 22 
Kabanov, Vladimír Jegorovič 19 
Poljakov, Pavel Jakovlevič 18 
Sidorin, Vasilij Nikolajevič 18 
Danilov, Grigorij Semjonovič 16 
Železnjakov, Petr Filippovič 16 
Kizjun, Petr Kondratjevič 15 
Šamšurin, Vasilij Grigorjevič 
Nikolajev, Nikolaj Ivanovič 13 
Rjabov, Konstantin Andrejevič 13 
Rjabov, Sergej Ivanovič 12 
Abazovskij, Konstantin Antonovič 11 
Razin, Ivan Petrovič 11 
Išankulov, Abducattar 10 
Ivanov, Konstantin Vasiljevič 10 
Kizima, Andrej Ivanovič 10 
Zacharov, Viktor Nikolajevič 10 
Žestkov, Aleksandr Ivanovič 10


GERMANY
Top Tank Killers
Name Tanks 

Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel 519+ 
Ofw. Anton Hübsch 120+ 
Hptm. Gerhard Stüdemann 117 
Ofw. Alois Wosnitza 104 
Lt. Jacob Jenster 100+ 
Hptm. Hendrik Stahl 100+ 
Lt. Anton Korol 99 
Oblt. Wilhelm Joswig 88 
Oblt. Max Diepold 87 
Lt. Wilhelm Noller 86 
Ofw. Hans Ludwig 85 
Ofw. Heinz Edhofer 84 
Ofw. Siegfried Fischer 80 
Maj. Theodor Nordmann 80 
Lt. Kurt Plenzat 80 
Hptm. Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer 80~ 
Hptm. Kurt Lau 80~ 
Oblt. Hans-Joachim Jäschke 78 
Oblt. Helmut Hannemann 77 
Hptm. Hubert Pölz 76 
Oblt. Wilhelm Bromen 76 
Oblt. Rainer Nossek 73+ 
Oblt. Gustav Schubert 70+ 
Fw. Otto Ritz 70~ 
Hptm. Hans-Hermann Steinkamp 70~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm not claiming that the Il-2 was a wonder weapon but I do believe it was the best tank-buster (at least best aircraft designed as a tank buster). And my point about the rear gun was that it did have a higher level of self-defense than any of its German opponents.


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

how could it when the mode of attack against the Il-2 was to get under it and shoot out it's cooling system. Some of the hot shot pilots of JG 52 came up with some hihg scores against these Soviet a/c


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2005)

Does anyone remember hearing about the German Luftwaffe using Napalm???? 

For Tank Busting???


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

yes they had it but not for destroying tanks


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 29, 2005)

The IL-2's VYa 23mm cannon were more than capable of taking out most German armor on the E. front during the crutial first two years of the war on that front. German tanks had relatively weak top and rear armor. The SH37 mounted on the 1943 IL-2M3 and on the 1944 IL-10 was capable of penetrating 48mm of tank armor at 500 meters, and was reliable to kill German medium tanks even from the side, and heavy tanks from the rear.

The Hs129 was also an excellent tank killer, though it's low performance was a major weakness. It is hard to understand why the German's were not able to take the lessons learned with this plane and make a much superior successor plane?

I still think the most effective plane was the P-47 or P-38 (or any other plane) delivering naplam, which was nearly 100% effective in taking out targeted tanks. I suppose the P-38 was probably the best for this, as it could carry two large napalm bombs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 29, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Does anyone remember hearing about the German Luftwaffe using Napalm????
> 
> For Tank Busting???



No. The Germans had something called an "oil bomb", but it lacked the expansion and stickyness characteristics of napalm, and did not reach the same high temps or cover so wide an area. It was used mostly against British cities, and to a small degree against troops (with minimal success). I believe these bombs were basically cooking oil and a little kerosine to make it ignite better.

The Germans tried using the oil bombs in combat before the Allies started using napalm, but did not pursue it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 2, 2005)

In mi opinion the best was Henschel Hs-129 equiped with the maquiavelic Sg 113 magnetic-triggered recoiless rifle.








It was a litle slow but very well armored.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 2, 2005)

Is it a bit like MAD equpiment on Catalinas with retrobombs designed to fire backwards?


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 2, 2005)

MAD=Magnetic Anomaly Detection


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2005)

Ive read that the MAD gear in use for this kind of use was not altogether trustworty/reliable.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Feb 2, 2005)

I would be skeptical of using MAD for something like these. Even modern MAD sets have to be fairly close to a submarine to detect it. And a submarine creates a much larger magnetic field than a tank. The idea was ingenious, but not very successful in practical terms.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 3, 2005)

It probably works fine if there's a big group of tanks clustered together but it probably wouldn't work on a single tank


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> It probably works fine if there's a big group of tanks clustered together but it probably wouldn't work on a single tank



The nature of the weapon was such that it would be useless against anything but a single target. I suspect it required the aircraft to fly very close above the target tank. The problem is that it would have been totally dependant on proper positioning of the attacking plane, and in general it's pretty hard to see a tank sized object from low level flight well enough to line up such a weapon. It would fire even if the plane were a little off to either side, thus requring at least 3 rounds be fired (one direct, one to each side) to give much chance of hitting a tank target, and even then odds of a kill would be somewhat limited.

In my opinion, Napalm was the best ant-tank weapon, followed by clusters of large numbers of small bombs (as used by both the Soviets and the Germans), followed by anti-tank cannon such as the NS-37.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 3, 2005)

Indeed, it was for single target only.

A plane without those complications: The reliable Junker Ju-87G-2.

Here a rare video of a Stuka Attacking Russian Js-2s in Hungary, late 1944.


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 3, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Indeed, it was for single target only.
> 
> A plane without those complications: The reliable Junker Ju-87G-2.
> 
> Here a rare video of a Stuka Attacking Russian Js-2s in Hungary, late 1944.



I seriously doubt that is real combat footage. It looks like a German propaganda film to encourage its troops. For one thing, the dive angle is too steep to be effective. For cannoning tanks you needed to make a much lower attack run.

The problem with the Stuka (or the IL-2/10 or Hurri-IID) was the plane was extremely exposed to ground fire while making its attack, and was quite vulnerable to enemy fighters, and results were dependent on many uncontrollable factors. Far less than a 1:1 ratio of attack runs vs. tanks killed was achieved. If you check into it, I would bet you will find something greater (probably far greater) than a 5:1 ratio of anti-tank sorties vs. tanks killed. It was just not that easy to get a good opportunity for a tank kill, often battlefield smoke and dust made it nearly impossible.

With napalm, and to a lesser degree the cluster bombs, one fighter could make a high speed pass and have an extremely good chance of killing the target tank(s). The area of effect was so huge it did not require the precision of cannon, and even the heaviest tanks could be destroyed from any angle. Napalm also had the advantage over cluster bombs in that no special dispensers were necessary.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2005)

the films are real enough and yes that is the right attack anle and even steeper to pounce on the roof and deck of the Soviet armor.

Yes a propaganda film from the Deustsche Wochenschau of which I have several.

Case in point, 1-2 Ju 87G's are attacking something, and then next clip are JS tanks sitting by the road, not proving they were attacked by Ju 87's . It was quite typical to take action footage and piece it together for the folks back home as a moral booster..............they were to learn soon enough in 45 what real war was

E ~


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 3, 2005)

Okay....I´m just triying to help...If somebody have a video of Stuka actually using his 37mm guns, please post it.


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2005)

I have at least three showing T-34's in 2 scenes getting their guts ripped out and also one of Soviet Churchills getting taken out.

sorry no can do


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

oh sure, put the food right in front of us then pull it away right as we're about to take a bite........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

I saw a great video in Caen museum of a Tiffy Ripping a train to shreds, and another one of a Tiffy taking out 3 tanks, it was great.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

sounds good........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

There was a Mk.IB Hanging from the ceiling too, I got a couple of nice shots of it if you wanna see...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

yesh please


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Ok, here they are... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

wow loving the second one.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Why, that picture sucks  I thinks the first one looks better...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

na second one's beter, trust me, i know what i'm talking about.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Yes but I was there an I touched the starbouard wingtip!  

If the light wasnt in the background it would be...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 5, 2005)

Both the pics look great, the Tiffie and the Tempest were great tank busters, anything soft-skinned would feel the 20mm and the tanks had 500 pound bombs or AP rockets


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 5, 2005)

Nice pics. Yeah, if it wasn't for that light in the background of the second pic, it would've been a lot better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

and should you be touching the plane young man??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nope, I had to jump to touch it. But I wanted to so badly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

and were you seen??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Only by Calum


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

man you'd be in some serious shit if the whole thing came crashing down..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Mainly because id probably be dead


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

and if that didn't kill you everyone else would!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Nah, Id hop in the Tiffy, take off, fire the rockets at everyone and fly back to blighty :Wink:


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

wow you've obviously given that allot of thought.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2005)

Hell yeah...And if that failed, there was a fussian jet in another hall I would have used


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2005)

i'm intrieged...........


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 6, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Both the pics look great, the Tiffie and the Tempest were great tank busters, anything soft-skinned would feel the 20mm and the tanks had 500 pound bombs or AP rockets



Actually, the Tiffie could hardly hit the broad side of a barn door with rockets. Something like a 0.5% chance of hitting what was aimed at. Most of the time they carried the 60lb HE warhead.

The Tempests with 2TAF were used mostly as fighters.

worth reading, http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 6, 2005)

Tempests were never fitted with rocket launchers during WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

You are correct that they were never used in WW2 but they were able to carry them and were used after the war.



> Tempest Mk. V was tested and cleared to carry 8 zero length 60 lb ground attack rockets. But it was never used operationally during the war. After the war, when used on Mk. IIs, the rockets were often mounted on zero length hooks. The rails spoiled the aerodynamics of the wing.
> http://hem.passagen.se/chla/tempest.htm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Nice pics 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 16, 2005)

Yeah I thought they were interesting. I knew there were some out there of Tempests with rockets.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2005)

very nice pics............


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are correct that they were never used in WW2 but they were able to carry them and were used after the war.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't believe it was even tested with the intent of mounting them on the Tempest during WWII. The Brits had much experiance with the penalties of rocket launcher rails on the Typhoon. The Typhoon was available in large numbers as a ground attack fighter, and nearly as good in this roll as a Tempest, so the few Tempests were mainly to ensure local air-superiority and conduct ground attack as a secondary duty. Eventually, had the war lasted long enough or the invasion of Japan happened, the number of Tempests might have resulted in the retirement of the Typhoon and then rockets might have been mounted on them. Given the small numbers of Tempests actually in combat during WWII, it did not make sense to hamper them with rails.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

No actually it was mounted and tested on the Tempest but was just not ever used in combat in WW2.

RP 3" (7.62 cm) 55¼" 47 lb (21.3 kg) 25 lb (11.3kg) 1575 ft/sec (480m/s) Typhoon, Tempest, Mosquito, Beaufighter 

RP aicraft ground attack rocket
Rocket Motor Tube
3¼" diameter 55¼" long
Total weight of 21.3kg (47 lb) w/ 25 lb AP head
11 lb cruciform stick of cordite - the main propellant charge.
Maximum Velocity of 480 m/sec (1,575 ft/sec)


60 lb Shell, HE/SAP 
60 lb Shell, HE/GP, Hollow Charge 
18 lb Shell, HE 
25 lb Shot, AP 
25 lb Head, Solid, A/S (Anti-Submarine) 
60 lb Shell, Practice, concrete head (Training only) 
12 lb Head, Practice, (Training only)


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 18, 2005)

I don't see any conflict Adler. I agree it was tested. But it was decided not to mount the rails on the Tempests for combat because of the performance penalties. The Typhoon's were in pleantiful supply for rocket attacks - why cripple the Tempest with rails that reduced the performance to that of the Typhoon?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2005)

This is the effect of an APHE slug hitting the ammo store in a russian tank.

Short clip of KW-1 blewing up.


----------



## P51ace 16 (Feb 19, 2005)

:rightf  ighter6:


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

Woah!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

P51ace 16 said:


> :rightf  ighter6:



We appear to have another brad on or hands ladies and gentlemen...

Restrain yourself les


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

maybe he's only just found the smilies...........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 19, 2005)

I believe the word is


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 19, 2005)

Spam? On this site? Nah, I find that hard to believe!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Spam-up!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

i love them adverts...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Pure genius...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

why thank you............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

I knew youd say that...so predictable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

oh well..............


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

> We appear to have another brad on or hands ladies and gentlemen...
> 
> Restrain yourself les



Probably a stupid question but who's Brad?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

ah..........

brad was little annoying 13 year old (i think) he really pissed people off but les more than most, he was a bit stupid and often made rediculous remarks, and spammed allot, but he's gone now.................


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 20, 2005)

thanks lanc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

pleased to be of help..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

Nah lanc, brad was 10 years old, and he wasnt even here at the same time les was. Its NightHawk that annoys les...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

who did brad annoy in particular then?? plan d was it??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

He just annoyed everyone  Mainly Crazy though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 20, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> ah..........
> 
> brad was little annoying 13 year old (i think) he really pissed people off but les more than most, he was a bit stupid and often made rediculous remarks, and spammed allot, but he's gone now.................


That almost sounds like me you're describing.  
Except I'm a bit older than 13.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2005)

na you're cool............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 20, 2005)

Well _yeah_, I know that!  
It's just that I'm older than 13. 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)

You wouldnt guess it


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 20, 2005)

I choose to take that as a compliment.  
Deluded? Perhaps.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2005)




----------



## reddragon (Feb 27, 2005)

I vote for the Hawker Typhoon. I understand they were credited with destroying 135 tanks on August 7, 1944.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 27, 2005)

she was cirtainly one of the best british ones..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

Nah id say it was the best British one...


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 27, 2005)

Tempest? Mosquito MkVI? Mosquito MkXVIII?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 27, 2005)

reddragon said:


> I vote for the Hawker Typhoon. I understand they were credited with destroying 135 tanks on August 7, 1944.



reddragon you should read this report, http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

i considder the Hurricane Mk.IID with twin 40mm Vickers 'S' guns to be the best........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

british one i mean............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Ah yes, forgot about that beauty....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

man that thing caused the germans some proplems in africa........


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 28, 2005)

Definitely, good at soft skinned vehicles but tanks were a tougher nut to crack for it. Best anti-tank air to ground weapon would have to be a 500lb bomb. Easier than a rocket to use and more accurate


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 1, 2005)

mosquitoman said:


> Definitely, good at soft skinned vehicles but tanks were a tougher nut to crack for it. Best anti-tank air to ground weapon would have to be a 500lb bomb. Easier than a rocket to use and more accurate



As I've already shown, Napalm was the best tank killing weapon. The area of coverage is huge. Hitting the tank was easy, and often more than one tank could be destroyed in a single drop. Napalm burned so hot it would usually explode the tanks fuel and ammo. Even near misses were sufficient to roast the crew and ruin the running gear. Napalm was used quite effectively in the ETO starting in the late spring of 1944, though it is not well publicized.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2005)

i must admit i know little about their useage.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2005)

Same here. I know little about Napalm use in WW2. Until this site I did not even know it was used in WW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2005)

A certain flight sim informed me of its WW2 usage


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

I had to look it up.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Napalm is an ugly weapon. Unfortunately, historians tend to ignore the fact it was heavily used starting in mid-1944 for this reason. You will rarely find much detail on its use in the ETO, and many sources will claim that it was only used in the PTO. Somehow, burning Japs alive was more acceptable than burning krauts alive. Who can figure?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2005)

you can actually get napalm on a cirtain flight sim??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2005)

Yes. You can equip Corsairs with it on PF.


----------



## mosquitoman (Mar 7, 2005)

It's not as if it had any Japanese tanks to kill though


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 7, 2005)

Napalm was extremely effective against most targets. It was extremely effective against Japanese pill boxes and cave positions where there was only one entry (common on Iwo Jima). It would consume all the oxygen and sufficate them.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

I can see someone up there is trying to get a rise out of me, but I am not going to play the game. 

I can see its usefullness but I am glad it is no longer used in that sense. Yes we have more terrible weapons now but I just dont like napalm.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 8, 2005)

I can confirm that Napalm was used in early 1945 against hidden soft targets in southern Germany. There are no documents to proof that it was actually intended to be used against armored forces, like tanks, in that time. I think there is also a colourfilm about such a use. I have seen it on a documentation about the closing months of Nazi Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

No I believe you that it was used, I never contested that.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

Iwo Jima cave entrances actually had multiple entrances. There were 16 miles of tunnels and 1500 rooms below the surface of the island which is only 7.5 square miles. Many times, "cleared" caves became reinfested with Japanese, not from the surface. Bill Genaust was one of many Marines that entered one of those caves to never return.

Most aerial bombing done to Iwo Jima before the invasion was very ineffective. Napalm was used before the invasion to take out enemy installations and to remove camouflage, but that was ineffective because the Japanese used very little combustible material for camouflage.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

That is correct.



> Lt General Tadamichi Kuribayashi had been assigned to command the garrison of Iwo Jima in May 1944. He had served in the United States as a deputy defence attaché and considered the USA the "last country in the world that Japan should fight." When he arrived he immediately began to reorganise the chaotic defences that were in place and with the arrival of additional troops and Korean labourers began a huge construction programme that included tunnels, caves, gun emplacements, pillboxes, bunkers and command posts, many of which were mutually supporting and linked by a vast underground communications system. Many were so well constructed that the intensive naval shelling and aerial bombing in the weeks before the attack simply failed to damage them. A lot of these fortifications were dug into the soft pumice-like volcanic rock, which mixed well with cement to provide additional reinforcement. Supply areas, ammunition stores and medical facilities were all constructed within the underground tunnel system and when the fighting was at its height, many Marines reporting hearing voices emanating from the ground below them. The tunnel system was so extensive that many of the troops that were defending Mount Suribachi managed to escape to the north before the volcano fell.
> http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_iwojima.html#Japanese


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

John Bradley's son wrote an excellent book about Iwo Jima that gives a good picture of that as well. There are a number of sites that also talk about the extensive tunnel system. The Japanese mastered Prairie Dog warfare.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Here is some interesting things I have read about the tunnel systems there.



> 1. A maze of tunnels
> 
> The Japanese on Iwo Jima were so thoroughly dug in that little more than the muzzles of their guns showed above the ground; everything else was hidden in a maze of subterranean chambers and connecting tunnels.
> 
> ...



Here is also a lecture from James Bradley the author of the book you are talking about The Flags of our Fathers. His father was on Iwo Jima.



> I mean, get this, for seventy-two-days before the battle, the Air Force came in, and they dropped enough bombs on this tiny little island to make it the single most bombed spot in the entire Pacific War, and then three days before the battle, the Navy came in with enormous battleships, and they rocked the island, shoving shells the weight of Volkswagens, against the island. They resculpted the mountain of Mt. Suribachi. They didn't kill anyone, they only rearranged the sand. See, the Japanese were not on Iwo Jima. They were underground.
> 
> If any of you have ever been to Toronto, there are two cities of Toronto really. You're up above ground there are buildings, it looks like a city. You go underneath, there's a whole other city with five-star restaurants, dry cleaners, subways, grocery stores, people are living underground, just like Iwo Jima — 22,000 Japanese troops underground. Now Steven Spielberg's making a movie about this. and you'll see for the first time that everybody thinks it's like European fighting — throw a grenade they pop up, shoot them. Now these guys were underground on a five-mile-long island. There were sixteen miles of tunnels. These tunnels were shellacked. They had electrical systems, lights, ventilation systems, and they connected 1,500 different rooms. They were alive and well, and bombardment could not get them.
> http://www.webb-institute.edu/Alumni/bradley_lecture.php



So yeah I can see where napalm would be effective here however this proves what you say about there being multiple entrances and exits and not just positions with one entry as stated above. The sources are there too for the certain people who require sources to believe what is being said.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

I read a lot of material on that battle before the latest presentation I gave on Iwo Jima last month. I have also spoken to a couple of guys that were on that "God forsaken place". For the time of the battle, there were about 60,000 Marines against 21,000- 23,000 Japanese defenders. That would have made it the most populated place on earth at the time. With an almost 3-1 numerical superiority, it took the Marines 36 days to secure that 7.5 square miles. It took many months after that to completely clear the island of the Japanese troops.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

It deffinatly put a new meening to War is Hell.


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

No doubt. I have the highest respect for the Iwo vets. I have respect for all WWII vets, but Iwo has a soft spot for me.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

They truely fought a tough battle.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Iwo Jima cave entrances actually had multiple entrances. There were 16 miles of tunnels and 1500 rooms below the surface of the island which is only 7.5 square miles. Many times, "cleared" caves became reinfested with Japanese, not from the surface. Bill Genaust was one of many Marines that entered one of those caves to never return.
> 
> Most aerial bombing done to Iwo Jima before the invasion was very ineffective. Napalm was used before the invasion to take out enemy installations and to remove camouflage, but that was ineffective because the Japanese used very little combustible material for camouflage.



Many Iwo Jima cave's were as you describe, but there were also many that had only had one entrance. And even with mulitple entrances, napalm can consume so much O2 and fill the target with so much noxious fumes as to incapcitate or kill the occupants to a good depth.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes, napalm can do that, but in the case of Iwo Jima, bombing had little effect on the defenders.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Yes, napalm can do that, but in the case of Iwo Jima, bombing had little effect on the defenders.



Pre-battle bombardment had little effect. Close air-support was an entirely different matter. Corsairs would come in and napalm the defenses, and then the Marines would move up before the Japanese could re-occupy them from below. At this point, flame-throwers would spew more napalm right into the mouth of the cave complex.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Yeah I do know that they used flame throwers to burn everyone alive in the pill boxes and small caves.


----------



## trackend (Mar 30, 2005)

Hi guys just got in from a night turn. I have read with interest the comments made on Napalm and Iwo Jima I agree with many of them as you say naval and air bombardment had limited effect on Iwo Jima this was not unusual even during WW1 with colossal pre attack bombardments lasting on occasion several days the destruction of the defending forces was very rarely successful although causing many casualties and cases of appalling shell shock it failed to de-nude the defending forces sufficiently to prevent mass slaughter amongst the attackers. The fortifications on Iwo Jima had been well prepared and near misses from bomb or shell had little effect this resulted in the requirement of close quarter troop infiltration at great loss to the units satchel charges or grenades inserted into the positions proved to be one of the more effective methods of eliminating the enemy and the use of directed incendiary weapons either man pack or tank also aided in this,as did close quarter air support which had been mastered by the US and is now the norm. Unfortunately there was no easy quick fix hence the long slog to take the place.
Using Napalm as an anti tank weapon causes two major problems one it renders a large area unusable for some time after the initial explosion thus slowing down or halting an advance and two it acts as a screen that can be used by an enemy to redeploy to new positions unseen by the attacking forces. In the case of Japanese Armour the Sherman was more the a match for these poor quality machines (generally the average amour thickness was only 12-25mm _source: The Directory of tanks by David Miller_ ) I agree with you Adler the thought of Napalm is not very pleasant and yes they do have some vile weapons these day including Thermobaric. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/fuel-air-explosion/ and as I am sure you know all too well Adler some anti tank rounds HEAT have the effect of increasing the internal temperature of an armored vehicle by several thousand degrees (instant brew up).

I remember seeing a picture of a delightful device developed in WW1 called a vitriolic weapon it looked very much like a flame thrower but it ejected Hydrochloric Acid.(charming)!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

ouch!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

trackend said:


> and as I am sure you know all too well Adler some anti tank rounds HEAT have the effect of increasing the internal temperature of an armored vehicle by several thousand degrees (instant brew up).



I have seen some Iraqi Tanks that had a very small hole punched through the side of the turret armour but no visible outside damage other then that and no exit hole. But when you climbed down inside everything was melted and charred. Quite nasty too.


----------



## trackend (Mar 30, 2005)

I am pleased to say i've not seen the results of a a brewed up tank Adler.
Ive seen a few people who cooked themselves on 25,000 volt power lines one of them had his pelvic bone glowing like the bar of an electric fire after it had boiled his insides away not very pleasent its a smell I wont forget in a hurry. 
So I'll leave that nasty side of things to you professional fellas. 
Good luck to you mate.
All I saw in the army was the results of a few terrorist bombs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)

what do you do now then??


----------



## trackend (Mar 30, 2005)

Railway Lanc. Actually i've seen more deaths on here than I did as a squaddie but then I have been on here ten times longer and I wasn't on a war footing in the army like Adler and his mates.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

Railway is very dangerous job, I read about things happening all the time to Railway workers.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 30, 2005)

Yep the railroad is a dangerous work place.

What gets me is that commercial crabbing is considered more dangerous than being a US soldier in a war zone. Somehow I cannot see putting my life on the line to catch crabs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2005)

I would not put my life on the line either but I love to eat crabs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 30, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Mar 30, 2005)

Well, the pay is said to be top-notch for crab fishermen. It better be if it's _that_ dangerous!


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

I think lots of civilian jobs can have there dodgy moments but its still not the same as having some body trying to kill you and we where discussing Iwo Jima which makes anything most of us have done or seen pale into insignificance by comparison.

Nasty thing catching crabs, but to be paid for it thats unusual. I caught them once in Belize for free  (and very irritating little gits they where too)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 31, 2005)




----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

trackend said:


> I think lots of civilian jobs can have there dodgy moments but its still not the same as having some body trying to kill you and we where discussing Iwo Jima which makes anything most of us have done or seen pale into insignificance by comparison.
> 
> Nasty thing catching crabs, but to be paid for it thats unusual. I caught them once in Belize for free  (and very irritating little gits they where too)



WWII was hell, and Iwo Jima was the center of hell. I didn't mean to trivialize it at all.

The kind of "crabbing" I am refering to is going out on a boat to work traps off Alaska - it's considered the most hazerdous job in America. The death rate is something like 0.125% for about a 5 week outing. If you get swept off the deck into the water, your chances of survival are extremely slim. 800 lbs crab traps are swung around on archaic hoists in bad weather.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

I know what you mean RG I saw a documentary on the subject some time ago even in that one guy nearly copt it when a trap almost knocked him over the gunwhale it all looked a bit too dodgy for me I'll stick to being a land lubber thankyou what ever the rate of pay is.


----------



## Soren (Mar 31, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> WWII was hell, and Iwo Jima was the center of hell. I didn't mean to trivialize it at all.



I would say the Eastern front, in general, was the center of hell. 

Remember the "Ratten-Krieg".


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > WWII was hell, and Iwo Jima was the center of hell. I didn't mean to trivialize it at all.
> ...



Well, the E. Front was cold hell, Iwo Jima was hot hell.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, the E. Front was cold hell, Iwo Jima was hot hell.



 That it was, that it was.  




RG_Lunatic said:


> The kind of "crabbing" I am refering to is going out on a boat to work traps off Alaska - it's considered the most hazerdous job in America. The death rate is something like 0.125% for about a 5 week outing. If you get swept off the deck into the water, your chances of survival are extremely slim. 800 lbs crab traps are swung around on archaic hoists in bad weather.




Well I will have to shake those fishermans hands when I get over there. Me and my wife want to build a house there after we are done building our house in Germany. There aint nothing like some Alaska King Crab Legs.


----------



## trackend (Mar 31, 2005)

I didnt know you had Alaska King Crab Legs Alder it must have been one hell of an accident   sorry English weird humour


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2005)

No need to apologize. I just love the things.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 31, 2005)

Me too. Good Dungenous crab are even better, but too often recently they have been kind of tastless. The King Crab tend to be pretty reliably good, as long as they are not too salty.

If you get a chance to go to any of the many seafood restaruants in the SF Bay or Seattle area and can order some fresh (live in the morning on the day you order it) cold cracked dungenous crab - that is a real treat. Often in the winter they are on sale cheap!

Of course, soft-shelled blue crabs from the E. Coast are pretty darn excellent too. But they are only available fresh during a short season in the spring and early summer. A real delicassy.

Lunatic loves Crab!


----------



## trackend (Apr 1, 2005)

I have to confess guys im not a fanatic when it comes seafood but two things I do like. I always treat myself to a good quality clam chowder when I visit the states and I am very fond of fresh sea food Paella when im in Spain with a nice bottle of Chablis yummy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 1, 2005)

i like tuna...........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 1, 2005)

trackend said:


> I have to confess guys im not a fanatic when it comes seafood but two things I do like. I always treat myself to a good quality clam chowder when I visit the states and I am very fond of fresh sea food Paella when im in Spain with a nice bottle of Chablis yummy.



Have you ever had good fresh Dungenous crab, King Crab legs, or fried Soft-shelled crabs? If not, you don't know what you're missing!


----------



## Soren (Apr 1, 2005)

I've had Crab, and i must say that the meat is really deliciuos !


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Next time Im your way i'll give it a try RG
I assume you mean Dungenous in your neck of the woods the one over here has got a Nuclear Power station on it and I wouldn't want to eat anything caught in the waters around there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)




----------



## Anonymous (Apr 2, 2005)

trackend said:


> Next time Im your way i'll give it a try RG
> I assume you mean Dungenous in your neck of the woods the one over here has got a Nuclear Power station on it and I wouldn't want to eat anything caught in the waters around there.



Hmmm... Dungenous crabs are caught mostly in cold waters off the W. Coast of the USA (including Alaska). Not sure where you are located so not sure if you are talkin about the same kind of crabs or not.

Lobster grow huge in nuke runoff.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

There is nothing better then seafood especially a good lobster or crab! Okay to atleat make it sound like it is on topic I will make a half hearted feable attempt. Here we go:

A tanks hull is like the outer shell of a hard shelled Crab! 

HA HAHAHAHAHAHA HA


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

i've just had the image of a great crab battle where huge crabs from opposing armies meet in a huge armoured clash..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

One of my crabs in my aquarium just ate one of my fish.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

that's close enough......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

It was pretty grousome and it made my water table tip and the some other fish just died because of it. So that would sort of equal a biological attack.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

other fish died because of it??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

yeap atleast thats what my friend who sells exotic fish told me when he tested my water.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

how does than explain how other fish died when your crab killed a fish??


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Are these the sort af crabs you eat Adler I know the forces turn out some tough blokes these days but holly molly


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

would explain allot..........


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

Going off thread alot I went to the Nutshell in Bury st Edmunds today and brought you a beer lanc


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 2, 2005)

that's brilliant..........

can you get a clearer pic at all??


----------



## trackend (Apr 2, 2005)

try this it will probably take forever to load once you have copied it let me know and i'll reduce it again Spitfire is another one but I dare say you know of that Lanc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 2, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> how does than explain how other fish died when your crab killed a fish??



The fish that my crab killed and drug into his hiding place became a breading ground for bacteria and algea and it made the nitrate and nitrat levels and ph levels in the water to rise to the point that fish started dieing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)

ah a see now...........

and thanks for the beer pic..........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

I take it you have a rather small salt water tank Adler?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 3, 2005)

Its not too small, Its about 55 gallons. I dont have any fish that are too large in it. Me and my wife are thinking about putting some large salt water aquariums in the walls of our house and we want to get some larger fish like maybe some small leopard sharks and such. My smaller 25 gallon fresh water tank is working out beautifully but the salt water one is being a bit of a pain. I need to get the water back to a better condition so that I can get my sting rays and put them in. They have a couple of beautiful spotted ones at the place where I get my fish.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 3, 2005)

The smaller the tank, the more sensitive it is to such "pollution". Since salt water echo-systems are much more sensitive to the right chemistry, smaller tanks are harder to deal with.

I had a gf who worked at Scripts aquarium, and she used to complain all the time about how the 200 gallon tanks were too small. She would cry when a fish died.

 

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2005)




----------



## evangilder (Apr 4, 2005)

With salt water, the bigger the tank the better. I think bigger fresh water tanks are actually easier to take care of as well.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 4, 2005)

trackend said:


> Going off thread alot I went to the Nutshell in Bury st Edmunds today and brought you a beer lanc



There is a city I haven't been to in ages! We used to go into Bury St. Edmunds fairly regularly when I was at Lakenheath.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 4, 2005)

Yeah that is pretty much what I have always heard. We really do need to get our salt tanks built into our house so we can have bigger ones.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2005)

how about the P 63c kingcobra for all round ground attack with speed reasonable armour able to defend itself


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

The M10 37mm gun was not very good, other than that what does it have over an F4U-4?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2005)

an excellent rate of climb


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 21, 2005)

Better than 4500 fpm? Better than 5 mins to 20K?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 21, 2005)

i think maybe 7.3 min to 25


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

Sorry the Kingcobra was just a feeble attempt to upgrade the Airacobra.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 22, 2005)

Wasn't that built at the request of the Russians, with their input?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sorry the Kingcobra was just a feeble attempt to upgrade the Airacobra.



Well, remember the Airacobra was downgraded by removing the supercharging. Other than that, it was not that bad a plane. The Kingcobra got that supercharging back.

I don't know if the KingCobra was any good or not. Stalin evidently thought rather highly of it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 23, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, remember the Airacobra was downgraded by removing the supercharging. Other than that, it was not that bad a plane. The Kingcobra got that supercharging back.
> 
> I don't know if the KingCobra was any good or not. Stalin evidently thought rather highly of it.
> 
> ...



The P-39 did not loose its supercharger. What it did loose was its TURBOcharger. All Allison V-170s had a single stage supercharger. The P-63 had an Allison with a 2 stage supercharger.

The P-63 was on an equal performance footing as the P-51, except for range.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Well, remember the Airacobra was downgraded by removing the supercharging. Other than that, it was not that bad a plane. The Kingcobra got that supercharging back.
> ...



Ummm that is loosing (some of its) supercharging. I didn't realize it was originally supposed to have a turbo unit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

Okay fine but if you put it that way then the P-63 was upgraded to a still inferior aircraft of the time. Plus who really wanted to sit on the drive shaft for the propellers? The vibrations would tickle your prostate a bit too much!


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 24, 2005)

but that hunk of iron behind you would sure give you a little feeling of security


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 24, 2005)

yes, behind you, where it's even more vaunurable.........


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 24, 2005)

if i was the pilot the engine would certainly take 2nd place over my butt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

I just dont think it was that great of an aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 25, 2005)

becasue it wasn't...........


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

Probably not, but I have not seen enough on the P-63's wartime performance to have any idea. I suspect it would have been an excellent bomber killer but other than that pretty medocre.

=S=

Luantic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

Thats pretty much because the only ones who had any faith in it and used it extensivly were the Russians.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 26, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Thats pretty much because the only ones who had any faith in it and used it extensivly were the Russians.



The Russian's didn't really use the P-63 in WWII. Stalin was holding them in reserve to intercept Allied bombers in the war he expected to pursue after the German's were defeated. It was the only plane in his arsonnel that could intercept bombers at altitude.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2005)

Really?? not even the BI-1??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Thats pretty much because the only ones who had any faith in it and used it extensivly were the Russians.
> ...



I may be wrong but that is still more then anybody else. Other nations including the US knew that it was outclassed.


----------



## GT (Jun 5, 2005)

Update.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Hs 129 B-2/R4:
First developed in 1939 as tank-buster the Hs 129 flew mainly at the Russian front to counter the endless columns of Russian armor.
The normal configuration for the Hs 129 was one 30mm-, two 20mm Cannons plus two 7.9mm MGs and two 50kg Bombs. The B-2/R4 however replaced the 30mm Cannon with one 75mm PaK. The Henschel 129 (the most numerous version being the B-2) entered combat in may 1942, and served mainly on the eastern front with great efficiency, its heavy armament of two 7.92 machine guns, two 20mm cannons, bombs, and a 30mm MK 101 or 103 cannon in a ventral gondola wreaking havoc among the soviet armoured regiments. The Rumanian Air Force made an extensive use of Hs 129s, too, eventually turning them against the Germans after the 23 august 1944 armistice. The ultimate version, Hs 129 B-3 – armed with a heavy 75mm antitank gun, entered service too late to be of any help (the fact if it was ever used in combat being questioned by some authors).

4.(Pz)/SchG 1

This independent Staffel was formed on 13 January 1942 at Dugino on the central sector of the Eastern Front as a component of II./SchG 1 with Bf 109Es provided by the disbanded II (Schlacht)/LG 2. It flew out of Dugino and Rzhev under VIII. Fliegerkorps until early April. The available literature indicates that it received 16 Hs 129B-1s by 28 March, presumably at Lippstadt, and then left for the Crimea, arriving on 6 May.
It commenced operations on 7 May from Grammatikovo/Crimea with some 15 Hs 129s as part of of II. Gruppe, although the rest of the Gruppe was still enroute. Over the next several days 4. Staffel attacked various ground targets, shot down an I-16 fighter and destroyed an estimated 40 other aircraft during a low-level strafing attack on an enemy airfield in Eastern Crimea. In mid-May the Staffel moved north to Konstantinovka with the rest of II. Gruppe and took part in the heavy fighting against Soveit incursions in the Barvenkovo-Izyum-Chuguyev-Kupanysk sector to the south and southeast of Kharkov. Ordered to Kharkov-Rogan in early June for outfitting with the new underbelly MK 101 30mm cannon installation, and took these armor-piercing weapons into action against Soviet tanks retreating from east of Kharkov towards Voronezh on the Don River. Apparently operated without loss until July 1942, when a Hs 129 belonging to 4. Staffelwas reported lost in the Kobyla-Sterya area on July 6th and another Hs 129 was shot down by Russian fighters at Voronezh two days later. No information has come to light about the Staffel's operations or whereabouts from 8 July to mid-December 1942.

Following the Soviet counter-offensive at Stalingrad the Staffel was deployed along the Chir front west of Stalingrad. On 22 December, while the rest of II. Gruppe pulled back to Voroshilovgrad, 4. (Pz) remained forward at Tatsinskaya until Russian tanks approached the airfield two weeks later and then withdrew to Stalino. Two Hs 129s were reportedly lost in action on 27 and 28 December. On 5 January 1943 another Hs 129B-1 crashed, killing the Staka, Oblt. Eduard Kent. After withdrawing to Stalino it was subsequently re-equipped with the new Hs 129B-2, which was just then coming off the production line, and ordered to transfer to Poltava on 14 March and then to Stalino-North during the first half of April. By the beginning of May, the Staffel was flying in support of hard-pressed German ground forces on the Taman Peninsula, southwest of Rostov, losing two Hs 129B-2s near Krymskaya on 8 and 13 May.

In June the Staffel was sent back to Germany, possibly to have all or a number of its B-2s fitted with the new 30mm MK 103 armor-piercing cannon, and then returned and was stationed at Varvarovka for the upcoming Operation "Zitadelle". Losses were heavy in July with seven Hs 129B-2s falling to Soviet AA fire and at least three more heavily damaged between the 12th and 30th. Three pilots were killed and two missing in these engagements. Meanwhile the Staffel had been ordered from Varvarovka to Orel-West around 15 July to bolster the defense against the Soviet counter-attack towards Orel that commenced 13 July. As Soviet forces drove the Germans westward, 4. (Pz) pulled back to Konotop during the first half of August and then moved to Poltava at the end of August. A Hs 129B-2 was destroyed on the ground at Zaporozhye-East during a Soviet low-level air attack on September 5th and another five were lost over the course of the month as the Staffel retreated through the central Ukraine. It was at Kiev-Post Volinski on 21 September, at Askania Nova (123 km WSW of Melitopol) on 30 September, and on 6 October it was ordered to transfer to Orsha on the central sector of the Eastern Front, but there is no evidence that this was carried out. On or about 18 October, it was renamed 10.(Pz)/SG 9. 

II./SchG 1

The II. Gruppe was raised at Lippstadt on 13 January 1942 with 5., and 6. Staffeln equipped with Hs 129B-1s and 7. Staffel with Hs 123As, the latter unit taking over the aircraft of 8. Staffel in April. After formation and workup was completed by the end of April, it was ordered to southern Russia for assignment with Luftflotte 4.
The first combat loss occured on May 9th when a Hs 129B-1 was shot down by Soviet AA fire, possibly over the eastern Crimea. The pilot, Hptm. Max Eck, was listed as missing. In mid-May, while based at Konstantinovka, operations centered on the Izyum Salient and around Stalino. It was there that three Hs 129B-1s were shot down by Russian AA fire on 23 May, a sever blow at this relatively early stage of the war for this newly formed unit.

The main effort shifted to the Kursk area and east towards Voronezh at the end of June and into the first half of July. The Gruppe was temporarily split up during this period with the Staffeln operating independently from Volchansk, Kharkov, Shatalovka, Orel, and Kursk on the central sector of the front. While flying from these airfields 6. Staffel lost two Hs 129B-1s to AA fire on 28 June and three Hs 123As from 7. Staffel failed to return from the Shchigry area northeast of Kursk on 29 June.

From mid-July the Gruppe concentrated on supporting the drive to Stalingrad, moving to Tatsinskaya. Frolov, and Tusov by mid-August. Toward the end of the month 5. Staffel was sent back to Orel and temporarily attached to JG 51. A strength return for 20 September reported a total of 46 Hs 129s and Hs 123s on hand with 28 serviceable. Losses that autumn in the Stalingrad area were very light. Lt. Josef Menapace, Staffelkapitän of 7. Staffel was wounded on 13 September when his Hs 123 was shot up by a Soviet fighter over Stalingrad, and 6. Staffel reported Hs 129 losses on both the 2nd and 11th of November. 7. Staffel received some Bf 109Es during the summer to supplement their stock of Hs 123As.

Meanwhile 5. Staffel was transferred to Jesau, in East Prussia, in October to rest and refit with Hs 129B-2s. It departed for North Africa on 5 November and arrived at Tunis-El Aounina on 29 November after being delayed enroute by bad weather. It flew its first combat mission the next day against British tanks and vehicle columns near Tebourba, followed by numerous successful missions to the end of the month. It was renamed 8.(Pz)/SchG 2 in January 1943. A new 5. Staffel for SchG 1 was formed a few weeks later in Germany with Fw 190s.

The Soviet counter-offensive at Stalingrad on 19 November brought a rapid turn of events. After moving from Millerovo to Frolov and Oblivskaya by November 26th, the Gruppe began a maximum effort around Stalingrad at the cost of at least eight Hs 129Bs, Hs 123As and Bf 109Es lost in ground attack missions or blown up to prevent capture by the on-coming Russians. From around December 6th, the Gruppenstab and 6. Staffel were operating from Rossosh, just west of the Don River and to the northeast of Kharkov, shooting up Russian tanks that were driving deep into the Romanian Third and Italian Eighth Armies, while 7. Staffel appears to have remained in the Stalingrad area with its Hs 123s, flying from Morosovskaya. By the 22nd of December, what was left of II./SchG 1 had pulled back to Voroshilovgrad.

In a summary of the year's operations, II. Gruppe reported flying a total of 3128 Hs 129 sorties, 1532 Hs 123 sorties, and 1938 Bf 109 sorties since formation, claimed 107 aircraft shot down or destroyed, while losing 20 Hs 129s, 16 Bf 109s, and 5 Hs 123s due to enemy action.

While operating from Voroshilovgrad II. Gruppe claimed 13 tanks destroyed. In mid-January 1943 the surviving personnel left for Deblin-Irena in Poland to rest and convert to the Fw 190, except for 7. Staffel which continued to fly the Hs 123. A few Hs 129s and crews from the other Staffeln were also left behind in South Russia. The Gruppenkommandeur, Hptm. Frank Neubert, was shot down and wounded by Soviet AA fire on 30 January near Skurbiy.

Based at Nikolayev-East from 6 February, the conversion to Fw 190A-5s was completed by the first week in March. The Gruppe was then transferred to Pavlograd in the east-central part of the Ukraine for a month of training and workups before moving back to the front in mid-April.

8.(Pz)/SchG 1

8./SchG 1 was renamed from 10.(Sch)/LG 2 on 13 January 1942 at Dugino in central Russia, where it continued to operate under VIII. Fliegerkorps until the beginning of April. It then returned to Germany, disbanded, and was then immediately reestablished with Bf 109E-7s. The Staffel's Hs 123s biplanes were turned over to 7. Staffel. Although 8. (Pz) was organizationally a component of I. Gruppe from 13 January 1942 until the Geschwader's reorganization in January-February 1943, it is carried separately here because of its conversion to the Hs 129 in January-February 1943 and redesignation as a PanzerjŠgerstaffel.
It was transferred to the southeastern part of the Ukraine via Lvov, Poland on May 5th and flew support missions in the fighting around the Izyum Salient in May, but didn't report any losses until July 26th, when a Bf 109E-7 returned to Morosovskaya-West badly damaged after being shot up by a Russian fighter. It remained active in the Stalingrad area with bases at Tusov in September and Morosovskaya in early December, but by mid-December was withdrawn for rest and conversion to the Hs 129, probably in Germany.

It was then redesignated as 8.(Pz)/SchG 1 and was semi-independent. It returned to southern Russia by the end of February and reported some training crashes at Zaparozhye-East on 22 February and at Kharkov on 21 March. At the beginning of April it was sent to the North Caucasus to support operations in the Kuban bridgehead, with bases at Kerch and Anapa. Very heavy losses were suffered in the bitter fighting over the beleaguered Kuban. A Hs 129B-2 went down to AA fire on April 5th, two more were lost in the Krymskaya-Bakanskaya area on 16 April; another on 3 May; two fell to AA fire on May 5th; two more on May 27th and the last was lost to Russian AA fire and fighters on 29 May.

The survivors were withdrawn to Zaporozhye in the southern Ukraine in early June to rest, refit, and re-equip. On 2 July, and now back to strength, 8. (Pz) was transferred to Mikoyanovka, 8 kilometers southwest of Belgorod, for Operation "Zitadelle", the German offensive against the Kursk salient. Losses were again heavy as the Staffel pounded Soviet armor east of Kursk. As the Germans were forced over to the defensive at the height of the battle, the Staffel was ordered to Orel-West around 15 July to help blunt the powerful Soviet counter-attack toward Orel that had begun two days before. By the end of July it was based at Karachev, about 75 kilometers west-northwest of Orel, probably at Konotop during August and then moved to Poltava around the beginning of September. From there the Staffel was committed in the fierce rear guard fighting between Kharkov and Kiev before transferring on 21 September to Zaporozhye. After losing five Hs 129B-2s over the course of the month, the next move was to Kiev on or about 30 September as the Soviet spearheads approached Zaporozhye. While based at Kiev 8. (Pz) was renamed 11.(Pz)/SG 9 in October 1943.


----------



## GT (Jun 5, 2005)

Update.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

And the Hs-129 did not fare well in the desert... the sand was impossible to deal with, concerning those wonderful french engines... After 2 weeks, the units deployed there were rendered useless....

But they did have some effect on the Brit tanks down there. Cant find much info on that.........

Yet..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 5, 2005)

but at the same time we had hurricane Mk.IIDs destroying entire colums of axis armour out there..........


----------



## 361st_Xabre (Jun 5, 2005)

Interesting that you say the IL2 was a piece of scrap metal, yet in the history books ,and by the way an old Tiger Tank driver that that happens to be the Grand father of the lady Im dating ...Every time the Sturmoviks came in to straff most of the time the poor bastards in the tanks would scramble for cover leaving thier tanks until either thier tanks were toast or until the IL2's were done and left. So Im thinking the IL2,s did thier job which was to take out the tanks and strike terror in thier crews...Job well dome me thinks.

X


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

I think the IL-2 was the best at this. 8) Warm welcome to the site too


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

> Interesting that you say the IL2 was a piece of scrap metal


Dont think ull see many guys here saying that..... It wasnt... It wasnt the greatest aircraft out there, but it did what it was designed to do, kill tanks, quite effectively too.....

Imagine if the VVS actually gained air-superiority over the East.... Unfortunatly they couldnt, and many Many MANY Sturmovicks and their crews got smoked by the Luftwaffe.... Great plane against AA. Not so great against -109's and -190's tho......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

The fighter version of the IL2 was a pretty good bomber-killer too...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Yup, and an all around good ground attack aircraft...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 5, 2005)

And the IL-10 was better still, being developed from the failed IL-1 fighter...


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

Il-2's against Tigers........bull crap ! Agsint ground troops and MT yes.

I'll still take the Ju87G-1 or even the Fw 190F with Panzerblitz. Actually the Me 262A-1a over everything that has been listed, must have the Panzerblitz rockets installed though


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

> I'll still take the Ju87G-1 or even the Fw 190F with Panzerblitz. Actually the Me 262A-1a over everything that has been listed, must have the Panzerblitz rockets installed though


I almost agree.... The -262A-1a didnt have enough on station time for me to desire it to pick out and execute tanks... But I go with u on the Ju 87G-2 (not 1) and the 190F-8 Panzerblitz I... Hell yea 88mm rockets.........


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

remember the G-2 just had a longer wingspan and nothing else. The Panzerstaffeln used both. I am still researching the last dark days of JG 7 with those altered R4M's. all I can say now is it was brutal when they let off a slavo agasint Soviet armor and then followed up with the 4 3cm weapons on MT and truppen.................Yikes


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Hell yea. Actually the difference between the G-1 and G-2 were alittle more involved...

The G-1 was based on the 87D-3 airframe, while the G-2 was based on the D-5...

The differences between the 2 Dora models were deleted wing dive brakes, a wing with tapering and extension, fixed armament changed to 2x 20mm MG 151/20, reinforced ground observation panel in the cockpit floor, mass balanced ailerons, undercarriage jettison facility and a revised bomb rack...

From what ive read, the G-2 was slightly more manouverable than the G-1, and with the Stuka, the more the FREAKIN better....


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

the G-1 and G-2 did not have dive brakes nor 2cm cannon as it was not needed. The diffence was a slight armor modifications around the cockpit and radio whichw as a abit more advnaced than the G-1. the D-3 and D-5 airframes did not have really much diffenrce either but did include armor where needed-increased and the 2cm guns. this is readily apparent on the nachtshclact D's used by these forces to bust up Soviet and Us/British crossroads traffic in 44-45. There was not D-7 nor D-8 variant. yes this is blowing the history books away that are covering the bird but it is fact. wish Matin Pegg would get his act together and publish his monument to the Ju 87 gruppen like he did the Hs 129 some years back


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

> the G-1 and G-2 did not have dive brakes nor 2cm cannon as it was not needed.


I agree.... Anything that the G-2 added to increase my life expectancy and give me the ability to kill more of those flithy communists in their little tanks the better.... I mean seriously... I wish I could have had that bathtub of armor around me in my G-2 like the Hs-129 did... MAN!


> this is readily apparent on the nachtshclact D's used by these forces to bust up Soviet and Us/British crossroads traffic in 44-45.


And man, what a job they did...... Those 37mm.... Bang bang bang...

God I love this video clip. Thanks to whoever posted it.......


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

Les I cannot get mpegs for some stupid reason, can U get it into wmv file cause that I can open.

man I must be tired today after work my spelling really sucks


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Hmmm... lemme try. I dont have any program worth a crap for vid, but gimme a sec.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

OK here ya go. try this...


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

very good Les ! yes this is the file from Detusche Wocheschau that is suppose to be G's attacking JS 1's in Hungary. Well at least we see a Ju 87G attacking some thing and some derelict JS 1's but no apparent 3.7cm cannon round damage. typical propaganda footage but very cool anyway


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Yea, i was disapointed when there wasnt any real footage showing the JS2 gettin blasted, but i still love the clip none the less... The puffs of smoke and the sound.....


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

well one day I will get the footage of some 4 Ju87 G's taking out 6 T-34's to post here. Again on the Deutsche Wochenschau footage

A steep angle of attack and down and up with the twin 37mm's tearing the heart out of these tanks. Again proving when caught out in the open with no mobil AA you are dead meat


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

> well one day I will get the footage of some 4 Ju87 G's taking out 6 T-34's to post here


Hopefully sooner than later... Now ur gonna have me searching the internet trying to find it.......


> Again proving when caught out in the open with no mobil AA you are dead meat.



But damn if them Russians didnt have a crap load of AA..... It seems like anything that could support a AA gun, did.... I remember, awhile ago, seeing this Russian truck with 4 AA weapons on it... Crazy....


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 5, 2005)

i think the IL-2 is one of the greatest tank killers, beacause of its cannon that could penetrate most tank armor. i also think that the ju-87 is a good one too. but i cant really debate beetween them. but beetween those two, i would pick the IL-2.


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 5, 2005)

i really dont think i can really debate. how many bombs can a IL-2 Carry?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

You're right, les, the Soviets put AA on anything and everything that could carry it. Apart from their home grown hybrid designs they also had U.S delivered M16 AA GMCs (Quad .50s on a M5 Halftrack)


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 5, 2005)

i like the ju too
why were the russians short of aa


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

I honestly don't know. They had great ideas of the principles of mobile warfare but they lacked everything but the tank to put it into practice. They lacked mobile-AA and trucks! Both of which were largely supplied by the US and UK. 

I assume because they had the largest air force in the world in 1941 they believed they could effectively hold air superiority. The Germans didn't begin designed mobile AA until they lost air superiority over the West. So, it's probably the same thing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Ummm they werent...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

Weren't, what?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

The Russians werent short of AA is what I meant...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

I thought he was talking about mobile AA. AA they had loads of and a hell of a mixture too!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

I really didnt understand what he was talking about... English second language thing.......

Everytime I start reading about ground attack missions in Russia and what not, there are always losses to groundfire... Always... 

It really is amazing just how many German Aircraft were shot down by Russian AA gunners... I read somewhere that there was a Russian Gun Captain with over 100 aircraft to his credit... He died when a plane he shot down crashed into his gun bunker... Dont know if theres any truth to it, but i was a pretty good read.....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

Christ, that's quite a tally. The Soviets certainly stacked up the AA. Some of their mobile AA units were just trucks with an 85mm on the back. Who needs designs and drawings? There's a 5-ton truck, stick a gun on the back and BAM you've got a mobile AA.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

Hell yea..... Farm boys who have been shootin rabbits for 16 years are now firing at Stukas and -190's...


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2005)

the truck captain and crew is from old.....myth. I doubt more than 10 as he would of been gun fodder sooner or later. The typcial was a tri-Fla arrangement on the back of lend lease Ford truck flatbeds. the German schlachtgruppen loved to hammer these things into pieces knowing quite full well they were the biggest opponent to them not the mid altitude Soviet AF. Considering too with the lend-lease the Soviets single-handely defeated the German Wehrmacht................har har


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2005)

> the truck captain and crew is from old.....myth. I doubt more than 10 as he would of been gun fodder sooner or later.


I would agree with u, but i read it from a so called "reliable" source..... Maybe propogandaish, but i believe that some may have gotten more than just 10....


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2005)

What are you talking about, Erich!?!?!??!?!?!?!? THE SOVIETS DIDN'T NEED THAT LEND-LEASE...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 6, 2005)

that's the thing, everyone always talks about russia's huge ammount of arms in WWII, the men were Russian, but people seem to forget that allot of their equiptment came from their allies........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

They were only mobilised because of the 506,000 trucks sent by the U.S. That's just one thing and it probably had the greatest impact on the Soviet war effort. 

It wouldn't have been a mobile war if they they didn't have those trucks.


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2005)

how about all those Shermans as well with many becoming cannon fodder on the Ost front. The B-25 outstanding to anyting the Soviets could muster as to the way of a fast bomber. A sneeky and often deadly twin engine used at night


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 6, 2005)

i barely know much about russia. i usually pay attention to germans, americans, and japanese. i know quite a few things about those coutries. where did russia get there arms, other allies? or did they produce there own?


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 6, 2005)

i was talking about mobile aa.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2005)

The Soviet Union mainly produced tanks and aircraft. None of which were technologically advanced, let's be honest. They were rugged designs of easy maintenence and build. 
The T-34, the Soviet MBT, was comparable in everything to the M4 Sherman. By that I mean it got burnt with ease by the Wehrmacht tanks but it over-whelmed them with far superior numbers. 

Aircraft, the same. 

Almost everything else was supplied by the Allies. We sent them oil, food, trucks, jeeps, APCs, boots, coats, radios, telephone wire, metal roads, guns, tanks, aircraft. 

The Arctic Convoys going to Murmansk and ArchAngel'sk delivered, well, here's some numbers; 16 percent of Soviet tank production, 12 percent of Self-propelled guns (that includes mobile-AA) and 100 percent of armoured personel carrier production. 

In 1941, 487 Matildas, Valentines and Tetrachs were received from Britain and 182 M3A1 Light Tanks (Stuarts) and M3 Medium Grants. A year later it had risen to 2487 from Britain and 3023 from the U.S. 

Britain and her empire diverted 14% of her total war production to the Soviet Union. 

The U.S supplied 501,660 'trucks which consisted of 77,972 Jeeps, 151,053 1 ton trucks and 200,662 2 ton trucks. 

All together Britain, Canada and the U.S provided the Soviet Union with 22,800 armoured vehicles. 

The Soviet Union received 342 M2 Half-Tracks, 2 M3s, 421 M5s and 413 M9s. For those who don't know the different marks largely depended on the size, in those. 
They also received (I thought it was M16s) 1000 M17s and 100 M15A1s. M17s look like that M16 I showed and carried the same quad Browning .50 cal. The M15 carried a single auto-matic 37mm. Mobile AA. 

I have loads of numbers of the individual tanks but I'm not going through them all. Interestingly enough though at the Battle of Prokhorovka, part of the Kursk battle, the only heavy tanks available to the 5th Guards Tank Army were 35 Churchills. 

No matter what Soviet propaganda may tell, the Soviet tank crews liked many of the Allied tanks, especially the M4A2 Sherman and Infantry Mk.III Valentine.

I forgot aircraft but the only numbers I know are 3000 Hurricane IIB and Cs and 1,300 Spitfire Vbs. Also, a few Hurricane IID and IVs - I think around 60 IID and IVs but I'll have to find my source to remind me.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

Good info...


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 7, 2005)

cool


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 7, 2005)

my brtother died in iraq, me and him really loved ww2. he said that he really hated the russian weapons and aircraft. my opinion is that the 
yak aircraft were the suckiest ww2 aircraft.


----------



## trackend (Jun 7, 2005)

Im sorry at your loss Dino

That was and Excellent post D alot of valuable info.

Just one add on who,s that stooging overhead from the escort carriers helping to keep the U-boats away from that convoy full of supplies well bugger me it's those old Stringbags again.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

wow i never knew russians got their hands on our hurricane Mk.IIDs, that'd be quite a site..........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

_Tank Buster - the Mk IID in the USSR. 

The aid to the USSR also included the Mk IID. The story behind these deliveries had it roots in correspondence between Churchill and Stalin in mid-1943. Churchill mentioned the excellent results of using Hurricane IIDs against German armour in North Africa. Stalin liked that idea and asked Churchill to send Mk IIDs to the USSR. These came from RAF units in North Africa. Disassembled aircraft were shipped by sea from Bizerte to Basra, where the crates were unloaded. The aircraft were reassembled and checked. Then they were handed over to pilots of 6 PIAP. From Basra they were ferried by air via Tehran to Kirovabad. There the aircraft were handed over to 11 ZBAP. 
First Hurricane IIDs arrived on 4 September 1943. Of the promised 60 aircraft the Russians received only 46. In addition the Soviets received several dozen (most probably 30) Mark IVs. 
Some Mk IIDs and Mk IVs were allocated to 441 IAP in 106 IAD PVO, based near Bolovoye. The aircraft were used operationally there in 1943/44. They made numerous interception missions against enemy aircraft (often by night). None of these sorties resulted in a success. Another unit equipped solely with Mk I IDs was 246 IAP at Adjikabul (in Azerbaijan). This regiment received the largest number, 37 machines. After seven months of preparations it was sent to the front line on 30 June 1944. In early July 1944 246 IAP became part of 215 IAD reporting to 16 VA. The unit failed to take part in fighting._


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 7, 2005)

wow, very interesting.........


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2005)

Plan it would be interesting if any of these modified a/c were shot down by German night fighters ? All I have is listings for biplanes and twin engine bombers from NJG 100 during their fight on the Ost front


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

It would be interesting as I have no clue what happened to the IV and IIDs. Only 1,000 Hurricane IIA and B were modified by the Soviet Union, they increased the cockpit armour and replaced the eight Browning .303cal with two ShVAK 20mm cannon and two UBT 12.7mm HMG.

What I'm quite interested in is, if the Il-2 was highly regarded by Stalin and the Soviet Union as being a remarkable tank destroyer why did Stalin jump at the chance of getting Hurricane IID and IV?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

Cause Stalin knew the truth........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

The few IID and IV that went out to the Soviet Union didn't have much success though. I think the VVS spent a long time preparing their pilots...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

Possibly proves the competence level of Brit pilots to Russian ones????


----------



## plan_D (Jun 7, 2005)

Possibly. It must be remembered that there's no where to hide in the desert and the Desert Air Force had air superiority over North Africa. I don't understand why the VVS used the Hurricane IID in night fighting duties...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 7, 2005)

I was alittle confused about that as well......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

maybe thry thought as we used some hurricanes as nightfighters for a short period of time, they could go one better.........


----------



## plan_D (Jun 8, 2005)

The Soviet Union only had a few IIC, they mostly had IIA (Eight Browning .303cal) and IIB (Twelve Browning .303cal). The only ones modified were the IIA with extra armament, as mentioned before. 

Yes, it may look like I'm arguing with myself but I'm just informing as I read more on the subject! I haven't found anything more about the IID and IV.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

dinos7 said:


> my brtother died in iraq, me and him really loved ww2. .



As a fellow Iraq veteran I would like to give my deepest sympothies for you and your family. I am sorry for your loss.

If you do not mind me asking you what unit was he with and where was he based ouf of?. (you can PM it to me if you would like)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

yes i too should have offered my condolences, it always saddens member here when they hear about lost loved ones........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

Amen


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 10, 2005)

well my brother was in the 3rd id 2nd brgd combat team. he was killed by a missle on his way to baghdad. im only 12 and i cant believe i lost him.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 10, 2005)

Sorry for ur loss... I was in Iraq during the first War, and have my best friends over there right now...... Its very very hard to compensate for a loss such as yours, but always remember, he gave his life so that u and I and CC and Skim and Adler and Lanc and evan and erich and planD and GrG and Pips and Hotspace, and all of us here, we can live ours...


> he said that he really hated the russian weapons and aircraft. my opinion is that the
> yak aircraft were the suckiest ww2 aircraft.


Hmmm... Not sure why he would have hated them, as alot of them were equal if not better than the other Allied Nations... The earlier Yak aircraft were a joke, but the later on Yaks were good aircraft... Yakolev was in Stalins back pocket, so he got what he wanted... Too bad Lavochkin didnt get that kind of treatment....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Sorry for ur loss... I was in Iraq during the first War, and have my best friends over there right now...... Its very very hard to compensate for a loss such as yours, but always remember, he gave his life so that u and I and CC and Skim and Adler and Lanc and evan and erich and planD and GrG and Pips and Hotspace, and all of us here, we can live ours...
> 
> 
> > Very well said Les!
> ...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 19, 2005)

KW-1 blasted by 30 mm fire from Henschel HS-129.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2005)

Nice pics would suck to be the guys in there.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 19, 2005)

better than being hit by the A-10........


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2005)

not really ! tungsten cored rounds banging and exploding shrapnel all inside...........

your dead and your dead anyway you look at it


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2005)

And it's KV-1 not KW-1.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 19, 2005)

I think the concept of going into battle in a steel coffin to be reprehensible... Id rather be on my feet in a fire fight.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 20, 2005)

Nice pics CB 8) And thats only a 30mm shell, dread to think what the BK 7,5 equipped variants done.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> I think the concept of going into battle in a steel coffin to be reprehensible... Id rather be on my feet in a fire fight.....



Agreed you have hardly an escape rought.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

obviously i have no cambat experience, but i, as i stand now, would proberly feel safer in a tank than on foot, especailly in a modern day situation where tanks are so much harder to destroy...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

Not really. Tanks are a big target and the first thing the enemy tries to take out. In the present conditions such as Iraq even the M-1 Abrams is a pretty easy target to get. New RPG's are able to punch through its armor and even some of the road side bombs are getting through them. 

Being said if you are on foot you are able to move around and hide more, the tank is just large of a target and everyone wants to get you.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 20, 2005)

but atleast you wont get taken out by small arms fire


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2005)

True but that is the least of my worries in Iraq.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 20, 2005)

I was more concerned with morters, artillery, and RPGs than small arms fire..... I got my PH from a piece of shrapnel from an artillery round....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Yeah my biggest worry was RPG's. Everyone has one in there backyard!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

The tank has a presence that strikes fear into ill-trained combatants. The modern RPGs penertration values claim they can punch through the M1 Abrams, but it's just not true. The Abrams has to be hit several times before being destroy, I've seen many clips of Abrams pulling back on fire after being struck by three, four or five RPGs. The fact that they're pulling back means they're not knocked out and at least some of the crew are still alive. 

The tank works in conjunction with the infantry, in the city situations like in Iraq the infantry should be clearing those backyards for the tanks to roll through. The tanks should only be called upon to destroy enemy strongholds from afar, like that M2 Bradley did in that video of Marines in Fallujah that les showed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The tank has a presence that strikes fear into ill-trained combatants. The modern RPGs penertration values claim they can punch through the M1 Abrams, but it's just not true.



While I was there it happened twice that an M-1 was taken out by an RPG. 
2 M-1's!

Here is a report on the Abrams armour.



> Details of the M1 losses were given, including one where 25mm armour-piercing depleted uranium (AP-DU) rounds from an unidentified weapon disabled a US tank near Najaf after penetrating the engine compartment. Another Abrams was disabled near Karbala after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) penetrated the rear engine compartment and one was lost in Baghdad after its external auxiliary power unit was set on fire by medium-calibre fire.
> 
> Left and right side non-ballistic skirts were repeatedly penetrated by anti-armour RPG fire, according to the report, but only cosmetic damage was caused when they were struck by anti-personnel RPG rounds. There were no reported hits on ballistic skirts and no reported instance of US tanks hitting an anti-tank mine. Turret ammunition blast doors worked as designed. In one documented instance where a turret-ready ammunition rack compartment was hit and main gun rounds ignited, the blast doors contained the explosion and crew survived unharmed except for fume inhalation.
> http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030620_1_n.shtml


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

If it was one it was a lucky hit, or a very skillful hit. I'm not going to deny that it is possible but it is hard.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

Oh I agree with you 100%. However even the M-1 which is the best MBT out there is vulnerable to even RPG fire.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2005)

That is the reason why close co-operation between infantry and armour is essential, especially in built up areas.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2005)

That is true. That is one reason why the Blitzkrieg worked so well at first. The Germans were able to perfect the Panzer, Infantry and aerial support tactics of there armed forces. Ofcourse this only worked as long as you were able to keep moving fast.


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 27, 2005)

For Best Tank Killer:

Germany - Focke Wulf FW 190F or Junkers Ju 87G (Twin 37mm) Stuka
Russia - IL-2 Stormovik 
United Kingdom - Hawker Hurricane IID (Twin 40mm Vickers)
United States - Republic P-47D Thunderbolt

I know my lists is not good, but at least they destroyed several tanks well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

I will agree with completly for Germany, Russia, and the United States but I think the best tank killer for England would have been the Typhoon. Yeah she had some problems but she was more capable of it.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Since he put Fw-190F and Ju-87G for Germany, you could say Hurricane IID IV and Typhoon for Britain. And what about the Fw-190G?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

No you are right too, I just should have added the Typhoon.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

The G variant wasnt used for Panzerblitz operations... The F-8 was the best variant for the Tank Busting Duties with those sexy 88mm Rockets...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

The G was still a good ground attack aircraft though wasn't it? Wasn't it!?! I don't know, I've never read anything about the G beyond "Fighter/Bomber...much like the F"


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 28, 2005)

I forgot to add Canada on the lists:

Canada: Hawker Typhoon IB "Tiffy"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 28, 2005)

that would come under Britian, as, it's a british aircraft


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

The G was an excellent ground attack bird.... It had the capability to carry wing tanks, with the loss of the cowl mounted machine guns for weight considerations.... It only had the 2x 20mm left over...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Would have made a good escort fighter then, I suppose...

...that being if the Luftwaffe needed one, which they didn't by 1943...or whenever the G came about.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

Unfortunatly, it wouldnt. The extra weight of the armor plating made this bird good for one thing.... 

Blasting the living shiit outta the Russian columns, while having a top cover of Bf-109G's circling overhead... They held their own in dogfighting the Russians, but with thier ordinance dropped... Big Fat Fuel Heavy 190s were easy prey to Yak-3's and La-7's.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

The different varients of the F and G series Fw-190's:

Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-1 The Fw 190F was a dedicated close-support fighter, and was a production line model of the Fw 190A-5/U3, with a strengthened landing gear and fitted with 1 × ETC 501 center fuselage rack, and 4 × ETC 50 underwing racks. Max bomb load was 1,984 lb (900 kg), optionally increased to 2,646 lb (1.200 kg) under special circumstances as the ETC 501 rack was able to carry a 2,205 lb (1.000 kg) load. Also, the Fw 190F-series had improved protection in the form of some 794 lb (360 kg) of armor for the pilot, engine and oil tank. This model was based on the Fw 190A-4, rather than the Fw 190A-5 
Number built: 25 to 30 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-2 First true F-series production. Based on the airframe of the Fw 190A-5 but generally similar to the Fw 190F-1 with the exception of its revised cockpit canopy and modified disposable armament capability. The cockpit was based on a single-piece sliding section of the blown type that bulged upward slightly to offer more headroom and also improve the aerodynamics of the upper fuselage. The modification of the bomb-load resulted from provision for an ER-4 supplementary rack to be installed on the ETC 501 underfuselage rack to carry 4 × 110 lb (50 kg) SC-50 bombs as an alternative to a single larger bomb. One conversion existed. 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190F-2/Trop Tropicalized with dust/sand filters for service in Tunisia and in southern Italy 


Number built: 271 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-3 Based on the airframe of the Fw 190A-6, fitted with 2 × ETC 250 racks in stead of 4 × ETC 50 racks under the wings. These racks could each carry a single 551 lb (250 kg) SC-250 bomb or 66 Imp gal (79.25 US gal; 300 liter) drop tank. 

Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):

Fw 190F-3/R1 Simplified bomb-release gear 
Fw 190F-3/R3 Tank-buster version with 2 × 30 mm MK 103 under the wings 


Number built: about 250 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-8 Designated Fw 190F-8 (in stead of Fw 190F-4) to synchronise on the Fw 190A series. Armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 guns in stead of 2 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17's. Further features include an improved fuel-injection system, revised radio equipment, provision for 25.3 Imp gal (30.4 US gal; 115 liters) of auxiliary fuel in a 30.4 US gal (25.3 Imp gal; 115 liter) rear-fuselage tank, and a modified bomb-release system capable of dropping of the bombs in a single salvo or a number of ‘sticks’.
A lot of Fw 190F-8's could also be fitted with 24 × 2.16 in (55 mm) R4/M rockets, or 14 × 220 lb (100 kg) RBS B/F21 rocket bombs, or two clusters of 3 × 9.84 in (280 mm) WGr.28 rockets, or Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets in 2.16, 3.07 and 5.12 in (55, 78 and 130 mm) calibers, or large numbers of small anti-personnel bomblets 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190F-8/U1 Two-seat tandem advanced trainer. Uncertainty exists over whether or not this version was actually built or not 
Fw 190F-8/U2 Torpedo-fighters with provision for the 882 lb (400 kg) BT 400, 1,543 lb (700 kg) BT 700 or 3,086 lb (1.400 kg) BT 1400 torpedo-bomb 
Fw 190F-8/U3 Torpedo-fighters with provision for the 882 lb (400 kg) BT 400, 1,543 lb (700 kg) BT 700 or 3,086 lb (1.400 kg) BT 1400 torpedo-bomb (like above) 
Fw 190F-8/U14 Torpedo-fighter, with provision for the LT F5b torpedoes. 
Fw 190F-8/U15 Torpedo-fighter, with provision for the 2,094 lb (950 kg) LT 900 torpedo. 



Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):

Fw 190F-8/R1 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon as well as underwing bombs on 4 × ETC 71 racks. 
Fw 190F-8/R2 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon in underwing gondolas. 
Fw 190F-8/R3 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 103 underwing cannon for tank-busting operations. 
Fw 190F-8/R13 Nocturnal ground-attack fighter, fitted with additional navigation equipment and armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and up to 3,307 lb (1.500 kg) of disposable stores carried on 1 × ETC 501 underfuselage rack and 2 × ETC 503 underwing racks 
Fw 190F-8/R14 Torpedo-fighter, powered by 1 × BMW 801TU radial, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) for take-off. It featured the PKS 12 radio navigation system, and was armed with 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and one LT F5b torpedo carried on an ETC 502 underfuselage rack. 
Fw 190F-8/R15 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/R14, but with the standard 1 × BMW 801D-2 engine and a 3,086 lb (1400 kg) LT 1400 torpedo-bomb. 
Fw 190F-8/R16 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/15, but with a 1,543 lb (700 kg) LT 700 torpedo-bomb. 


Number built: 385 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-9 Parallell to the F-8 series, the F-9 series had differences such as improved armor. It was powered by 1 × BMW 601TS/TH turbocharged engine, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) for take-off and 2,270 hp (1.692,5 kW) with the MW 50 methanol/water power-boost system. It had the same Umrüst-Bausätze and Rüstsätze as the Fw 190F-8 (See above).
Further development of the Fw 190F series was stopped because of the defeat of Germany. 
Number built: unknown 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-0 Pre-production model of the Fw 190G long-range fighter-bomber series. In essence it was the production version of the Fw 190A-4/U8 and Fw 190A-5/U3. The extra fuel meant a sacrifice of two fuselage-mounted guns to leave the 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots as the only fixed armament. Provision for attachments of 2 × 66 Imp gal (79.25 US gal; 300 liter) drop tanks under the wings were made. The Fw 190G-0 was additionally fitted with an ETC 501 rack under the fuselage to carry a 2,205 lb (1.000 kg) SC-1000 or 1,102 lb (500 kg) SC-500 bomb. 
Number built: unknown 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-1 First G-series production version. It was based on the Fw 190A-4’s airframe, and was similar to the Fw 190G-0 except for its strengthened main landing gear, max weight of 10,472 lb (4.750 kg) with a 3,968 lb (.1800 kg) SC-1800 bomb whose lower fin had to be cropped to provide adequate ground clearance at take-off. The powerplant remained was the 1 × BMW 801D-2 radial, rated at 1,700 hp (1.267,5 kW) for take-off and 1,440 hp (1.074 kW) at 18,700 ft (5.700 m) in the original type of short-nose installation that resulted in an overall length of 28 ft 10.5 in (8.80 m). The max level speed was 351 mph (565 km/h) at optimum altitude, the cruising speed was 289 mph (465 km/h) at optimum altitude, and it had a range of 652 miles (1.050 km) with two 66 Imp gal (79.25 US gal; 300 liter) drop tanks. One conversion existed. 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190G-1/Trop Fitted with dust/sand filters for use in North Africa, Italy and the USSR 


Number built: 49 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-2 The Fw 190G-2 was a simple development of the Fw 190G-1 based on the airframe of the Fw 190A-5 with its longer nose section for an overall length of 29 ft 4.25 in (8,95 m). It also had Messerschmitt-designed racks for the underwing drop tanks, which provided for a maximum range of 963 miles (1.550 km). One conversion existed. 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190G-1/Trop Fitted with dust/sand filters for use in North Africa, Italy and the USSR 


Number built: 468 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-3 Equal to the Fw 190G-2, but with the incorporation of the PKS 11 autopilot, use of underwing racks designed by Focke-Wulf and incorporation of balloon cable-cutters in the wing leading edges 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190G-3/Trop Fitted with dust/sand filters for use in North Africa, Italy and the USSR 



Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):

Fw 190G-3/R5 An additional 4 × ETC 50 racks under the wings to carry 4 × 100 lb (50 kg) SC-50 bombs 


Number built: unknown 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-4 Equal to the Fw 190G-3, but with 3 × ETC 503 underwing racks 

Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets):

Fw 190G-4/Trop Fitted with dust/sand filters for use in North Africa, Italy and the USSR 


Number built: unknown 
Focke-Wulf Fw 190G-8 Based on the airframe of the Fw 190A-8 with its 25.3 Imp gal (30.4 US gal; 115 liter) auxiliary tank. 

Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):

Fw 190G-8/R4 Powered by 1 × BMW 801D-2 engine with the GM 1 nitrous oxide power-boost system. 
Fw 190G-8/R5 Powered by 1 × BMW 801TU engine, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) for take-off and carrying four ETC 50 underwing racks in addition to the ETC 501 underfuselage rack. 


Number built: unknown 


All taken from: http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/fockfw190.html


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

> Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-3 Based on the airframe of the Fw 190A-6, fitted with 2 × ETC 250 racks in stead of 4 × ETC 50 racks under the wings. These racks could each carry a single 551 lb (250 kg) SC-250 bomb or 66 Imp gal (79.25 US gal; 300 liter) drop tank.
> 
> Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):
> 
> ...



FOCKE-WULF 190F-3
The Fw 190F version development program also included other A-5 version modifications: Fw 190A-5/U10, A-5/U11, A-5/U12 and A-5/U17. The last became a prototype for the Fw 190F-3 that was introduced into series production in May 1943. 
The main production model was the F-3/R1 plane equipped with four (2x2) underwing mounted ETC 50 bomb racks and under-fuselage mounted ETC 501 adapted for bombs or an auxiliary 300 liters fuel tank. Numerous planes of this version were fitted with desert equipment (F- 3/R1/tp). 

The next plane would have been the Fw 190F-3/R3 with two 30 mm MK 103 canons mounted under the wings. It was not produced because of negative test results from the similarly armed Fw 190A-5/U11 (W.Nr. 151303), which was too heavy. In addition it was realized that the MK 103 cannon munitions could not penetrate Russian T-34 tank armor. Only three Fw 190F-3/R3 with two MK 103 cannons were built. 

The A-5/U10 wing was adopted for the F series and also in the A-6 and following versions. Since the Fw 190A-5/U12 armed with 6 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons was found capable of destroying only lightly armored targets, the further development of this version in the F series was abandoned.

FOCKE-WULF 190F-8
This model was produced in greatest numbers of the all of the F series planes. It was produced based on the A-8 plane airframe. Production started in March 1944 in the Arado factory in Warnemunde and in the April 1944 in the NDW-Wismar factory. 
The Fw 190F-8 was powered by a BMW 801 D-2 engine variant adapted for C3 (96 octane) fuel. An additional injector in the left supercharger inlet for emergency short term (10-15 min) engine power increase during flight under 1000 m altitude was standard equipment. Most of the equipment was the same as in the Fw 190A-8. From April 1944, the FuG 16 ZS radio set, adapted for direct communication with units on the battlefield was introduced in place of the FuG 16 ZY . Only a few planes (compared with previous versions) had a desert equipment including an anti-dust filter. In the second half of 1944, a widened rear cockpit canopy was added with the A-8 plane. The purpose of this modification was to improve the pilot's side-forward visibility, important during fighterbomber missions. Armament consisted of two 13 mm MG 131 machine guns mounted in the fuselage and two 20 mm MG 151/20 E cannons in the wings. 

Most of the early production series F-8 planes had the additional armor used since the F-3 airframes. For weight reduction and improvement in flight characteristics it was not used in later F-8s. These planes had only the standard Fw 180 A-8 armor. Because the under-fuselage ETC 501 bomb rack was a standard item in A-8 planes all F-8 planes got it as well but without the stabilizers for the droppable fuel tank.

In the beginning of 1944, due to the difficult situation on the Eastern Front, the Luftwaffe was in desperate need of an attack plane with armament capable of destroying armored vehicles including heavily armored tanks (heavy tanks). In this situation, it became vital to arm Fw 190F planes with offensive armaments other than bombs. This was not an easy task, because the Luftwaffe had not developed weapon systems adaptable for mounting in light fighter planes. The only way to solve this problem was by trial and error until the proper armament could be find. First tested on the Fw 190F was the 280 mm mortar W.Gr. 28/32 with high explosive warhead. This missile was judged as unusable because of it's unstable and highly curved flight path that made it impossible to aim them into the targets. Next tested was the Panzerschreck 1 missile launcher combined into two three barreled units mounted under wings on ETC 50 or ETC 70 bomb racks. Each missile had a hollow-charge warhead. They were soon replaced by the more modern Panzerschreck 2 (PD 8.8) launchers combined in units consisting of two launchers with 88 mm missiles with hollow-charge warheads that could be fired individually or in salvos. Equipped in this manner, a Fw 190F-8 (W.Nr. 580383) was tested by Major Eggers at Udetfeld Air Base. The results obtained were satisfactory but there were also some disadvantages like the missile's short (137 m) range and limited accuracy. Despite this, in October 1944 a small number of Panzerschreck 2 equipped planes were delivered to service units on the Eastern Front.

In December 1944, the highly efficient missile Panzerblitz 1 (Pb 1) system consisting of six and, more often, eight R4M air-to-air missiles. They were adapted for tank destroying by mounting an 80 mm M8 type warhead for an armor penetration of up to 90 mm. Using the Pb 1 unit it was possible to destroy tanks at a 200 m distance. The only limitation was a maximum speed of 490 km/hr, not to be exceeded during missile firing (in a salvo of eight or in pairs). Up to February 1945 the Luftwaffe received 115 Fw 190F-8/Pb 1 planes.

The successor to the Pb 1 unit was the Panzerblitz 2 (Pb 2) unit. The main difference between them was the replacement of the M8 warhead by a hollow-charge warhead able to penetrate up to 180 mm armor. Also developed was the new missile system Panzerblitz 3 (Pb 3) with a 210 mm hollow-charge warhead, but it was not operational by the end of the war. The same situation applied with the AG 140 (Abschussgerat 140) missile system consisting of units with two 210 mm missile launchers different from Pb 3. The AG 140 system was tested on the following three Fw 190F-8 planes designated as prototypes: V78 (W.Nr. 551103), V79 (W.Nr. 583303) and V80 (W.Nr. 586600).

Apart from the previously described missile systems on the Fw 190F-8 plane, other weapon systems for ground attack were tested (e.g. doubled SG 113 A Forstersonde missile launchers mounted obliquely inside the wings directed downward. Firing performed automatically using Forestersonde magnetic field detection principle, when the plane flew over the tank. In October 1944, at the research facility FGZ (Forschungsansalt Graf Zeppelin) this device was mounted on the prototype Fw 190 V75 (W.Nr. 582071) and W.Nr. 586586 planes. In December 1944, system was also mounted on the Fw 190 (W.Nr. 933452). This system was found to have low accuracy, so development was abandoned shortly.

In June 1944, the development team commanded by Col. Haupt (Versuchsgruppe Oberst Haupt) prepared a special Gero II type flamethrower in three versions: A, B and C. The device was for attacking ground targets. In February 1945, preparatory work began, by the application of additional fuselage bottom cowlings, on a Fw 190F-8 to mount the flame-thrower. There is still no evidence that this project was realized.

Authorities decided that flight tests with the wire guided air-to-air Ruhrstahl X-4 (Ru 322) missile, probably with modified ground attack warheads, would be carried out on F-8 planes. For the test two prototypes were used: Fw 190 V69 (W.Nr. 582072), V70 (W.Nr. 580029) and three serial production F-8 planes: W.Nr. 583431, 583438 and 584221. During these flights the more modern Ruhrstahl X-7 (Ru-374) Rotkappchen and Henschel 298 missiles were tested as well. Tests were carried out with the unpowered BV 246 (LT 950) Hagelkorn flying bomb. Probably by Fw 190V20.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 28, 2005)

The F was basically an uparmoured A and was very well suited for ground attack and close support.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2005)

Great information, lads, thanks! 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2005)

Np.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 28, 2005)

I think the best after all is this , the HS-129.








And Les... nice signature , but my favorite is this:






This .475 Wildey Magnum will sweep dirty Harry efortless ..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 29, 2005)

The 129 was very good at what it did.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 29, 2005)

I disagree.... The gun and armored bathtub were very good.... The rest of the aircraft, and especially the engines, were crap...... It could kill tanks, sure, but a large percentage of 129's that were lost, were operational losses... 

Those Goddamn Sucky-Ass French Gnome-Rhone 14M radial engines.. GRRRRRRRR.... Ruined a possible great anti-tank aircraft.........

By late 1942 complaints started about the MK103 (on the 129B-2) against newer versions of T-34.... For some reason the Luftwaffe skipped the 37mm cannon, and installed the big ass 75 mm gun from the Panzer IV, and created the HS-129B-3.... 

A huge hydraulic system was used to damp the recoil of the gun... The resulting system was able to knock out any tank in the world, but the weight slowed the already poor performance of the plane to barely flyable in this new Hs 129B-3 version......

B-3's only started arriving in June 1944, and only 25 were delivered by the time the lines were shut down.... A small number were also converted from older B-2 models..... Over the lines in Russia, they proved deadly weapons, but with only 25 of them they had no REAL effect on the war effort.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree with you Les to the point of the engines put into the Hs-129. She had great potential but needed better engines. What I am saying is she was good at what she did. Had she better engines she would have great period.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2005)

The HS-129C was supposed to correct this, with new Italian Engines, but Italy surrendered before being accomplished....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2005)

Bummer for the Germans. Oh well the Fw-190's did just fine for them also.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

Why did they equip it with French engines, then hope to correct it with Italian engines? They're Germany, they're the ones that should be making the engines!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 30, 2005)

I think some models were built with German engines, not sure though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2005)

One of the design specs for the -129 was the use of "Non-essential engines"...

I have not read anywhere that states that some had German engines in them......

Great pic...


----------



## plan_D (Jun 30, 2005)

I see. That does explain it then. You'd think that if they put all the effort into the aircraft, then they'd at least test it with some decent engines.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 30, 2005)

I agree.....


----------



## Erich (Jul 1, 2005)

all Hs 129's had the Rhome French engine and the MK 103 with tungsten cored ammo was suitable to take out any Soviet tank even blowing the turret of the T-34. The B-3 was too slow to fire and really only ground time for one well placed shot on a Soviet tank and then the German a/c had passed. The SG gruppen with the Hs 129 did quite well according to their scores. the Hs type was taken down by Soviet tri-flak at least 80 % of the time instead of combat with Soviet fighters.

check out the epic book on the bird by Martin Pegg. A fantastic tome........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2005)

I agree as I stated up there that the aircraft was good at what she did however I still think the aircraft could have been better if she had been built with better engines than the crap she had.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 2, 2005)

> For some reason the Luftwaffe skipped the 37mm cannon, and installed the big ass 75 mm gun from the Panzer IV, and created the HS-129B-3....




Actually there was a 37mm version, even it was produced in small numbers, I think that *this* in particular is the best antitank aircraft of ww2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

It was still severely underpowered and slow, making it easy prey for those Soviet quad flak guns....

But... With better engines and that 37mm, i would almost agree with you...


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

three barrel not four Les..........

the problem for the SG's is that the armored bathtub was not in sufficient numbers to be all over the Ost front. had the old biplanes been removed and replaced with the Henschel most likely Hell would of broken loose on the Soviet armored and MT forces. Same goes for replacement with the Ju 87G but the Junkers did not carry enough rounds. As I said the Mk 103 tungsten was effective enough and a lighter round than limited quantities of 37mm tungsten cores 

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

The Ju-87's were replaced by Fw-190 correct?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

Most were...


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

the 10th staffel or Panzerstaffel of each of the main, say 1-9 SG's had Ju 87G's. The main portion of the gruppes were heading over to Fw 190F's and a few G's with the Panzerblitz rockets. man they were ugly according to veterans.

The Ju 87 D-3 and 5 were the standard night ground attack in NSGr 1 and 2 and 9 and possibly 3 but I would have to check the data base.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

> The main portion of the gruppes were heading over to Fw 190F's and a few G's with the Panzerblitz rockets. man they were ugly according to veterans.


There are many stories of turrents flying 25 feet up into the air from those deadly Panzerblitz 190's.... One of the best Tank Destroyers for sure...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2005)

Fw-190 is deadly aircraft
Panzerblitz is more deadly
Panzerblitz 190's lead to many destroyed tanks they do......

Use the force young butcher, use the force.

I thought a little Yoda would help lighten up the subject.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

the word Butcher is quite appropriate.

I did mention that the last month and 1/2 of the war that Me 262's of JG 7 were assigned out of Prague to attack Soviet vehicle/armor witha vengence by using the R4M with the Panzerschreck head. the carnage the jets inflicted will never truly be known as ground kills have never been shown for the I. and III. gruppes. I will say through pilot interviews it was just plain awful. One rocket hit striking a single motor transport tore it completely apart............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2005)

> One rocket hit striking a single motor transport tore it completely apart............


And the soft skinned humans that were hiding inside said armoured vehicle...


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

don't even think about it Les..............

hey here is a neat profile, one of an aerial ace as well as a tank killer. From JG 7, Hermann Buchner's ride.......

ya know the more I think on this the Me 262A-1b may have been the best tank killer had there been time to fill the SG's with the required flying time and full support of enough jets for the gruppen. Think about the devastation of an armored column by just one staaffel of 18 jets coming in low and firing AT rockets


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 2, 2005)

> Think about the devastation of an armored column by just one staaffel of 18 jets coming in low and firing AT rockets


 
A very scary vision indeed...

A Panther ausf A, hitted in his most vulnerable spot....the turret side armor.


----------



## Erich (Jul 2, 2005)

target practice on an abandoned Panther. I have seen the pic some 10 years ago. note how close the rounds are to each other on the turret.

by the way it is an Ausf D not an A


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

Erich said:


> don't even think about it Les..............
> 
> hey here is a neat profile, one of an aerial ace as well as a tank killer. From JG 7, Hermann Buchner's ride.......
> 
> ya know the more I think on this the Me 262A-1b may have been the best tank killer had there been time to fill the SG's with the required flying time and full support of enough jets for the gruppen. Think about the devastation of an armored column by just one staaffel of 18 jets coming in low and firing AT rockets



I might agree with you. Plus besides the rockets just the 4 cannons would be pretty menacing too.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

I can certainly see the potential in a Me-262A-1b but there's not enough coverage of their actions to bring them up to the top tank killers. I think a truthful coverage of their service would see them in the top light of tank killing. 

I certainly would like to know more about their tank killing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 3, 2005)

I agree it would be very interesting to know more.


----------



## Erich (Jul 3, 2005)

yes besides the R4M's the 3cm's had AP and HE copmbinations.

At least 10 Il-2's were brought down the last two weeks of the war and many parked a/c were destroyed on forward fields


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

Destroying Il-2s could be considered tank killing.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2005)

Faced with overwhelming Allied strength and extreme logistical problems, particularly fuel shortages, Me-262 operations during those months were intermittent. An elite unit, "JV-44", was formed up under Adolf Galland, and racked up a number of kills before hostilities ended. Many of these kills were achieve with the new "R4M" 55 millimeter (2.2 inch) folding fin rockets. An Me-262 could carry a total of 24 such weapons on wooden racks, one under each wing, and if fired into a bomber formation the rockets could have a devastating effect on anything they hit. Schwalbes configured to carry the R4M were given the designation "Me-262A-1b". 

A ground-attack version of the R4M rocket was also designed and might have helped turn the Me-262 into an effective "Jabo" aircraft, much like the RAF's rocket-firing Typhoons or "Rockoons", but it does not appear the Luftwaffe ever used the Me-262 in this way. http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html

Im still looking to confirm this......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

I think the Me-262 was an underated Jabo.


----------



## Erich (Jul 6, 2005)

Les the accts are in the JG 7 book by Manfred Boehme concerning JG 7's use of the altered R4M for Soviet armor kills. there is also photos of the unit sitting side by side with the regular R4M in the Clasic pubs big boy books on the Me 262 ~ multi volumes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 6, 2005)

What is the title of the book?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 6, 2005)

> Les the accts are in the JG 7 book by Manfred Boehme concerning JG 7's use of the altered R4M for Soviet armor kills.


Dude thanks for that info. Now u give me somewhere to start my researching....... THX...

And whats the name of that book???

THE WORLDS FIRST JET FIGHTER UNIT 1944/1945 BY MANFRED BOEHME. 2 COPIES ARE AVAILABLE BOTH COPIES ARE FIRST AMERICAN EDITIONS 1992. ONE COPY IS A LIMITED EDITION #229/300 WITH SPECIAL SIGNED BOOKPLATE. SIGNED BY 2 GERMAN ACES HANS GRUENBERG (82 VIC'S) WALTER BOHATSCH (13 VIC'S), ALSO SIGNED BY GERMAN ACE WALTER SCHUCK ON HIS PIC. AND BY 2 AMERICAN ACES URBAN L. DREW ON A PIC. AND ON A LAID IN BP BY EDWARD R. HAYDEN WHO WAS GIVEN 1/2 CREDIT FOR THE SHOOTDOWN OF WALTER NOWOTNEY. THIS COPY $100.00. 

THE SECOND COPY IS SIGNED ON A SPECIAL PICTURE BOOKPLATE BY JOHANNES STEINHOFF AND BY WALTER SCHUCK ON HIS PICTURE IN BOOK. PLUS TWICE BY ACE URBAN L. DREW AND ON LAID IN BP BY EDWARD R. HAYDEN. THIS COPY IS $110.00


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

Wow


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 10, 2005)

What about the me262 version with the 50mm gun slung underneath it?

Add to that a batch of R4M and now you've got a plane with speed to ingress/ egress safely, and pick it's point of attack accurately.

Any info on that?


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 10, 2005)

Maybe the 262 was too fast for that job: I remember having read a book of U. Rudel, and the guy preferred the Stuka-G over the FW190 also because he could fly slower and be more accurate in the Ju87.

Ok, Rudel was of a special breed, a friend of mine several years ago had the chance to have dinner with a Me109 pilot who was flying cover for Rudel, and in two words his opinion was 'the guy was completely insane, he was flying trough the AA disregarding everything, his plane was smoking and peppered and still he went diving for another target..'
Of course I can't certify this comment, I just report it as I was told


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2005)

the 5cm on the Me 262 was through the nose and was used on a couple of missions flying with JV 44 to attack B-26 Marauders. On both missions the cannon failed. Never used for ground attack.

the Me 262 was proven to be and effective tank buster.........too little too late.

Rudel flew the Fw 190F and as well as the Dora on several missions. the Kanonvogel Ju 87G was used just for tank busting. He also flew the D when his staffel was used in accordance for the days activities of bridge or crossroad bombing


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

If you think the 262 was too fast for tank busting just think of the jet aircraft today that do that stuff like the A-10. The A-10 would be comparable in speed while doing so. Also you have to remember that the 262 would not have been at full speed when attacking tanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

The A-10 isnt all that fast to be honest. And remember that the A-10 loses some 200mph when firing that cannon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes and the point that I am trying to make is the 262 would not have been traveling 500 mph when engaging tanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 10, 2005)

No way.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Good then we agree atleast.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 10, 2005)

Adler, the comparison with the A10 is 'unfair' : although the Warthog is roughly comparable in speed with a 262 (and also a FW190, being rated at a top speed of 420 mph!) there are 30+ years of progress to consider.

It is a completely different weapon system, the parameters of the seven barrell Gatling (like rate of fire, aiming devices accuracy) and the laser-guided missiles are in a different world.

I did not know that the 262 was actually used as anti-tank weapon as Erich says, but surely you need more time to line up a tank with your unguided rockets flying in rough air than radar-lock it with a laser missile or with the GAU8A. And you can do it from a much greater distance, ergo you have even more time!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

Okay you really let this one fly past your head. My point was not comparing a Me-262 to an A-10. Read the post again. The point I was making is that a 262 is not going to attack at tanks at 500mph. It slows down lets say atleast 200 to 250 mph.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 10, 2005)

OK, but then I still have some doubt about the effectiveness of a 262 and the opportunity to have it perform that job
- If the attack speed is the same attainable by a FW190, the advantage of attacking at high speed (less time for AA to shoot at me and for the defensive fighters to shoot me down, if nothing else...) is lost
- the 262 was less rugged than a FW190F, making it more vulnerable to return fire
- Also the 262 weakness was the acceleration, I don't recall the exact figures but I think a 190 was faster in changing speed: the jet would have performed worse than the FW in zoom climbing to a safe height. 
- A 262 was much more expensive than a Stuka or a FW, attacking tanks at 250 Mph you must consider losses due to AA fire and fighters (and at that speed the 262 was a sitting duck)

The A10 is armored enough to sustain AA fire, and anyway (like ANY of this specialized aircrafts) can be used only when air control is absolute, otherwise it would have the same loss rate of the IL 2.

In my opinion the best compromise between anti-tank effectiveness and survivability in a 'non-air-superiority' scenario was the FW 190 F fitted with Panzerbliz II


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2005)

JG 7 attacked ground targets this is very true. Motor transport with Mine shells besides parked a/c which were sitting ducks. Panzerschreck headed R4M's were used on these missions especially armor attacked from the sides and the rear. Fast they were as the ground supported tri-flak could not track them.

the ground kills for the jet unit JG 7 were never be fully known as they were not kept due the overall trasfer from base to base, ground field to ground field, but the impression for what was going to be done in the future was readily apparent.... in April of 45. In March the JG 7 unit was still battling US fighters/bombers until almost months end. then it started attacking invading Soviet arms, still taking on allied a/c and Soviet a/c till the wars end.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 11, 2005)

I agree with you on the Fw-190F however I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe about the 262. She had excellent fire power and as Erich pointed out was hard to hit from the ground.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2005)

remember one thing and this is very important. 9/10th's and even more of the ground troops, British, US and Soviet had never seen the performance of the Me 262 let alone even one in action in the air. The speed was overwhelming and in several interviews of US ground troops the sound as it came before the jet even appeared did strike a bit of terror into the hearts of these men.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 12, 2005)

FW-190 s best weapons were its performances and handling, and the advantage of a more powerful engine without a vulnerable liquid cooling system.
Ju87's one was only one: its precision in aiming the target, that's the only purpose for it was projected.

I would have liked a Ju-87 with BMW 801 engine, two Mg-151 in the wings and a Mg-131 for the gunner and , if it doesn't worsen too much the stability in dive, a retractable ungercarriage.

Alternatively, a FW 190 A or G series with a stronger air frame , an "inverted gull " wing and with the Askania automatic system to go out from the diving.

Russians re-engined the Il-2 ( most of the Sturmoviks had been lost for hits in the cooling system) with a air-cooled Shvetsov with improved performances, but the prototype was soon dropped.I don' remember precisely, I will search data about the aircraft.....

Me 262A was used with a good success to strafe Allied flak guns during the attack of Arado 234s to Remagen bridge.[/quote]


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 12, 2005)

Here is:http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/il-2m-82.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2005)

I dont think a Ju-87 could have handeled a BMW-801. It would have tore the airframe apart, and even if it worked it would have been too heavy I think for the aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2005)

side note. Me 262A-2's from KG ? did not do well in trying to bring down the Remagen bridge neither the Ar 234's.

Ju 87D's did quite well in the night ground attack role with increased pressure from RAF Mossie and US P-61 squadrons to try and intercept them. Some were shot down but the overall almost stalling speed of around 120-135mph and then a quick flip down through the ground haze to the deck through off many Allied night fighter crew.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 13, 2005)

They were the fighters of KG51.:

http://www.airartnw.com/remagenclash.htm.

In that action Me262s had an escort role, they used no bombs , only the fire of their guns.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

Parmigiano said:


> OK, but then I still have some doubt about the effectiveness of a 262 and the opportunity to have it perform that job
> - If the attack speed is the same attainable by a FW190, the advantage of attacking at high speed (less time for AA to shoot at me and for the defensive fighters to shoot me down, if nothing else...) is lost
> - the 262 was less rugged than a FW190F, making it more vulnerable to return fire
> - Also the 262 weakness was the acceleration, I don't recall the exact figures but I think a 190 was faster in changing speed: the jet would have performed worse than the FW in zoom climbing to a safe height.
> ...


At the mid-high altitudes the advantages of even primitive jet fighters was clear right across the flight envelope, it was certainly more restricted at lower altitudes especially in terms of overheating (thicker air, hotter burning), ground fire vulnerability (them turbojets just loved bursting into flames at the slightest provocation), and general airframe design (high stall speeds, poor low-speed manoeuvring characteristics, etc.).

Where their low altitude advantage was definitely clear was in sheer acceleration and climb rate. Put simply they did this more cleanly, more suddenly and with much more power than any piston engined aircraft (although some modern turboprops match 262 climb rates according to pilots who've built accurate reproductions).

The main advantage of using something like a 262 for ground attack is the inherent ability to get back up to speed quickly and sheer climb rate.
The main disadvantage was the vulnerability of early jet engines to ground fire on the necessarily "low and slow" approach of level ground attack and tricky engine management. The Me262 just wasn't designed for that and you're quite right about the 190F being much better suited to the role. Even better again would be a heavily armoured jet-engined attack aircraft if you can sort out those early turbojet bugs.

The idea that an Me262 was out accelerated by a piston engined aircraft of any description, at any altitude is frankly ridiculous. Below around 5000m altitude the margin by which the it utterly dominated piston engine's performance was simply lesser.

But before you go getting extreme, yes a Thunderbolt can shoot down a 262. Just if you put both in a civilian airshow their pilots will tell you plainly the jet dominates, right from the 262, it's just no contest under any conditions.

Most aircraft documentarians and historians unhesitantly refer to the Me262 as, "...the best fighter of the war, without question."
But I wouldn't be ignorant enough to quite start that debate at a forum like this.

And finally, in a survey taken of all peanut butter brands, people just preferred the Me262. Keep one in your cupboard, please for the children's sake. Think of the children.


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Aug 13, 2005)

> The main advantage of using something like a 262 for ground attack is the inherent ability to get back up to speed quickly and sheer climb rate.



From Wolfgang Wagner, "The history of German aviation-The first jet aircraft":

Major Wolfgang Schenk, experienced and highly decorated leader of KG 51 Edelweiss bomber wing trained his pilots in dive bombing profile using the reflective gunsight , with which he achieved an high accuracy rate: According to his report he dove at a 40 degrees angle beginning from a height of 5000 Meters and in doing so he maintained a constant airspeed of 950 Km/h.Sighting by the reflective gunsight he released the two 250 Kg bombs at an altitude no lower than 2000 Mts.such a recovery altitude was sufficient for the jet to pull up in time....during dive bombing tests in Lechfeld he achieved an average CEP of 18 Meters, a greater accuracy then the Ju-88 when it was used as dive bomber.
With his handful of men the major operated all along the front and sought out his targets himself , since he receaved no target assignments from headquarters.As the pilots began feeling comfortable with the dive bombing an order from the Fuhrer came down stating that they were not allowed to fly faster than 750 Km/H their aircrafts or to fly them below 4000 Mts under enemy territory.As a results from august 1944 the unit could no longer make accurate strikes, until the directive was rescinded in December of that year....

This operative profile is not exactly "tank killer" or close air support ( Il-2 or A10 Warthog's role),instead it was short range strike with a more strategical purpose.

More, thinking of Hitler's orders to stop the dive bombing we can speculate he was mad or perhaps something worse, but "paranoid delusion" is not necessariously linked to dementia or stupidity.
When he ordered to delay the production of jet fighters and to fit Me262 to bombing role he perhaps had a more strategically important outlook than the air defence of Reich: he was sure that Allieds would have landed in France one day, and in an Allied air superiority background Me262 was the only hope to effectively bomb and stop them still in British beachs before starting, making the whole project abort.

A new landing project could not have been planned before one year.
In one year if you really need you can build hundreds of Me-262s in fighter variant, and Heinkel 162 and other "volksjagers", and Dornier 335 , Ta-152 , V2 rockets, XXI and XXIII model "elektroboots" etc


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Actually vanir, the Me-262 had horrible accileration. When she was taking off or landing that is when the P-51's and P-47s were able to get her the easiest because she would accelerate too quickly and they could get her at the low speeds.


----------



## Parmigiano (Aug 13, 2005)

Vanir, what I know (by reading books) is that the Jumo 004 were quite temperamental to the throttle movement: it was necessary to change the setting very slowly otherwise they would flame out.
Hence the logic of my point: if the 262 had to fly 'low and slow' it had to be throttled back fo some time (the 262 was apparently not eager to lose speed), and then could only accelerate little by little.

But the findings of the Damned Hunchback (nickname for the SM 79 Sparviero) put a new light on the topic: if the plane was flown in a 950kmh approach dive, then there was enough energy to accelerate away.
What I have not undestood is if this tactic was used against tanks or generic ground targets, what I had in mind was 'shooting tanks with guns or non-guided rockets'


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2005)

The 262 had the problems that Parm is talking about, as I have read and been told that they would flame out if u were too aggressive as well......

As was stated by erich, who is a researcher, there were some 262 tank killers roaming the Russian countryside with those sweet little rockets, specially modified for anti-tank instead of anti-bomber...

I have unfortunatly not been able to confirm this combat role for the 262 (still trying), but I have read some info concerning the modification of the R4M to the anti-armor specs... It seems that there weren't too many rockets modified.......


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2005)

Gentlemen, manfred Boehme when he wrote his JG 7 book years ago did not have complete as inforamtion as he does now. In fact he has been helping us with priveldged info concerning the NF unit Kommando Welter.

JG 7 would fly low and fast, almost porpoise like flying over hills. the idea was take the Soviet Armor and MT columns by complete surprise and while the ground troops would look to the heavens for the a/c hearing the jet engines in the distance they never figured they would be coming in low, from the sides or the rear with heavy 3m blazing and R4M's blowing and tearing everything apart. the attitude was why flame out as it was suppose to be a fast intercept and then fly home to re-arm if possible or take on mid altitude Soviet Yaks and Migs or anything else the Soviets were stupid enough to pit against this most experienced jet outfit. the only drawback with JG 7 during it's existance was it's own politics, some pilots wanted to fight for Germany and try and keep it free while some others were die-hard to the core Nazi's. My last statement is simply why JG 7 has never had a unified Jagdgeschwader meeting of it's former members since the war. And still today the remnant will not meet totgether, still with too many bitter memories against one another.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2005)

Damn... 

erich, do u have a link stashed somewhere that references the revised R4M for anti-armor??? I cant seem to find the one I bookmarked....


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2005)

Besides Manfred Boehmes book I use Classic publications volumes 3 and 4 of the Me 262 and the ancient Monogram soft-back. yes there a couple of web-sites that show the rockets together ~ anti-bomber and anti-armor. The anti armor being the Panzerschreck shpaed charge. have to look somewhere for them


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2005)

Les does this help, just found it stashed....


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2005)

Thats very cool, but was looking for weight/charge/armor piercing capabilites as well....


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2005)

have you heard that the anti-bomber version of the rocket gave similiar impact to an 88mm flak round ? it seems to be so though a 12 round salvo it was probably 1-3 rockets that hit the US heavies each and brought them down, so one can imagine the total carnage with these uglies flying through a compact box of B-17's/B-24's


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 13, 2005)

Yea the anti-bomber R4M's are quite familiar, and have talked to some guys who witnessed these attacks, as Im sure u have.... Scared the living shit outta them......

Bad news.....

However, info on the anti-armor warhead is quite limited, which was why I was asking....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Good stuff, thanks for the info Erich.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 14, 2005)

I know the Lend Lease P39's were not the best tank killers, but how did they do in that role?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2005)

I dont know, would be interesting to know. I know it could carry a good punch with its cannon but against Tigers and Panthers I dont know.


----------



## dinos7 (Aug 15, 2005)

my opinion on the greatest ww2 tank killer would have to be the JU-87 Stuka in my opinion.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 18, 2005)

Just for the record the A-10 and the 262 are not, repeat, are not comparable in speed. The 262 was quite a bit faster than the A10 is today. And no, when they fire their gun (which during actual combat is a three second burst) they do not lose 200 mph. Maybe 10 kts tops. And the A10 doesn't slow down to attack tanks, that makes it only more vulnerable and less manuverable. Coupled with its high G manuevers its engines are at mil power. So to think that the 262 would slow down to do ground attack is 'non sequiter'. It does not follow. Plus doing that in a 262 would make it less stable a gun platform, and more vulnerable to ground fire which the 262 was very, and on top of that its poor acceleration would have made it easy easy pickings for enemy fighters. 
Turbojets without afterburners do not acclerate as quickly at propeller driven aircraft, what jets excel at is the continuation of their acceleration past the point where propeller aircraft have their prop tips going transonic/ supersonic.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Aug 18, 2005)

Oh and lastly, is this thread about the best tank killer/fighter or just tank killer? Because without that qualification you can't really say what is the best. Obviously while the Ju-87 might serve in the latter category it wouldn't do to well in the first.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 18, 2005)

Just tank killer.... 

If u go back and read through the entire thread, u might actually learn something MORE about this excellent subject....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2005)

Monkeysee1 said:


> Just for the record the A-10 and the 262 are not, repeat, are not comparable in speed. The 262 was quite a bit faster than the A10 is today



Oh my god  do you actually read the post or not. I never said the speed was comparable, I was just saying that the A-10 would not attack tanks at its full speed just like a 262 would not attack tanks at full speed. Please read posts before replying to them!


----------



## marseille jr (Aug 30, 2005)

what aircraft did the japanese use for tankbusting?

I only know they did kamikaze attacks against tanks where common footsoldiers would get under a tank and detonate the explosives they wore...


----------



## Dac (Aug 31, 2005)

marseille jr said:


> what aircraft did the japanese use for tankbusting?
> 
> I only know they did kamikaze attacks against tanks where common footsoldiers would get under a tank and detonate the explosives they wore...



There was a ground-attack version of the Ki-46 reconnaisance aircraft, but I think it only saw limited sevice. I think it was the Ki-46-IIIc.


I like the Hurrican IID "Flying Can Opener". Its' twin 40mm cannon gave it tremendous fire-power and the Hurrican was a stable gun platform. Gun recoil was a problem though.

One of the more unique tank-busters was a variant of the Hs 129B2. It had six 75mm recoiless guns facing downward and to the rear. It flew low over its' target and a magnetic detector triggered the guns. Apparently it was effective. It would be interesting to see a picture of one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Aug 31, 2005)

6 BK 7,5's?  I know a varient of the Komet used 5x 50mm pointing upwards for wasting bombers, but 6 75mm? I gotta look for a pic of this!


----------



## Dac (Aug 31, 2005)

I've only been able to find references to it on some WW II Luftwaffe sites, no pictures yet.


----------



## Dac (Aug 31, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> 6 BK 7,5's?  I know a varient of the Komet used 5x 50mm pointing upwards for wasting bombers, but 6 75mm? I gotta look for a pic of this!



AFAIK they wern't long barrelled 75mm, but shorter smoothbore recoiless guns, probably firing HEAT rounds into enemy tanks top armor.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 1, 2005)

Yes I found that much out, no luck with pictures though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2005)

I have not seen any pics of it either, I am searching through some of my books to see what I can find.


----------



## Erich (Sep 1, 2005)

there were three altered Hs 129's used and a total of 3 different rounds for the 6 barrelled downward mortar. since the 'eye' of the unit could only be used at very low elevation over an enemy tank it was found that discharging all barrels at once would cause almost complete disintegration of the upper portion of the tank and the insueing explosion would also take out the Hs 129 so the plan was soon dropped in favour of keeping the Mk 103 with tungsten cored ammo

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

So there probably are no pictures out there of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 4, 2005)

How about the Düsenkanone Düka 88 (jet cannon) fitted to a Ju-88 as a tank killer. It is a 75mm cannon with 10 round magazine.


----------



## Erich (Sep 4, 2005)

Adler yes there are actually a few pics of the downward facing mortar. Martin Peggs Hs 129 monster book is full of them............sorry no scanner

The Ju 88/7.5cm Kanon was short lived as it was too heavy, the firing of the gun was off plus throwing the twin engine off it's flying abilities during aiming and of course shooting the long rod


----------



## SM79Sparviero (Sep 4, 2005)

I don't remember Ju-88 with a Dusenkanone, even if some of them had 1 conventional 75 mm KwK anti-tank gun, or two 37 mmg guns or ( maybe the most successful , and useful for close air support) 1 50 /60 Kwk anti-tank gun -

Ju 288 was projected to carry a 280 mm dusenkanone since 1940.
This device consisted of a retractable barrel in the nose section which was carried within the bomb bay and extended for firing position , and designed to return to the aircraft upon firing by means of its own recoil.
Heavily armored targets such a warship would have been attacked at a dive angle between 60 and 80 degrees.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

280mm? Jesus christ...


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 4, 2005)

Just imagine if it got a lucky shot on a plane!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

Thee would be no plane  Just some debris


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 4, 2005)

It would be a great nightfighter weapon, use it as "schrage musik"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

Except that the plane firing it would lose a few thousand ft altitude


----------



## mosquitoman (Sep 4, 2005)

There's a downside to everything, a lot of down in this case


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 4, 2005)

If you have it firing at the ground it would make a great tank buster. You bust the tank, and gain a few thousand feet in the process, confusing enemy fighters!


----------



## Erich (Sep 4, 2005)

the thing would of had the same result as the Ju 88 variants with 37mm, 50 and 75mm's. they jammed and the barrel reduced speed and the flight characteristics of the a/c were impaired. the 288 would of easily been shot down by Allied escorts if not the US heavy bomber it was attacking.

Besides the Me 410 the only othere twin engine in the anti-bomber role was the Bf 110G-2 for day attacks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 5, 2005)

SM79Sparviero said:


> don't remember Ju-88 with a Dusenkanone,



No the Ju-88A-4 actually was fitted with the Dueka 88, 75mm jet cannon. The Dueka 280 was proposed for the Ju-288 but was not pursude by the RLM. I have a picture of a Ju-88 carrying a Dueka 88 in my book here. And here are pictures from http://www.luftarchiv.info/bordgerate/waffen2.htm


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Sep 5, 2005)

Hmmmm... maybe I did read the thread. Think before you open next time. Thanks though.


----------



## Monkeysee1 (Sep 5, 2005)

AAAHHH Damnit, Seriously page 18 top of the page Der Alder Ist Gelandt. You said, "If you think the 262 was too fast for tank busting just think of the jet aircraft today that do that stuff like the A-10. The A-10 would be comparable in speed while doing so. Also you have to remember that the 262 would not have been at full speed when attacking tanks."

So again... I guess I didn't read the thread or learn anything.
Sorry about the technical difficulties... not a computer guy just a jet driver. C-ya.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 7, 2005)

Jeezus Christ read it again.  I said it would be compable in speed. I did not say it flew the same speed. If you read it agian you will see that it says that neither plane would be flying at full speed. 

So C-ya!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Sep 14, 2005)

Damn! The Germans were really adiment in destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

> adiment


Huh???


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

My guess is (as I know you will have already realised, les) "adiment" translated (from Redneck to English) is "adamant" meaning 'Impervious to pleas, appeal, or reason; stubbornly unyielding'. 

"Damn! Those Germans were really *adamant* on destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!" 

On a historical note, I find it hard to believe that Germany designed the 75mm as an air-to-air weapon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> My guess is (as I know you will have already realised, les) "adiment" translated (from Redneck to English) is "adamant" meaning 'Impervious to pleas, appeal, or reason; stubbornly unyielding'.
> 
> "Damn! Those Germans were really *adamant* on destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!"



LOL that is funny. Good stuff.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 14, 2005)

Hehe..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Poor kid....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Don't defend him. He needs to learn to defend himself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Im not defending him, I was feeling sorry for him.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 14, 2005)

Okay. We'll allow it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 14, 2005)

Thank you Sir!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 19, 2005)

Seems to me that you have two types of Tank-Killers during WW2.

1. Close air support types/dedicated anti-armour types. Examples are IL2, Ju-87G, Hs-129, IL-10, Hurricane IV.

Generally characterised by heavy fixed weaponry, heavy armour for survivability, low top speeds and low service ceilings.

2. Fighter Bombers. Examples are Typhoon, Fw-190A/F/G, P-47D, P-38L, Bf-110G, Yak 9 .

Generally characterised by fast speed at low altitude, relatively solid construction, anti-tank armement is primarily expendable munitions (bombs, rockets, napalm, bomblets), but fixed armament is usually quite heavy (up to 45mm for some YAk-9 variants).


It seems to me that you are not really comparing like things. Dedicated anti-tank aircraft can't really be put up against fighter-bombers. The question is, as a commander, if you had to choose, what would you go for? 

1. A dedicated anti-armour platform is far more vulnerable to AAA and fighters, but more likely to cause havoc on the battlefield.

OR

2. A fighter-bomber can protect itself better with its speed and manouervability, but is less able as a anti-armour platform.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 19, 2005)

Personally, id have Fighter-Bombers.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 21, 2005)

what about tank destroyers with fighter escort??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Id personally go with figher bombers. They pack a punch against tanks and ground forces and can defend themselves.


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2005)

a small notation, SG 2's Panzerstaffel with Ju 87G-1's had the other staffeln of Fw 190A-8's as high cover so yes at least with this unit there was a protective screen against Soviet incursions while Rüdel and his boyz pounded anything they found crawling on the cground. SG 77's Panzerstaffel had the same type of "high" protection as well.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 23, 2005)

Still I agree that the GAF's 75mm on either a dedicated TK or on a ad-hoc design was a killer combination. It made a crappy plane such as the 129 into a cult classic since not many people know about it. All I can say is if the 129 could do what it did to Stalin tanks imagine, if the western Allies had no air supremacy, what it would have done to Shermans, Cromwells, and Churchills. I don't think even a Pershing would have fared well. 

:{)


----------



## Erich (Sep 23, 2005)

the Hs 129 was not a crappy plane, its Mk 103 3cm took out any existing Soviet tank in the war. the 7.5cm was a total joke, jamming, too heavy pilot could not aim properly and the aerodynamics was totally laughable. this was a carry over to the Ju 88 and proposed 188 variants with the similiar weapon.

Stick with the tried and proven and the 3cm and 3.7cm's were outstanding including the tungsten cored ammo


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 23, 2005)

The Hs-129 was also equipped with the 37mm that the Ju-87G's used.... I can only imagine what if they put decent engines on the -129 and put them into service in greater numbers....

ALOT of burning Russian tanks......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2005)

That was really its only limiting factor were those damn French engines.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 27, 2005)

P-47's and P-38's still win this catagory. These planes, when armed with napalm, were the most effective tank killers of the war.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

So what if the Germans produced alot of burning Russian tanks? Who cares? Certainly not the Russians.

In addition to providing the Ju-87G's with top cover, the Germans provided them with standard Ju-87s for flak suppression.

Even fast, maneuverable fighter-bombers were still going to be vulnerable during the attak phase. The low-altitude fighting required by the mission also left you vulnerable to ground fire or being bounced. The fighter-bombers only options are to either 1) jetison the external stores (in which case it has essentially sacrificed the mission or 2) keep them (then it is practically as vulnerable as a Ju-87G or Il-2). The fighter-bomber only truly has a self-defense advantage on the way OUT.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 28, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> P-47's and P-38's still win this catagory. These planes, when armed with napalm, were the most effective tank killers of the war.



well in that case it's the napalm not so much the planes that are the tank, i know that's true of all cases but many planes are suitable delivery platforms for napalm.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

I have to agree also. I would not say they were the best ground attack aircraft. The P-47 may have been one of the best all around and I really really like the P-47 but in that case the only thing that made them the most effective was the Napalm and as Lanc said Napalm was the most effect killer then not the P-47 or P-38.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2005)

Then how far do you take it? It was the 37mm guns on the Ju-87G that killed tanks and not the Ju-87s themselves. Do we disqualify it because other aircraft could carry the same gun?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

well that's different, that's a cannon that fires shell yet remains mounted to the plane, napalm is disposable stores, it's not built onto or majorly fixed onto the plane, there re many suitable deliver platforms for napalm, it's the napalm that made the -47 and -38 good tank killers, so logically any plane that could drop napalm could be a good tank killer, the -87G with 37mm is different as the plane itself played more of a role in the tank's destruction........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

But dropping Napalm at low level requires a tough, fast plane...P-38's and P-47's are just so...im sure youve heard about the stories of Lightning smashing into telegraph poles and flying home.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

yeah but many planes are suitable delivery platforms for napalm, was it the actual B-29 that caused nuclear deserts in japan? no, it was the atom bomb, not the plane that delivered it, when a fighter gets a kill it's counted as the plane and the pilot's kill, not the gun's........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Good argument here, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally would say that napalm does not make the aircraft the best ground attack aircraft. I personally do not think the P-47 was the best ground attack aicraft but at the same time it is a great argument for it and probably could be the best but not because of Napalm. Napalm is a devestating weapon though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 2, 2005)

Plenty of aircraft could have carried a large-bore cannon. And plenty of aircraft could carry rockets (which were quite possibly the best anti-tank weapon of the war). If an airplane drops a bomd, launches a rocket, or fires a gun and destroys a tank, that plane killed the tank and the weapon was a means to an end. Unless we intend to make this a thread about the best anti-tank WEAPON, we shouldn't an aircraft because it used some means other than cannon to knock out its targets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I will agree with you. I just think that there were aircraft that might have been better in the fact that they were built for that purpose.

My vote goes for the Tempest or the Typhoon. I know they may not have been built for that sole purpose but that is where my vote goes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2005)

Panzerblitz..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Yeap


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 2, 2005)

Well, I may be wrong here . . . but if we are going to limit the discussion to purpose built tank killers we are down to the Il-2 and the Hs-129. I drop the Ju-87G because it was a dive-bomber modified to a tank killer.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2005)

Il give you that too. The Hs-129 would have been a marvelous aircraft had the damn engines been better.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 4, 2005)

well i think if we're limiting it to purpose built tank destroyers we should atleast include varients of aircraft desinged to take tanks out.......


----------



## Erich (Oct 4, 2005)

stick with the Il-2, Hs 129 and the Panzerstaffeln Ju 87G which was designed to eliminate any Allied/Soviet tank. The Typhoon is much like the Fw 190F/G variants, modified single seaters to accept heavy cannon and racks for rockets and put in a ground attack role: Napalm was just a sort-arm for taking out large areas of compacted troops and MT's and not necessarily tanks


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm thinking the hurricane Mk.IID should also be included??


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Il give you that too. The Hs-129 would have been a marvelous aircraft had the damn engines been better.



To me, the Hs-129 is a "cult classic". It is overshadowed by the Stuka, P-47, Typhoons, and so on. It my fav anti-tank platform. But also was not a plane that was originally designed to be a AT plane, it only found its fame then and only in the Eastern Front where air supremacy and superiority was sometmies dicey. 

On the other hand, P-47s, P-38s, P-51s (I know that they were not perfect for this role but they were used), Tempests, and Typhoons could switch to the fighter roll if jumped by the GAF (not that I would want to dogfight in a Tempest or a Typhoon). And I think that is the big difference between the Allied and Axis AT planes is that the Allied ones (and I am talking western Allies for the Stormavik was also not a good "fighter") could defend themselves as fighters when the need arose and still sock it to the Panzers.

:{)


----------



## GT (Oct 4, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Oct 4, 2005)

funny a thought just crossed my mind but I wish Tony Williams was available online here, as he has Allied vs real confirmation figures of the amount of tanks destroyed by single/twin engines of the RAF/US against German Panzers. I can asure you it is nothing what the Allies have claimed. My guess and I am going to have to dig out the correspondance with him and others but at least 1/2 if not more of the Allied claims are pure bogus


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Thats interesting. Would love to get some info on that Erich.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

yeah that should make very interesting reading Erich...........


----------



## Udet (Oct 6, 2005)

Erich:

Have you read Niklas Zetterling´s account on the matter?

I found his work very illustrative as to the real accuracy of P-47s, Typhoons and Tempests attacking German armored columns.

Not only that the RAF hit a small number of panzers and vehicles, losses of fighter-bombers were heavy when greeted by Flak batteries attached to armored colums.


----------



## Erich (Oct 7, 2005)

yes Udet............

major bummer for the Allies !! so much for rocket attacks and all the scores put in by the US 9th AF Jugs for ground kills.

If the work on heavy bomber targets could not be immediately applied it nevertheless provided a foundation for other studies of the battlefield. Schonland had long been anxious to know something concrete about the effectiveness of fighter and fighter bomber close support. This was an issue which was causing much difficulty between the army and air force and 21 Army Group badly wanted to know what was going on. 

Major Pike had already studied one Typhoon attack on a German column near La Baleine in the American sector. Together with a young RAF Pilot Officer, Pike had surveyed the aftermath of the air attack and had noted that only one tank had actually been hit by a Typhoon rocket projectile. This report was not well received by Second Tactical Air Force (2 TAF) and the Pilot Officer was sent back to do the investigation again.99 

On August 8th word came that the team was to proceed to the town of Mortain in the American zone. Here, the RAF proclaimed, the tactical air force had been "a decisive battle winning factor" in stopping the German counterattack to cut off the American troops south of Avranches. According to Air Marshal Coningham, the commander of Second Tactical Air Force, rocket firing typhoons claimed to have destroyed 89 tanks, probably destroyed another 56 tracked vehicles, set on fire 104 motor vehicles and saw 47 motor vehicles smoking. These claims do not include 56 enemy tanks damaged and 81 motor vehicles damaged. 100 It had been, the air force insisted, "The Day of the Typhoon." 

The army OR section was not the only group interested in the Mortain battlefield. When Second Tactical Air Force was formed in 1943 it acquired operational research staff from Fighter and Army Cooperation Commands. Fighter Command had a good deal of experience with OR work and had amassed considerable information about attacks on ground targets. For example, in early 1943 a full scale model of a German artillery division with 48 mock guns and 558 dummy soldiers was created. "Every effort was made to aid the fighters and fighter bombers in their attack task, but neither Mustangs strafing, nor Typhoons firing their new rockets with 60 lb. warheads were able to inflict more than negligible damage on the position.""" A second experiment with a mock up troop of medium artillery produced equally dismal results. 

A carefully controlled study of the ability of pilots to find specific positions on the ground produced even more startling information. Tactical Memorandum No.30, dated March 1943, reported that: 

fighters, given a six figure map reference were unable to spot well camouflaged guns even when the guns were actually firing ... attacks on gun positions give negligible results for a high wastage and should only be ordered in an emergency. 102 

After 2 TAF was established, OR studies continued to show that there were very real problems in attacking the kind of targets which were of interest to the army. Operations against a variety of targets were carefully examined in the pre D Day period. Typhoon rockets were found to hit a viaduct 500 yards long and 8 yards wide, one in 15 times. Bombs dropped from fighter bombers scored hits one in 82 times. Rocket Projectile (RP) attacks on gun positions produced results varying from 110 rockets fired at a casement in Courseulles sur Mer with zero hits to two hits out of 127 at Fontenay. Second TA F found all this disappointing, particularly since none of the targets had been "well defended."103 

The Allied Expeditionary Air Force (AEAF) established a school for training fighter pilots in close support during 1944. Results were not encouraging, for while strafing was "outstandingly successful" for damaging or destroying soft skin vehicles, bombs and rockets could not be delivered accurately by average pilots. Near misses, it was found, did little damage. Even worse, accurate target location and identification of friendly troops proved to be an art which was readily mastered by very few pilotS.104 

The AEAF operational research section concluded that the probability of pilot error in identifying friendly troops and the inaccuracy of rocket and bombing attacks meant that close support of army operations should be ordered only in an ernergenCy.105 This information confirmed 2 TAF's preference for missions involving armed reconnaissance, deep interdiction and the search for targets of opportunity well beyond the battle lines. Nothing in the first two months of the campaign had altered this view, but if the Typhoons had really stopped the German armour at Mortain the whole question of close support might need to be re examined and 2 TAF ordered its OR section to the scene of the battle. 

The two rival OR groups began work at Mortain as soon as the German retreat cleared the area. For eight days, August 12th to August 20th, a not entirely friendly competition to locate and examine German tanks, self propelled guns and other vehicles was underway along the roads and lanes of the hilly countryside. Descriptive accounts of the battle, as well as air force claims, had prepared the investigators for scenes of devastation. A Panzer division, it was said, had been caught in a traffic jam caused by the crash of an Allied aircraft onto the lead tank in the column. Scores of panzers had been destroyed near St. Barth61emy, and this was just one among many stories that everyone had heard. 

What the researchers saw was very different. Despite the most systematic search, very few wrecked tanks could be located. The army team borrowed an Auster aircraft to conduct a survey, but not a single additional vehicle was seen. In the end only 33 Panthers, 10 Mark IVs and 3 self propelled guns were uncovered. If armoured troop carriers, armoured cars and tank recovery vehicles were added, the total for all armour left behind in the area was 78. Nor was it possible to find many of the motor vehicles which the air force had claimed to have destroyed. Only 30 German trucks were available to investigate. While this discrepancy was difficult enough to account for, the results of the individual examination of vehicles was even more problematic. Nineteen of the 43 tanks had definitely been destroyed by US Army units. Only seven tanks showed signs of being struck by rocket projectiles. Two had been disabled by US Army Air Force bombing, seven had been abandoned without a mark on them, and four had been destroyed by their crews. The fate of just three tanks was judged to be from unknown causes .106 

The Army OR group was quite prepared to accept the argument that air power might be credited for some of the abandoned and crew destroyed tanks. Their report, however, noted that these tanks could not be taken into consideration when comparing pilots' claims of having destroyed or damaged vehicles. Major Pike's dispassionate analysis of the evidence angered the RAF and provoked outrage at 2 TAF headquarters. An official air force review of the events was quickly developed. It is worth quoting at length: 

Ground Investigation: 
An attempt was made to examine the area on the ground within five days of the air attacks. However, at that time, fighting was still in progress and it was not until 20th August 1944 that the examination was completed. Nevertheless 39 tanks and 58 other vehicles, or the remains thereof, were examined. An analysis of the extent to which these were damaged is given below: 

Destroyed . Damaged . Abandoned, Slightly damaged or untouched 
Tanks . . . .24 . . 10 . . 5 
Other Veh. . . 32 . . 23 . . 3 

The German recovery service is remarkably efficient, and on this occasion there was very definite evidence that it had been as efficient as usual. Eye witnesses confirmed this fact. It can therefore be safely assumed that the vehicles found were only a small proportion of those actually destroyed and damaged, and probably an even smaller proportion of those which, although only slightly damaged, had been abandoned by their crews. To attribute destruction or damage to a particular arm or weapon is particularly difficult; however, taking into account the number of vehicles found, surrounded by rocket craters, and others with almost certain rocket or 20min strikes, it appears that the claims were reasonable. It is inevitable that when a large number of aircraft are operating in a comparatively small area, that certain claims will be duplicated. There is no reason to believe, however, that on this occasion the duplication resulted in anything but a small over statement of the damage inflicted. 

Officers and other ranks who witnessed the attacks were effusive in their praise of their effectiveness. They freely admitted that had the counter attack continued with the same determination as before the Typhoons had appeared, they would have been unable to repel it."107 

This was a serious distortion of the evidence which the Army OR group could not let pass unchallenged. Major Pike, in his report, directly contradicted the RAF view: 

The efficiency of the German recovery system has been put forward as an explanation of the large discrepancy between the number of vehicles claimed to be destroyed and the actual number found. Tanks and lorries that are destroyed as a result of air attack are almost always burnt out and would not be worth salvaging unless time and labour were both very plentiful. Many prisoners have been questioned on the subject of the recovery of tanks and it has been established that burnt out tanks are never salvaged. In addition it has been ascertained that, contrary to certain statements made about the Mortain battle, very little recovery was done in this part of Normandy at the time; in fact the repair and recovery teams were already pulling out of Normandy when the battle of Mortain was at its height."108 

The Army OR group agreed that the Allied Air Forces had a "considerable effect" on the German attack at Mortain. But nothing remotely resembling the air force claims could be justified. 1ndeed, in many areas of the battlefield, no signs of the characteristic rocket crater could be found. The RAF ought to have accepted this view, for it knew from its own recent research that there were serious aiming problems with rocket (and bomb equipped) Typhoons. 

The most recent RAF study on the "accuracy of attacks" had been completed in June 1944. It showed that under the most favourable conditions average pilots were lucky to concentrate their rockets in a circle 150 yards in diameter. The report stated: 

In order to hit a small target with R.P. the pilot must be at the right height and dive angle, have the correct speed, have his sight on the target and the right angular depression on his sight, make the correct wind allowances and be free from skid or 'g' ... 

All of these factors are important but it is very difficult for a pilot to have them all right at the same time."109 

The report raised the question of what really happened in combat when the pilot was also being harassed by anti aircraft fire. It concluded that previous views of the accuracy of RP attacks and of divebombing (which was even more subject to aiming error) were wrong. Such ideas must have been based on "the performance of a few very keen and experienced pilots who can hit small objects, such as tanks, with R.P.'s." Such men might be grouped into a "corps d’elite" capable of attacking special targets but only continual training and practice could improve the accuracy of most of the TAF pilots."" 

The rival OR teams next raced north to examine the battlefield around Falaise and the roads leading to the Seine crossings. Here there were thousands of wrecked vehicles to investigate and a new round of argument over the role of air power to be waged. The army investigators would once again report that their three week investigation established beyond dispute that the devastation of the German forces in the area known as the "Shambles" was not due to direct air attack. Only 11 of 171 armoured fighting vehicles examined had been hit by bombs or rockets. No doubt the air force had assisted in destroying German morale strafing had accounted for a third of all soft skinned vehicle losses but, in the words of the OR report, the destruction of the German army had been achieved by 1and action.""' 

The investigation of the Mortain battle continued to produce sparks. After one particularly nasty exchange, Brigadier Schonland suggested that "unless there were fairies in Normandy who could remove a large formation of tanks from the Mortain area,” 112 it was time to accept the evidence and act on the basis of fact, not fiction. But in the summer of 1944, 2 TAF was in no mood to discuss the issues raised by Army OR. In an official "Addenda" to the Army's Report the Air Force insisted that: 

It would be wrong to regard the data provided in this report as yielding information on which to make recommendations for changes in weapons, tactics or operational doctrine, although the factual side of the report can itself be accepted. 113 

If it was not permissible to use accepted data as the basis for recommendations about "changes in weapons, tactics or operational doctrine" then there was little point to further investigation of tactical air power. However, 21 Army Group was not about to give up its attempts to influence tactical air doctrine. A formal agreement was negotiated between Schonland and 2 TAF which provided for joint investigations of air operations against ground targets. 

Air Force and Army OR researchers prepared four Joint Reports in the fall and winter of 1944-1945. 114 Again there was no disagreement about the evidence. For example, in Joint Report No.3 titled "Rocket Firing Typhoons in Close Support of Military Operations," it was found that 350 rockets, involving 44 sorties, would have to be fired at a small gun position to obtain a fifty percent chance of a hit.115 Typhoons were clearly weapons which were best used to reduce enemy morale and raise the morale of Allied infantry. Both doctrine and the manner of planning operations needed to be revised to take account of this new information as had been done in the US Ninth Air Force.116 The RAF, however, would not budge. The German offensive in the Ardennes provided the section with another opportunity to study the hard evidence on the role of tactical air power and once again their findings challenged the accepted interpretation. Almost the entire section was involved in the ground search while D.N. Royce worked his way down the line of communications interviewing prisoners of war. 117


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 8, 2005)

Damn thanks for the info.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 8, 2005)

Nice info Erich.


----------



## Erich (Oct 9, 2005)

this is report number 4 written by the Number 2 of the ORS in NW Europe July and August of 44..........Mortain

Report No.4 

Air Attacks on Enemy Tanks and Motor Transport in the Mortain Area, August 1944 

Tactical Situation 

1. At the beginning of August 1944, the Allied armies had begun their break out from the Normandy beach head; the British and Canadians were pushing southward from CAUMONT and CAEN and the Americans, having driven down the west coast of Normandy, were rapidly moving eastward and northwards thereby threatening to surround the German armies in Normandy. 

2. The following diary of events in the MORTAIN area illustrates the circumstances in which the air attacks took place: 
6 Aug. During the day the enemy counter attacked strongly against 30 Inf. Div in the MORTAIN area and they re occupied the town. 
7 Aug. In the early morning the enemy launched a strong armoured attack in the MORTAIN area. Although small numbers of tanks penetrated U.S. positions at a few points, the situation was soon under control. During the day large enemy concentrations of tanks and MT were attacked from the air with excellent results. 
8 Aug. Little change reported. Enemy still exerted pressure in the MORTAIN area. 
9 Aug. The enemy continued his efforts to break through to Avranches with the greater part of his armoured formations. Although the enemy held MORTAIN, 4, 9 and 30 Inf. Divs. with 2 and 3 Armd. Divs. resisted strongly on the high ground to the north, west and south of the town. 35 Inf. Div. made some progress with an attack SW of MORTAIN. 
10 Aug. SE of MORTAIN 2 Armd. Div. made progress, reaching a point 6 miles east of the town. Heavy concentrations of enemy armour (5 divisions) remained in the MORTAIN DOMFRONT area but no large scale counter attacks developed. 4, 9 and 30 Inf. Divs. continued to meet heavy opposition. 
11 Aug. The enemy withdrew from the MORTAIN salient and the town was re occupied by troops of VII Corps. North and south of the town all divisions advanced against little or no opposition. 

Air Effort 

3. Bad weather prevented flying in the morning of 7 August but arrangements were made for the Second Tactical Air Force to come to the assistance of the IX US Air Force as soon as conditions permitted. The weather cleared quite suddenly about mid day, between which time and dusk 294 sorties were flown by typhoons of 2 TAF in support of the American ground forces in the MORTAIN area. Although, owing to their many other commitments in France, the IX USAAF only flew some 200 sorties to MORTAIN that afternoon, they continued their attacks over the next three days and flew 441 sorties in all. 

4. Conditions on the afternoon of 7 August were ideal from the pilot's point of view as no opposition was encountered from enemy aircraft nor, till late in the day, was there any appreciable flak reaction. Under cover of mist and low cloud the Germans seemed to have neglected all normal precautions and, when the weather cleared, they were sighted in large numbers head to tail in narrow roads and lanes. The pilots reported that they were able to go in very close to attack, rockets being fired at 1000 yards range and cannon and machine guns from even closer. Claims made by the pilots during the MORTAIN Battle (7th 10th August) are shown in Table 1 below: 

Table 1 - Pilots' Claims 
. . . . Destroyed . Probably Destroyed . Damaged . Total 
Armour 
2 TAF . . . 84 . . 35 . . 21 . . 140 
IX USAAF. . 69 . . .8 . . 35 . . 112 
Totals. . . 153. . 43 . . 56 . . 252 

MT 
2 TAF . . . 54 . . 19 . . 39 . . 112 
IX USAAF. . 94 . . .1 . . 21 . . 116 
Totals. . .148 . . 20 . . 60 . . 228 

Grand Total 
(Armour MT) . 301 . 63 . 116 . 480 

Ground Investigation 

5. Between 12 August and 20 August members of the Operational Research Sections from 21 Army Group and Second Tactical Air Force conducted separate ground investigations of the battle area around MORTAIN (see map at Appendix A). The results of the two investigations were compared and collated to produce the figures shown in Table II. (See opposite page) 

6. It was not possible to discriminate between the victims of IX USAAF and of' 2 TAF because, although the 500 lb bomb was the favourite weapon of the former and the rocket that of the latter, American pilots fired some 600 rockets in the course of these attacks and British pilots dropped some bombs. The respective merits of the 50 calibre MG and the 20 mm cannon were not considered and all vehicles that had been destroyed by small projectiles fired from the air have been classed as "Cannon or MG." 

7. Tanks and other vehicles classed as "abandoned" have not been included in the Air Total in Table 11 because, although they were probably abandoned as a result of air attack, they can hardly be considered to have been among those which the pilots claimed to have destroyed as such claims are generally supported by mentions of fire or explosion. 

8. Similarly those enemy vehicles listed as "destroyed by crew" may be regarded as indirect victims of air attack but cannot justifiably be taken into consideration when comparing pilots' claims with what was found on the battlefield. 

9. It is most unlikely that all of the unknown causes were due to air attack, particularly as many of them were found at considerable distances from the nearest signs of such attack and as ground forces were also fighting fierce battles in this area. However, if all the "Unknown causes" are added to the air totals, the resultant figures (armour, 21 + 15 = 36 and MT, 12 + 26 = 38) are still only about a quarter of the numbers claimed as destroyed by the air forces. 



10. The area was not very extensive and as two teams were searching it over a period of several days it is not considered that any appreciable number vehicles was missed. This is confirmed by the fact that one of the investigators flew low over the area in an Auster, plotting the positions of vehicles seen from the air; no fresh vehicles were discovered by this means. 

11. The efficiency of the German recovery system has been put forward as an explanation of the large discrepancy between the number of vehicles claimed to be destroyed and the actual numbers found. Tanks and lorries that are destroyed as a result of air attack are almost always burnt out and would not be worth salvaging unless time and labour were both plentiful. Many prisoners have been questioned on the subject of the recovery of tanks and it has been established that burnt out tanks are never salvaged. In addition it has been ascertained that, contrary to certain statements made about the MORTAIN battle, very little recovery was done in this part of Normandy at the time, in fact the repair and recovery teams were already pulling out of Normandy when the Battle of Mortain was at its height. In any case before considering the recovery of the "destroyed" tanks and MT, the "probably destroyed" (43 tanks and 20 MT) and the "damaged" (56 tanks and 60 MT) must have presented the recovery organisation with a large task without counting any that may have been damaged by the ground forces. 

12. At Appendix B is a list of the vehicles found by members of No.2 Operational Research Section together with the causes of destruction where it was possible to assess them. No similar record is available for the vehicles which were examined only by members of ORS/2 TAF. 

Conclusions 

(a) The attacks by the Allied Air Forces had a considerable effect on the enemy's unsuccessful counter attack at MORTAIN. 

(b) The number of vehicles claimed by the pilots as "destroyed" was about four times the actual number discovered. 

(c) A number of vehicles, though not claimed by the pilots, were lost to the enemy by "indirect" air action (i.e. abandoned or destroyed by the crew). 


Appendix B 

1. Road Juvigny Le Tertre to St. Barthelmy 
At pt 565145 
2 Panthers 
(a) AP shot above track on LHS of hull penetrated and killed some of crew. Gun, tracks, engine and petrol all O.K. No fire. Abandoned after AP hit but probably driven off road first. 
(b) 105 mm HE ? strike 2 ft up from hull on LH rear corner of turret. Fragments damaged cupola and periscopes; also top hull plate torn (L shape 10” x 6”) just below strike: engine air louvres damaged. 
Also 75 AP hit through bogies on LH side. Engine O.K. petrol O.K., gun O.K. Deep scoop by 75 AP on rear. Abandoned by crew unharmed: no bodies, no gore. There were 4 RP strikes in field on other side of road and one on this side hit tree at roadside. 

Next field, same side of road 
2 Panthers 
(a) No visible sign of damage. Petrol, engine, tracks and gun all O.K. Even sights left on gun. Abandoned undamaged. 
(b) Hit by 75 AP on LHSjust below turret in ammunition storage. Brewed up. Also hit on RH track and sprocket. None of these hits could have been from air. 

Field north side of road, same place 
3 Panthers, 1 Armd Car, 1 Armd Tp Carrier 
(a) Panther received slanting blow into track and bogies on RHS. Definite RP hit as proved by debris but poor explosion as shown by small damage. Everything else in the tank quite O.K. 
(b) Panther received 4 hits from 75 min AP (3 scooped and 1 penetrated) on underside of front, almost belly. This can only be exposed when climbing bank. Terrific brew up yet tyres on LHS untouched. 
(c) Panther had 4 75 mm AP scoops on front glacis plate. Gun, engine, petrol and tracks all O.K. Deserted intact. 
(d) Armd Car. RP crater and debris below RH front wheel; explosive force upwards and inwards. Brewed up. 
(e) Armd Tp Carrier had 105 mm AP hit on LHS and was completed brewed up. 

On N side of road, few yards further east. 
Panther RP strike under rear had blown petrol tank and caused brew up. 
At point 568147 in lane 
Panther with two huge holes in turret from above. Also hit on leading edge of front glacis plate (probably RP). 2 75 AP scoops one on glacis and other on mantlet. Major damage (holes in turret) might have been RP but several bomb craters (500 lb.025 sec delay) within 15 yds suggest possible direct hit by bomb. Complete write off. 

Few yards east along road 
Armd Tp Carrier complete wreck as amn exploded and blew side off. Brew up from unknown causes. 

Other side of road, same ref. 
Panther RP strikes all along road but bazooka hit on LHS into amn stowage space caused brew up. Angle of attack suggests infantryman fired from high bank on roadside at almost point blank range could have been after desertion. 

30 yds further east 
2 Armd Tp Carriers, 1 Peoples Car (Amphibious) 
(a) Arrad Tp Carrier with RP craters all round it. Complete wreck; looks like RP hit on RH rear corner. 
(b) Armd Tp Carrier with downward strike through side armour and then floor. Almost definite RP. 
(c) Peoples Car brewed up from unknown causes. 

At point 570148 
2 Armd Tp Carriers 
(a) Direct hit RP. LH near burned out. 
(b) RP hit from RH corner. Brew up. 

South side of road 
Panther with AP strike on turret. Brewed up. 

Orchard W of cross roads 
Ambulance and Armd Tp Carrier 
(a) Ambulance peppered with fragments and abandoned. 
(b) Armd Tp Carrier unknown causes brew up. 

At cross roads 575144 
Panther holes in floor over track which suggested downward attack but no possible entry for hit, therefore caused by explosion of gun. Unknown causes for brew up (possibly by crew). 

2. Road from Cherence le Roussel via St. Barthelamy to Mortain 
At point 556157 
Arm Tp Carrier and Lorry 
(a) Armd Tp Carrier: 3 RP strike very near; complete blow up and brew up; possible RP. 
(b) Lorry completely wrecked by causes unknown. 

Slightly east of 556157 
Peoples' Car (Amphibious) completely destroyed by unknown causes. No RP strikes near. 

In Bellefontaine 
Opened Command Car with Rangefinder. 2 RP craters 2 yds from rear and many more in garden nearby. Brewed up probably RP. 

East of Bellefontaine 
Armd Tp Carrier and Lorry 
(a) Armd Tp Carrier completely destroyed by unknown causes but RP strikes in neighbouring field. 
(b) As above 

Slightly further south 
2 Panthers 
(a) 5 AP hit in rear of hull caused brew up. Tracks O.K. 
(b) Hit on RH sprocket. Abandoned and set on fire by crew. 
Armd Tp Carrier: direct hit by unknown shell centre of LHS. Brew up. 

At point 580138 
Panther no visible cause of damage through bazooka and bits all around. Burnt out in entrance to lane; possibly set on fire by crew. 
At same spot 
Behind Panther in lane was a lorry quite burnt out and partly exploded. Destroyed by crew. 

3. Road Mortain to Barenton 
Note: No signs of RP strikes along this road. Some HE, but in general this main road was avoided by the Germans. 
Panther wrecked from unknown causes at 619076. 

At628071 
An 88 mm gun riddled with HE fragments and end of barrel blown off. 
Between there and Barenton 
4 lorries destroyed by unknown causes; probably HE or cannon fire from air. 

At point 620073 
Panther on its side. Unknown shell hit (HE?) 

4. Road Barenton to Ger. No RP strikes seen along this road. 
88 mm A/T gun at 678066 abandoned. 
4 lorries burnt out between Barenton and Le Gue Rochoux. 

At point 693095 
2 75 mm SP 
(a) AP shot on LHS of gun shield. Brew up. 
(b) Unknown hit on RHS. Brew up. Blew up and hurled gun away from chassis. Probably self destroyed as a result of bogging. 

Other side of road 
50 mm A/T gun with trail damaged but otherwise intact. 
Armd Tp Carrier (to tow 50 mm A/T). Hole through bottom on RHS. LH wall blown off. Probably HE. 

At point 695100 
German saloon car riddled with HE fragments. 

Half mile further on 
Armd Tp Carrier amn exploded and blew back off. Front and engine O.K. 

At 700105 
Petrol carrying lorry burnt out and chassis warped by heat. 
Another lorry wrecked just near. 
This area bombed by 500 lb, one of which made crater across road near second lorry. 

5. Ger Montain Road. No RP strikes seen near this road. 
At 695137 
German lorry burnt out. Causes unknown 

1 km further on 
Another burnt out lorry possibly HE. 

Cross roads at Bire Feugeray 
Burnt out lorry 

1 km further west. 
Ambulance and Lorry Both destroyed by unknown causes. 

At 653124 
Panther in lane. RH track very loose. Crew were about to repair when surprised. Petrol O.K. Gun O.K. Abandoned. 

Few yds further west 
75 SP (Mk 111 chassis) complete blow up with gun separate from body. 
Peoples car abandoned. 
Lorry burnt out. 

At pt. 620119 
2 lorries burnt out 1 car wrecked unknown causes 

At 597118 
Armd Tp Carrier abandoned with front wheels removed (since). 
One dead German on stretcher in back. 

At 586123 
Mk 111 with 75 mm hit by AP above track on RHS of hull. Brew up. 

On other side of rly. 
Another Mk 111 Armd TP Carrier (both completely wrecked and burnt out). 

6. Road Mortain to Sourdeval 
At587140 
German lorry burnt out with 500 lb bomb craters very near. 

7/8 mile further north 
Lorry and trailer burnt out. 

At La Tournerie 
Panther without turret, fitted up as recovery vehicle. Hole on front glacis plate exactly like that caused by magnetic bomb. Charred body inside. Burnt out lorry at same spot. 

Between La Tournerie and Sourdeval 
4 burnt out lorries, 2 M/C and Staff Cars burnt out; Peoples' Car abandoned (all possibly HE). 

7. Road La Tournerie to St. Clement 
Pt. 596145 
Mk 111. RH track gone. Hit on rear at RHS by unknown shell. Inside O.K. 

Pt. 610140 
Panther. One bogey damaged. Both tracks off, being towed. Petrol O.K.; abandoned. 
RP strikes in field each side of road and one on a tree at roadside near Panther. 

Pt. 620142 
Panther barrel gone. Minus tracks; was being recovered. Possibly self destroyed. 
Tracked recce car, full of spare parts, used for recovery purposes. Burnt out on road and towed into field. Causes unknown. 
Panther brewed up. Gun mantlet thrown forward suggesting demolition. 

8. Road Le Gue Rochoux La Conerie Barenton 
4 burnt out lorries. Causes unknown.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2005)

Very interesting. I enjoyed reading that.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 10, 2005)

Nice info Erich.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 10, 2005)

Great info Erich.....


----------



## trackend (Oct 10, 2005)

Fascinating Erich I enjoyed reading that a lot Cheers.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 10, 2005)

Good info, Erich!


----------



## Erich (Oct 10, 2005)

another report:

As a result of the American break through (Operation COBRA), a retreating German column was attacked during the afternoon of 29 July by Rocket-firing Typhoons of 121 Wing, 83 Group and American Thunderbolts carrying 500 lb bombs. 99 sorties were made by 121 Wing. 

It is not possible to state how long this particular German unit had been fighting as its name is not known but, on evidence of its abandoned equipment, it was a mixed column containing Panther tanks, SP guns, armoured troop carriers, lorry drawn A tk guns and howitzers, Pupschen rocket guns, armoured and staff cars. 

According to local inhabitants the column was passing throughout the day and was joined by troops from the vicinity who looted as they left. 

II. Terrain 

The path of the German retreat in the area under consideration is shown in the appended map. It lay through country well dissected by deep narrow twisting valleys, much of the area being heavily wooded. 

The side road which was used leaves the main road about 1 kilometre south of ST. DENIS LE-GAST (MR 315443) and descends rapidly to LA BALEINE where the River SIENNE is crossed. This road has a steep wooded cliff on one side and a sheer drop to the river on the other so that it was impossible for vehicles to draw off the road. 

At LA BALEINE (MR 323427) the road crosses the river by a bridge which had been sufficiently damaged by 500 lb bombs dropped by Thunderbolts to prevent heavy traffic from crossing. 

After crossing the bridge the road turns south, closely following the course of the river and a few feet above water level. On the east a densely wooded hill rises abruptly from the roadside making manoeuvre impossible. Half a mile down this stretch of the road (at point "A" on the attached map) the road twists sharply away from the river up a side valley. At this corner the road is well exposed to air observation and attack. 

For the next quarter of a mile along the road as it climbs up towards the north east there is a fairly thick screening from the air, but just before the cross roads ("B") there is a short stretch that is much more open. At "B" the route followed by some, and perhaps all, the Germans turn south and continue to climb between high banks through farmlands and orchards. At several points along this stretch there are gaps in the road banks giving access to the fields. 

To the east of "C" abandoned and destroyed vehicles were found along a fairly level road through fields with trees lining all the hedges and along a similar one turning south from it. As these roads are well outside the area attacked by the Typhoons the route was not examined further. 

III. Details of Damage 

(Note: Letters and numbers refer to points marked on the attached map.) 



Point 1: Two camouflaged Panthers were placed in an orchard and facing the main road from ST. DENISLE GAST. They were probably in this position for several hours as there were signs that meals had been cooked. Craters caused by 500 lb bombs were seen within 50 yards of the tanks; these are thought to have been dropped by American Thunderbolts which are known to have been operating in the area. The tanks had not been hit but the crews apparently baled out, set fire to their tanks, and destroyed one of the guns by leaving an HE round in the chamber. 

Point 2: A 75 mm SP with thick, concrete reinforcement of the turret was found pushed off the road by a Bulldozer. This SP was undamaged but 5 strikes from the air (cannon or machine gun) had made "cups" in the concrete. There was a 500 lb bomb crater 35 yards away. If the SP had been left to block the road it would have been set on fire by its crew; as it was not, the presumption is that it was abandoned in haste. 

Points 3 and 4: Round about points 3 and 4 a number of 500 lb bomb craters were observed. At point 3 a Panther had been left on the road in perfect condition with full complement of petrol and ammunition. At, point 4 another Panther was found undamaged in every respect. If the commanders of these tanks had wished they could have travelled down the right hand bank of the stream and attempted a crossing as Shermans later succeeded in doing. 

All along the river bank between point 2 and the bridge at LA BALEINE an assortment of "B" vehicles, all burnt out beyond recognition, had been pushed off the road by Bulldozers. A fair estimate would be eight vehicles (lorries and cars). 

On the east side of the bridge a wrecked German saloon car was found at the foot of a 10 foot bank. 

Point 5: A Panther was found to have been hit in the engine by a rocket projectile. It had brewed up. 

Between the bridge and point 5 were a lorry towing a Howitzer and a saloon car; all three were completely wrecked and burnt out. RP strikes on the ground were numerous in this area. 

One hundred yards south of Point 5 was another lorry towing a Howitzer; the lorry was a charred wreck but the Howitzer seemed to be undamaged. 

A: Just north of corner A, by the edge of the wood, was a burnt out lorry which had been towing a 50 mm A tk gun. A Pupschen rocket gun was also found at this point; both guns were undamaged. At corner A, where many RP strikes were observed, was a Panther which had not been hit by anything and appeared to have been abandoned intact. Also at this corner were 5 armoured troop carriers (half tracks) which were all completely destroyed. RP was definitely responsible in one case and probably in all, but the damage was too great to allow accurate estimation. 

Point 6: A troop carrying lorry was found burnt out; RP strikes were numerous in this area and the lorry was probably destroyed by this means. 

Point 7: A Mark IV Special was found completely wrecked and pushed off the road; the great number of strikes in the immediate vicinity would suggest that it had been hit by RP. 

A little further up the road were a saloon car and a lorry, both completely destroyed and burnt. 

Point 8: A Panther was found wedged between a barn and a high bank; it also had stones in the tracks. A broken towing hook and tracks on the ground showed that another tank had tried to tow it and failed. This Panther had received no damage of any sort but was set on fire by the crew in the presence of the farmer. 

In an orchard opposite Point 8 was a Volkswagen which had been hit in the engine by cannon or machine gun fire from the air. 

A few yards up the road from Point 8 an armoured car (captured from the Americans and painted with German markings) had brewed up as a result of a hit in the engine. Although this looked like RP damage there were no strikes or debris anywhere near the point where the fire took place. 

Point 9: A lorry was found burnt out; again there were no signs of rocket strikes. 

In fields just off the road, at points marked x on the map, there were cars abandoned in various states of destruction. None of these had been hit by RP. 

Point 10: A 75 mm SP gun was found burnt out but with no visible sign of the cause of the fire. A few yards away was a 50 mm A/tk gun, the breech of which had been deliberately destroyed. 

Point 11: A Panther had an AP hit in the engine and another on the left driving sprocket; the left track was off. The gun had its barrel completely destroyed in the manner that suggested deliberate destruction on the part of the crew. This Panther had brewed up but the tyres were intact. It was a long way from the nearest area where rocket strikes were observed. 

Throughout the area no German graves were found and only one German corpse, said by local inhabitants to have been that of a sniper shot subsequent to the passing of the column. It is possible that American forces had taken uhe dead to a distance to bury them but no proof or disproof of this could be found. 

Many French civilians were examined in the area and their evidence confirmed the statements made in this report. 

IV. Summary of Damage 

The details of damage are summarised in the following table: 



Note to Summary 

The high proportion of abandoned Panther tanks to the total number of such tanks should be noted. 

The MT was so mangled that identification of the causes of destruction was impossible; in consequence, the "unknown cause s" total has been unduly loaded. It would probably give a truer picture of events if the MT losses were spread over all the table in the same proportion as the other losses.


----------



## Erich (Oct 10, 2005)

odd the map and table did not copy.............sorry guys


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 10, 2005)

This is all great stuff.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 10, 2005)

Great stuff Erich!


----------



## trackend (Oct 10, 2005)

Highly detailed stuff Erich cheers a real forensic visit to a battle field.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 10, 2005)

Definitely. Great info.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 10, 2005)

I remember seeing a History Channel show about 9th AF P47's figuring out how to disable a tank by aiming at the ground just in front of the tank and letting the richochette's penetrate the unarmoured bottom.

Dont know if its true.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 10, 2005)

syscom3 said:


> I remember seeing a History Channel show about 9th AF P47's figuring out how to disable a tank by aiming at the ground just in front of the tank and letting the richochette's penetrate the unarmoured bottom.
> 
> Dont know if its true.



I like to think of this as one of those great enduring myths of WW2 aviation.

When you actually analyse it though, it turns out to be impossible.

Most WW2 tanks were more heavily armoured on their undersides than people realise. Designers generally gave their tanks some degree of protection to anti-tank mines, which meant heavy floor armour.

Panzer IV had around 85mm on is undersurfaces.
Panzer V (Panther) had around 90mm on its undersurfaces
Panzer VI (Tiger) had between 26mm and 90mm on its undersurfacces

The best penetration for a WW2 vintage M2 firing AP ammo is about 27mm at 90 degrees at 200 meters. The best penetration for API ammo is about 22mm at 90 degrees at 200m. If you add the extra velocity of a plane doing 350 mph then you can add about 155m/sec. This puts the inital velocity of a M2 AP round up from about 890m/sec to 1045m/sec, an increase of about 15%. That is going to add a maximum of about 3-4mm penetration

So, even a point blank shot against the lower hull, with no deflecting angle, adding the extra initial velocity, is not going to penetrate the armour plate on the bottom of a WW2 era tank.

You also have to consider a few other factors.
1. The drop in velocity when the bullet strikes the ground. This will rob the round of about 10-15% of its speed.
2. Round deformation when it hits the ground. Firing a .50cal round at a concrete or ashphalt surface is going to seriously mess up the claen shape of the projectile. That in turn will reduce the armour piercing capabilites of the round.
3. Angle of impact. In order to skip a round up into the belly of a tank, you would have to fire it at an oblique angle. So the round is not going to hit at the desired 90 degrees, but rather at something more like 30 degrees. This means that the bullet would have to pass through about 75% more armour to gain a penetration, if it wasn't deflected in the first place. 

The one video I have seen of pilots refering to skipping rounds up into the underside of tanks is not actually referance to pazers at all. Rather it was a 9th AF straffing film where pilots would fire at the towed fuel tanks that Tigers often pulled along with them. The top and sides of the fuel tanks were armoured, but the undersides weren't. So the pilots would hit the fuel tanks, causing a nice explosion and hopefully getting a soft kill on the Tiger by pouring flaming gasoline into the engine vents.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 10, 2005)

We went through this before... There were some Tigers that were destroyed by skipping rounds into the underbelly of the tank... We are not talking one single round, but several rounds impacting into the same area...

While this happened quite infrequently, it still happened...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

I can see it happening on a case by case basis but I am sure it was not a standard tactic because it would not work all the time.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 11, 2005)

I'm going to be truculent and disagree with you lesofprimus. To me the concept is soundly in the realm of the impossible. I have never seen any post-battle research that indicates that .50calibre rounds killed a tank by bouncing up into its undersides. This is in the same leauge as the claims of P-47s turning over Tiger tanks with concentrated fire.

I don't believe that a .50 calibre round, or even a steady stream of .50 cal round,s could do serious damage to a German tank after being deflected off the ground and into its belly. Dispersion and ground deflection alone are going to gaurentee that the rounds wont line up neatly and punch through the armour.

At a minimum the rounds have to pass through 26mm of armour, at an unfavourable angle after coming up off the ground. The .50 cal is a good gun, firing a good round, but the physics of it is simply impossible. A 12.7mm round doesn't have a desirable length/diameter ratio to penetrate armour that more than twice its own diameter. The energy it would expend trying to punch through that much armour would rob it of all velocity and stop any spalling effects, which is really the most leathal thing to a tank crew. 

Think about it. If it hits the ground at 30 degree angle and then leaves it at a similar angle, there has to be a serious loss of energy to alter the direction of travel. So your round traveling at 30 degrees now hits the flat bottom of a tank, with anywhere between 1 and 3 1/2 inches of RHA. 

Assume that the bottom armour is just 1 inch. A round hitting flat (90 degrees) has to punch through 25.4 mm of armour, better than the best performance of WW2 US .50cal AP rounds by about 2mm. If the round strikes at ~60 degrees, it has to pass through approximately 30mm of armour. If it strikes at ~45 degrees then it has to pass through ~35mm of armour. It it strikes at ~30 degrees then it has to pass through about 50mm, or twice the value of the armour at 90 degrees.

What I do accept is that many German tanks were disabled by straffing. Pouring rounds into the engine exhaust grates, setting off external fuel and ammunition stores, damaging tracks, damaging crew doors, damaging external equipment ect would all contribute to a 'soft kill' i.e. the tank is abandoned or no longer in fighting condition, but is capable of leaving the battle-field and is fully repairable. German tank crews who underwent air attack with aircraft firing HMG rounds describe it as something similar to standing in a corrugated iron shed and having someone hurl a handful of pebbles at it.

Just a hypothetical to consider; if the .50 WAS indeed capable of killing a tank through this method, why wasn't it used by other airforces, with heavier standard weapons? Surely the British with 4 20mm Hispanos on the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest would of done something similar? The Hispano, with a similar M/V and 3 times the round weight, would surely be better at similar straffing atack.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 11, 2005)

Heinously stolen from one of Tony Williams long forums discussions at aviationbanter.com:



> 1. It is extremely unlikely that any bullets bounced off the road
> would strike a tank's belly armour at an angle better than 30 degrees
> (that would involve the plane attacking in a dive steeper than that).
> 
> ...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 11, 2005)

Im sorry, I should have clarified.... I was referring to the use of the 20mm cartridge...


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 11, 2005)

Perhaps then, the pilots were shooting up the engine compartment and the track assembly which appeared to them as destroying the tank. To them, flying along at 300 mph at 2000 ft, they saw a tank rolling on the road, they strafed it damaging the tracks and it stopped. No way they could observe what was damaged on it.

I do suppose though it would have been effective against the various lightly armored vehicles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2005)

Lightly armoured yes but I only see it as case by case for tanks.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Hehe, anything with a lot of rockets! I suppose the IL-2 is a good one, I also like the P-47.. I suppose good cannons could peirce armor. I wouldn't think to say the P-38 right away but.. it can hold a lot of rockets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

In my opinion the best tank killers are:

Fw-190F-8 with 2 13mm, 24 R4M Rockets or Panzerblitz rockets.
Ju-87G-1 Stuka with 2 37mm Cannon
Hawker Typhoon IB with 4 20mm Cannons and 8 60lb rockets.
P-47 Thunderbolt with 8 50 cal machine guns and 10 5in rockets.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

Youre forgetting the Hs 129B-2/R3, with two 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon with 125 rounds per gun, plus a 37 mm BK 3,7 gun in a ventral pod.......

The first pilot to earn the Ritterkreuz - Knight's Cross for his tank kills in the Hs-129 was Hptm. Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer for his 72 tank kills on 9 June 1944.... He was killed by flak in July 1944.... Less than a handful of 129 pilots would earn that distinction during the war....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes you are right, I did forget that one. I just thinkt that the Hs-129 needed better engines than those damn french ones that they put in, what were they thinking?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

They were supposed to replace them with some Eyetalian ones, but then Italy surrendered and that was the end of the -129....

I think that without the 75mm that they had in some of em, the -129 was a good tank buster... Alot of pilot errors and crashes kinda put a dark light in this kite... Some of the more experienced -129 pilots knew how to fly it and made some decent kills...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I think overall it was a good aircraft, well armed, and well armoured, just underpowered.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed 100%... Another one of those great "What If?" questions...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Exactly...


----------



## CurzonDax (Nov 21, 2005)

My opinion on all of this is that ALL aircraft make "good" tank busters. As was shown especially in the western front, if the enemy, the Allies in this case, have complete air supremacy and good weather no tank is going to go anywhere. Once they were spotted, even from a Piper Cub, the actual tankbusters came in and busted.

Also I wonder, in the western front, how many German tanks were destroyed vs. tank to tank combat or infantry to tank combat compared to be destroyed from the air. 

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2005)

i'd assume more were destroyed from the air than on the ground............

and if adler gets the -87G i get the hurricane Mk.IID .............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

I would not take the Ju-87G. I would take either a P-47 or a Fw-190F.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

I would take the Fw-190F-8. Two 13mm Mg/131 and the R4M setup would be lethal. If i had a choice i wouldnt have any 20mm guns on my 190, contributing the weight savings to more ammo for the Mg/131 or the fuel/external stores carriage, or simply more armor, because you couldnt have enough when you were running low level strafing/tank busting missions. 

Also, looking back on that tank killing with .50 cal and 20mm rounds, i heard that on the history channel no less. They were talking about P-51D's strafing and destroying tanks by bouncing rounds off the road into the underside. I saw a video of this, guncam footage, and it looked disabled, but at the speeds, you couldnt tell, so im assuming the track/engine was disabled, and the tank simply stopped and wasnt knocked out, as was claimed.

Does anyone have the kill records on german Wirbelwind or any other german antiaircraft tank from the war? ive always been interested in those wicked looking things, and never saw any kill ratios/records.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 24, 2005)

The Fw-190F-8 Panzershreck with 12X 55mm rockets, or the -190F-3/R3 with the twin 30mm MK 103 gondolas, IMO, was the best tank killer, but erich has let on that there were some Me-262's running around with armor piercing R4M's knocking tanks out left and right, although I myself have not been able to confirm this...

I have found some confirmation of Typhoons bouncing 20mm rounds under some tanks, but not .50 cals....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> erich has let on that there were some Me-262's running around with armor piercing R4M's knocking tanks out left and right, although I myself have not been able to confirm this...



I have heard this also, but know nothing about it myself.


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2005)

its very brief and included in manfred boehmes fantastic JG 7 book, although when he first wrote the book in german he has since found a tone of new info on the lat two months of the jet geschwader.

slight change, these chaps are reputed to have flown the ju 87g-1 and socred these kills although rudels kills for fact at least some were with earlier ju 87 variants. ok guys time to do some research on these varied chaps like units and maybe a scanned pic or two eh ? sorry my hands are totast today so no caps for me now .........  

Hans-Ulrich Rudel: 516
Jakob Jenster: >100
Anton Korol: 99
Max Diepold: 87
Hans Ludwig: 85
Fehdler: >=65
Josef Bluemel: 60
Andreas Kuffner: >60
Ulrich Mundt: 40 

e ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Rudel was deffinatly the undisputed Tank Killer of the 2nd World War. I dont think anyone can dispute that.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 27, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Rudel was deffinatly the undisputed Tank Killer of the 2nd World War. I dont think anyone can dispute that.


Very true Alder, just looking at that list shows you how many he had compared to his contempories, he also sank a couple of ships if I remember correctly, I can't remember the breakdown of the 'kills' though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Yeap he got ships and got some aerial kills also. Pretty amazing actually.

Rudel flew 2530 combat missions. In those combat missions he was or achieved:

Kills
518+ Tanks 
700 Trucks 
150+ Flak and Artillery positions 
9 Fighter/Ground Attack Aircraft 
Hundreds of bridges, railway lines, bunkers, etc. 
Battleship October Revolution, Cruiser Marat, and 70 landing craft 

He was however:

Shot down 32 times. 
Innumerable aircraft brought back to base that were later written off, due to heavy combat damage. 
Wounded on many occasions, including the partial amputation of his right leg in the Spring of 45, after which he continued to fly with a prosthetic limb. 

He recieved the following awards and decorations:

Knights Cross - 15 Jan 1942

Oakleaves - 14 Apr 1943

Oakleaves and Swords - 25 Nov 1943

Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds - 29 Mar 1944

Golden Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds - 01 Jan 1945


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 27, 2005)

An amazing man, remarkable at his job.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2005)

Agreed


----------



## Tommy Enfield (Nov 28, 2005)

[I do not know how much armor the Hs129 had to protect the engines; what I know is the cockpit was a an actual armored box and that the Shturmovik carried about 90 kilograms more of armor]

The problem was not the amount of armor the Hs-129 had protecting its engines, the engines themselves were the problem. Another factor to keep in mind is the numbers, the Hs-129 could not, and should not be compared with the Il-2, just because the german plane was not to see too much action, indeed. By contrast, the Il-2 and its more advanced development the Il-10, served for the duration of the War, so even though the Soviets could be inflating the achievements of these two designs, there are good signs of the true performance of the soviet plane against armored targets, and if the germans called them Black Death or not is irrelevant. They (the german ground forces) were under constant attack so the warning call Achtung Jabos!! was commonplace during the big offensives of 1943-45, so I guess, they had a reasonable respect for the Russian attack planes.


The Hs-129 is an appealing plane indeed, and all of us are aware of its feats in July 1943, during the German offensive against the Kursk salient, but there were simply not enough of them.

I'd go for the rocket-armed Typhoon anyways 8)


----------



## Tommy Enfield (Nov 28, 2005)

I guess the battleship sunk by Rudel was the Marat, and two others, a cruiser and a destroyer if my memory servs me properly


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2005)

rocket firing typhoons ? better go back and look through some old threads here Tommy as I posted some RAF and US stats from Typhies and Jugs and the findings by Allied ground assements are pretty dismal to say the least alhtough ground claims were never adjusted by wars end. The Hs 129 with the limited numbers it had acheived mighty feats even after Kursk, as well as the Il-2 to a point. By the way the Il-2 was never called a jabo as it was not a dive bomber, this was regulated for West offensive Allied craft from what I understand only.

also of note the Murat was not sunk by Rudel only damaged and then repaired. the claims of 519 tanks...........well many know my personal thoughts on that. Rudel was the ultimate propaganda toy used to full effect to sustain the depleted moral of the Luftwaffe Schlachtgruppen in late 44-45. His victories were often the result of his other staffeln members but since his notority was such acclaimed the Third Reich needed a puppet and he was the one selected. Rudel by no means should be discounted as a flimsy pilot as he was not, excellent I would say and a key role player as SG 2 ws the hot shot Panzer killer on the Ost front followed by the killers in SG 77, 3 and others whcih had the Ju 87 G-1 and later G-2 varinats at their disposal. Sg 9 a mix with Hs 129's and Fw 190's, etc......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

Tommy Enfield said:


> I guess the battleship sunk by Rudel was the Marat, and two others, a cruiser and a destroyer if my memory servs me properly



He sunk the battleship October Revolution. It was a Soviet Battleship.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 29, 2005)

It was the Mara, Adler, not the October Revolution....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Nov 29, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Tommy Enfield said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the battleship sunk by Rudel was the Marat, and two others, a cruiser and a destroyer if my memory servs me properly
> ...



The October Revolution/Gangut was a sister, and name ship for the class, of the Marat/Petropavlovsk. The OR was broken up in 1958-59. The Marat, reverting to her original name was broken up in 1952 after being reclassified as the artillery ship Volkhov post GPW.


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

alright one of the Ju 87G chaps that poked quite a few Soviet tanks. Heres the translation from the German albeit a little screwed up due to my hands.....pic coming later. 

Ulrich Mundt

Oberfeldwebel
*24.10.1915 Berlin-Lichtenberg
+29.01.1945 nerr Bütow/Pommern

RK 25.11.1944 as Oberfeldwebel after 530 combat missions

"Tex" war a passionate glider pilot and volunteered for the Luftwaffe. On 01.10.1934 he enlisted with the Heer and one year later he joined LW, where he began his pilot training on 01.04.1938 which ended on 03.09.1939 at the Stuka-Schule Kitzingen/M. Since 04.09. he was transferred to 5./StG. 1. With this unit he (as Uffz.) took part in the Polish campaign , the France campaign and the fighting at the channel (18 FF at the Channel and against England). Afterwards he was in action at the MTO(Malta) and Africa. From 22.06.1941-04.10.1943(still with 5./StG.1) he fought with great success on the Russian front in the middle and southern area against tanks, troop concentrations, gun emplacements, traffic lines and so on. 

05.10.-30.11.1943 he flew 55 combat missions with 10.(Pz.)/SG 77, in Ju 87G-1's. Then until 27.06.1944 he was teacher of the "flying tank hunters" of the 4.(Pz.)/SG 152 and 5. and 6./SG 151. From 27.06.1944 until his death he was with 10.(Pz.)SG 1(later with effect from 03.01.1945 2.(Pz.)/SG 9) again at the Ostfront. He was shot down by Flak but shortly after convalescence he was in combat again. On 29.01.1945 on a transfer flight with his Ju 87 G-1 he encountered bad weather south of Bütow (Pommern) and had to force land his bird. When his plane ditched it rolled over and he was killed. He Bordfunker and another passenger were rescued but with with injuries. He was buried at the Bütow grave yard.

537 Feindflüge (combat missions) 4 at night against Malta
40 plus tank kills, 25 bridges, one transport ship sunk near Crete, near Benghasi 1 British Cruiser damaged

E ~


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 30, 2005)

Interesting stuff as usual Erich. Good post.


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

Anton Korol, one of the elitet Panzerjäger of StG 2 and in fact he took over the 10th Panzerstaffel after Rudel gave up command.

Anton Korol
Leutnant
* 08.10.1916 Breitenmarkt/Oberschlesien

RK 12.03.1945 as Leutnant after over 600 FF

One of the best "Tank hunters" of SG 2 "Immelmann". He took part in the polish campaign as Uffz. with 10./Inf.Rgt. 7. The french campaing saw him with 2./Inf.Rgt. 417 where he was promoted to Feldwebel on 14.03.1941. As an "old" glider flyer he volunteered for Lw and changed from Heer to Lw on 16.07.1941. He was trained as pilot and transferred to Stuka-Vorschule Graz and the to Stuka-Schule 2 at Piacenza-Foggia(italy). 01.11.1942 promoted to Leutnant der Reserve. 1943 he was with Erg.Staffel St.G. 2 and II./ST.G. 151. In combat from 01.07.1943-31.08.1944 with 3./St.G.2 (later 3./SG 2) "Immelmann" at the eastern front. 11.07.1943 first combat mission (FF) in the area of Charkow: 500. FF on 22.08.1944 in the area of Jassy(Romania) In march 1944 he destroyed with Hptm. Meyering and another pilot (N.N.) a strategically important bridge over the river Bug in the area north of Perwomaisk in spite of heavy Flak fire with all three a/c hitting the target. 13.06.1944 Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. Becaus of his outstanding achievements he was appointed Staffelkapitän of 10.(Pz.)/SG 2, which he led until wars end with great success.

704 combat missions
4 times shot down
99 confirmed tank kills with "kanonenmaschinen" (I guess Ju 87 G meant here) one of those being a "Stalinpanzer" (IS-2 I guess)
~200 tanks heavyly damaged or disabled

photo and info from friend S. Arndt, Schwerin, Deutschland


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 30, 2005)

Good stuff as usual Erich, keep it coming.


----------



## Erich (Nov 30, 2005)

another RK mit EL Panzerknacker on the morrow 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> It was the Mara, Adler, not the October Revolution....





KraziKanuK said:


> The October Revolution/Gangut was a sister, and name ship for the class, of the Marat/Petropavlovsk. The OR was broken up in 1958-59. The Marat, reverting to her original name was broken up in 1952 after being reclassified as the artillery ship Volkhov post GPW.



Okay thanks guys, cool for clarrifying that.


----------



## Erich (Dec 2, 2005)

chnage today to tomorrow afternoon for another Soviet tank buster, will try and cover the short listing I made in an earlier posting ......... Rudel was not the only chap blasting Soviet panzers


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 2, 2005)

> also of note the Murat was not sunk by Rudel only damaged



Sorry Erich but I have to disagree, the Marat was completely wrecked by Rudel, only the shallows waters of kronstad saved her.







If you are a recon german plane and you see below this twisted mountain of steel is obvious that is consider "destroyed"...and I think the right think to do.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2005)

Heres a short list that I have....

Name Tanks/Planes 

Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel 519/9 
Ofw. Anton Hübsch 120/8 
Hptm. Gerhard Stüdemann 117 
Ofw. Alois Wosnitza 104/2 
Lt. Jacob Jenster 100+ 
Hptm. Hendrik Stahl 100+ 
Lt. Anton Korol 99 
Oblt. Wilhelm Joswig 88/2 
Oblt. Max Diepold 87 
Lt. Wilhelm Noller 86/2 
Ofw. Hans Ludwig 85 
Ofw. Heinz Edhofer 84/1 
Ofw. Siegfried Fischer 80/15 
Maj. Theodor Nordmann 80 
Lt. Kurt Plenzat 80/4 
Hptm. Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer 80 
Hptm. Kurt Lau 80/2 
Oblt. Hans-Joachim Jäschke 78 
Oblt. Helmut Hannemann 77 
Hptm. Hubert Pölz 76/11 
Oblt. Wilhelm Bromen 76/7 
Oblt. Rainer Nossek 73 
Oblt. Gustav Schubert 70/3 
Fw. Otto Ritz 70/2 
Hptm. Hans-Hermann Steinkamp 70


----------



## Erich (Dec 2, 2005)

CB great pic and I must have thought of one of the other Soviet big boy ships. will have to re-check my sources. Les I am attmepting to cover some of the Tank killers in a slow and not in a row by whom is the top killer type of chronology. It's easy to list the chaps from Petra's site but having good bio information is a bit scant


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2005)

erich is that where I got those kill totals from??? Could u put up a link for that page again, as I cant seem to find it....


----------



## me262 (Dec 2, 2005)

...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2005)

wow, she still had quite a life after being destroyed, lucky he hit the magazine though he wouldn't do that damage with just a 1000kg...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

That is where my confusion came from. I had forgotten that she was renamed.


----------



## Erich (Dec 5, 2005)

here is another Ju 87G ace translated from the Deutch from my German contact/edited by me.......

Andreas Kuffner
Hauptmann
*30.05.1918 in Deisenhofen/Oberbayern

RK 16.04.1943 as Oberleutnant after 600 combat missions
EL (No. 684) 20.12.1944 as hauptmann after 745 combat missions and approx. 60 tank kills

1937 he joined the Luftwaffe. He took part in the French campaign as Wachtmeister with a light Flak battery and recieved the EK II on 22.06.1940. Back in 1939 he had volunteered for pilot training but he was not accepted before August 1940 when he was sent to a Flugzeugführerschule. After his training in December 1941 he joined I./StG 2 in January 1942 at the northern sector of the Ostfront. Just 3 months later he had accumulated 200 combat missions. Since spring 1942 deployed to the southern sector. On 25.05.1942 he recieved the Ehrenpokal and in September 1942 the DKiG. In autumn 1942 he was wounded in aircombat and had to force land at the own Panzerspitzen. until December in homeland, afterwards Staffelführer of 4./StG.2 back in the east (Ukraine, Donez, Krim, Kuban Bridge Head). After 600 FF transferred to III./SG 151, which flew in the Croatian area Bandeneinsätze (COIN) . In February 44 as Staffelkapitän assigned with the deployment of 10.(Pz.)/SG 3 which he led with great success on almost all front areas 04.08.1944 named in OKW report (namentliche Nennung im OKW Bericht). 01.09.1944 promoted to Hauptmann. 

25.09.1944 his Staffel destroyed their 300th tank since deployment.

22.10.1944 he destroyed his 50th tank with Ju 87 G. Since January 1945 Gruppenkommandeur I.(Pz.)/SG 9

30.04.1945 he was shot down and killed over Sülte near Schwerin (!!) by a Spitfire. On the same occasion both Staffelkapitäne(RK reciepients) were shot down: Rainer Nossek (Killed) and Wilhelm Bromen (badly wounded)

Andreas had a total of more than 900 combat missions as Stuka- and Panzerschlachtflieger. Scored more than 60 tank kills.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2005)

Interesting stuff Erich. Keep it coming, the biograhies are really good.


----------



## Erich (Dec 5, 2005)

von Deutsch ammo experten M. Rausch: edited by me....

Ok, I digged out several occasions, where the successfull atttack of cannon armed Ju-87 were made on Russian tanks breaking through the frontline. But there were never times and exact locations listed. Here are the examples I could find (there are more, but no time to reread more of them up). There are many other battles listed, but for these there seems to have a mix of cannon-armed planes and normal Ju-87 with HEAT bomblets be used, also FW 190 F equipped with anti-tank rockets.

- 30.3.1944 at Parlitti

- 10. (Pz)/SG 3 flew several times during the defense of Wilna

- Same formation on 28.7.1944 attacked 25 broken-through Russian tanks at Mietan, and destroyed 21 of them with their Ju 87G-1's.

- Same formation stopped a tank breakthrough in April 1944 north of Jassny.


Additionally Rudels books points out periods of days and sometimes even weeks, where continously broken through Russian tanks were attacked. And in February the Luftflotte 4 formed the "Panzerjagdkommando Weiß" at Chartiza, which spezialized on attacking broken-through tanks.

I have also learned that there were far more tank kills with anti-tank rocket equipped FW 190 F variants than I ever imagined.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 5, 2005)

> and normal Ju-87 with HEAT bomblets be used



That would be the SD 4:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Good post there Erich.

I like the siggy CB.


----------



## Erich (Dec 6, 2005)

soon I will cover all the major German players on the Ost front. another one planned for the morrow sometime after work ....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2005)

Looking foward to it as allways.


----------



## blue swede (Dec 9, 2005)

action removed


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

action removed


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

another Soviet tank destroyer

Josef Blümel

Feldwebel
* 15.08.1920 Prode/Kreis Trautenau (Sudeten)
RK 28.01.1945 as Feldwebel posthumously


He joined Lw in autumn 1940 and was trained as pilot. Though, he only made his first combat missions in April 1944 on the Krim (Crimean Peninsula) when he came from 5./SG 151 as Unteroffizier to the newly mustered 10.(Pz.)/SG 3 (which flew anti tank missions for the first time in April 44). Within a short time he became one of the best tank hunters and most successful Schwarmführer of the Panzerjagdstaffel of SG 3. He destroyed his 34th tank on 28.07.1944 and was promoted to Feldwebel with effect from 01.07.1944. On his 123rd combat mission he would destroy 2 tanks for his 52nd and 53rd tank kills. His 59th followed on the 17.09.1944.

On the 19.09.1944 Blümel had a combat mission between 9.20-10.00 which brought his 60th tank kill. On the 2nd mission at 11.10 his Ju 87 G-2 (WNr. 494231) was heavily damaged by FlaMG and he had to crash land his plane behind enemy lines. After the emergency landing near Kekava (18km south of Riga) Blümel and his Bordfunker Obergefreiter Hermann Schwärzel were executed (Obermeier wrote murdered) but shot in the neck from Russians (Soviet soldiers? not all were Russians). 3 days later they were found by a search squad consisting of Heer troops and members of the Panzerjagdstaffel under the leadership of Hptm. Kuffner, on the meanwhile had retaken crash location. They were buried with military honors.

Ehrenpokal and DKiG were awarded posthumously on 28.and 29.09.1944.

total of approx. 150 combat missions as Panzerjäger with Ju 87. 60 tanks destroyed

----------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

Interesting stuff Erich. Sad to hear he was executed. The are some very impressive tank killers in the LW, although there wasn't a shortage of tanks for them to shoot at.


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

more coming but look at the listing that Les posted, more than enough impressive totals not counting the pilots/crews with 25 kills or less and there were many flying Hs 129's and Ju 87G's besides Fw 190F pilots with panzerblitz rockets we will never hear about....


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 9, 2005)

Worth the read on tank killer LW a/c.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

Erich said:


> more coming but look at the listing that Les posted, more than enough impressive totals not counting the pilots/crews with 25 kills or less and there were many flying Hs 129's and Ju 87G's besides Fw 190F pilots with panzerblitz rockets we will never hear about....


That is very true Erich, for every well known pilot, infantry man, sailor etc there are an a lot more of those who go un-noticed and it is these who have undoubtable done more for the respective countries than the 'famous' combatants.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Hey what is up with this action removed stuff?


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey what is up with this action removed stuff?


Was just wondering that when I read the thread just now, didn't notice it earlier.


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

Adler u. Gnomey, I removed the two items as they were not pertinent to my postings. blue swede came off with a ridiculous comment so therefore I ............ once I receive more data on the Kanonvögels I will do some more removing just to make this big thread cleaner and easier to read. Hoping you both do not mind this

Gruß und back to the data


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 9, 2005)

No worries, just wondering what happened, that is all.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

No worries was just wondering. Let me guess the rediculous remark was saying that the He-177 was the best tank killer.


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2005)

yes correct !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2005)

Yeah he is doing that because of the best bomber thread. Very annoying is it not. He did it another thread also. He said that he though humor was allowed and I told him that was just dumb.


----------



## Erich (Dec 10, 2005)

KK I have read the Dupue institutes forums statements on occassion but they are faulty even with well known authors making comments they have not explored all written correspondance done at the staffel let alone Geschwader levels as based at the BA/MA RL listings at Freiburg. The doubt of Rudels 12 claims is interesting saying that his staffel was part of III/StG 2 which it was not. The staffel was the 10th and independent of the rest of III. gruppe almost entirely. also of note Ron K mentioned M. Peggs tome on the Hs 129 and it is like the two gents never heard of the work before also without any hesitation to call the German claims unbalanced and approving of the Soviet 29 Korp Guards units losses is a bit un-nerving as they have consistnatly lied and covered up. so bad were the losses to German Luftw ground attack units and the W-SS Tiger I's that much of the true Soviet tank loses were hidden from Stalin on fear of retaliation, even the books till just 3 years ago made it quite clear that the Soviets won the airspace and wiped the German armor units off the field of battle..........this is far from the truth. 

bis bald


----------



## Erich (Dec 11, 2005)

getting in the mood .........


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 11, 2005)

Nice pic Erich 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2005)

Yes I rather like that one. It gives the Stuka a real meanacing look.


----------



## Erich (Dec 12, 2005)

Greets guys !

Hans-Joachim Jäschke

Oberleutnant
*18.07.1921 Niesky/ Schlesien

RK 26.03.1944 as Oberleutnant after 553 Feindflügen (combat missions)

There is not much known about this Stuka - and Schlachtflieger ace. Since the beginning of 1942 he flew with II./StG 1 (later II./SG 1) at the Ostfront and lead the 4th Staffel from 1944 until his death. He recieved the Ehrenpokal on 21.09.1942 and the German Cross in Gold on 02.08.1943 as Leutnant. He was awarded the RK for following achievements (among others): 78 tanks, 27 guns, over 100 trucks and 11 bridges destroyed.

On 21.07.1944 while strafing troops with his Fw 190 F-8 on the street of Kleszcsele (Hungary) and westward, he was shot down by Flak and hit in the fuel tank. Crashing from 1000m height and burning on the ground (senkrecht, brennend abgestürzt)

Exact combat mission count unknown, at least 600 mostly with Ju 87.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 12, 2005)

Good stuff as usual Erich. Look forward to more biographies, photos and details.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2005)

Yeap same here. I dont ever really have much to say to them though. It is just really interesting to read and learn.


----------



## Erich (Dec 12, 2005)

the German tank aces are almost unknown and yet they and probably the Air rescue-recon gents piled up the largest amount of missions in the Luftwaffe, and still very much a part of a strong air force base, they did not get the aerial kills that are always mentioned and the men the notierity and fame that went with it even today.

SG 9 Hs 129 aces very soon.............I'm going to mix and match so to speak as there are many of them. the info collected is primarily about Panzer killers with 45-50 and more tank kills, the lesser knowns mostly nothing as there is simply nothing written about them in any historical form and with that they will be forgotten sadly.

Erich


----------



## Erich (Dec 13, 2005)

one of the top Hs 129 pilots ........

Otto Ritz
Feldwebel
*17.08.1920 Franfurt / Main

One of the most distinguished tank hunters with the Hs 129. Volunteered for Luftwaffe and and was trained as pilot in Memmingen and Schroda-Ost. In October 1943 he was transferred to newly mustered 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 on the eastern front. With this unit, led by Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer, he was soon one of the most successful "Panzerknacker" and he had already 30 confirmed tanks in April 1944. He had a great share of the missions east of Tarnopol and on the northern Krim from 13.03. and 13.04.1944, which were subsequently mentioned in the OKW report. He was shot down twice beyond the HKL (Hauptkampflinie) and managed to get back to German lines. 

He received the Ehronpokal 19.06.1944 and the DKiG in July 1944. 

Early in August he was Schwarmführer and flew decisive missions on 3 days at the Weichselbogen where the Soviet advance would be stopped. His Schwarm achieved 25 tank kills in that battle, 11 by Ritz. Therefore he received the RK after 100 combat missions where he destroyed 60 tanks, damaged a further 34 and achieved 2 aerial victories. On the evening of the 12.02.1945 he started for a combat mission towards Striegau-Jauer and was listed MIA.

Exact combat missions unknown, approx. 70 tank kills and 2 air victories

--------------------------------


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 13, 2005)

Interesting stuff as usual Erich. Another one of the forgotten heroes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 13, 2005)

Yeap good stuff, as allways thanks for the info you have.


----------



## Erich (Dec 13, 2005)

getting a scan of Rix on the morrow, maybe B. Meyer or Ruffler next for the interested SG 9 crowd


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 13, 2005)

Excellent info erich...


----------



## Erich (Dec 14, 2005)

from my friend S. Arndt in Germany, Bruno Meyers Hs 129 while in Afrika in 1942.....his bio is being worked on shortly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Nice model there, but you know what I hate? I hate it when they mess up the swastika like that. Jesus it is a model and is trying to portray the real thing, then show it like it really was.


----------



## Erich (Dec 16, 2005)

yes I feel for the German modellers as the swastiaks in competition are strictly a big No, No. Bruno Meyers bio coming probably by Sunday


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2005)

Looking foward to it.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Looking foward to it.


Me too, should be great and informative as usual Erich


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2005)

this man flying the above model is probably best known for commanding a Hs 129 unit in gruppe strength that stopped a T-34 attack towards W-SS lines at Kursk .............

Bruno Meyer

Bruno Meyer was born on 13.11.1915 in Jeremie on Haiti. On 04.04.1934 he joined the Heer, but soon changed the service and at the end of 1937 he was with the reconnaissance and weapon school of the Luftwaffe in Hildesheim. Starting from 01.08.1938 he was with the Fliegergruppe 20 in Tutow, which was later renamed II.(S)/LG 2. With it he participated in the Polish and West campaign, whereby this at that time only Schlachtfliegergruppe of the Luftwaffe distinguished itself on more than one occasion. 

Jabo employments follow against Südengland, predominantly against airfields and 1941 the campaign on the Balkans, already as a squadron commander of the 5.(S)/LG 2. In Russia the group fought first in the central section, then in the north up to Schlüsselburg (tank battle with Witebsk) and later again in the center to Rusha (80km from Moscow). On 21.08.1941 Oberleutnant Bruno Meyer was awarded the knight cross after over 200 combat missions.

1942 he led his Staffel, now 10./Sch.G.1, mainly in the south section and came from 08.07.1942 for short time as a Staffelkapitän to the 3./Erg.Zerst.Gr. Deblin Irena. In October 1942 he was transferred to the newly mustered II./Sch.G.2 in Africa. Starting from 01.11.1942 he was Staffelkapitän of the 4./Sch.G.2, which was equipped with Hs 129 and was deployed for tank hunting.

After the end in Tunesia, he set up the IV.(Pz)/SG 9 in the summer 1943 and obtained great successes as Kommandeur of this tank fighter group at the large battles in Russia. From in the middle of July until October 1944 he was in the O.K.L., then starting from 24.10.1944 commander of the I./SG 104 and from March 1945 to end of war in staff positions. The exact number of combat missions is unknown, while it must exceed 500 clearly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 21, 2005)

Good stuff as usual Erich, really interesting read.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

As allways.


----------



## Erich (Dec 26, 2005)

more probably after the 1st of the year but then again maybe not ...........


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 26, 2005)

Look forward to it as usual Erich. Hope you had a good Christmas and will have a good new year.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Jan 31, 2006)

...Erich, Great Reading!!!


----------



## Count (Jan 31, 2006)

Why you consider guns as main AT weapon especially for Il-2? Anyway they hit ratio was never be greater than 3-4%. PTAB-1.5 - 2.5 was more effective than any gun. Carrying 190-210 this small bombs in each plane we can expect hit any tank from TOP at 3000 sq meters.
Exuse me, i don't read all pages


----------



## CurzonDax (Jan 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nice model there, but you know what I hate? I hate it when they mess up the swastika like that. Jesus it is a model and is trying to portray the real thing, then show it like it really was.



Okay, I is confuzed. So are you saying that because the modeler was German he/she messed up the Swastika on purpose? I do have a very basic knowledge of the anti-Nazi laws in Germany, which may have changed since them. Please explain.

:{)


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2006)

he is quite familiar with the laws in Germany since this is where he is stationed. Bah on the swastika thing nobdy is going to see it except him and he can buy the decals from the US through mail without problem and post them on his kit completed. you might be intersted in this I know one of the chaps quiote well that is on staff with Deutschland IPMS and it is depending on where the shows are located but German a/c can display the swastika in certain circumstances even when this is shown on the box-top as taboo. Remember this is done for historical sake and not that you are supporting a Nazi regime which is quite well defunct .......... 

Jon can you switch on your scan the markings on the 87G ? they are actually backwords. you want to have the Geschwader(small) code on the left side of the Balkenkreuz and then the A/C and Staffel code right of it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

CurzonDax said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Nice model there, but you know what I hate? I hate it when they mess up the swastika like that. Jesus it is a model and is trying to portray the real thing, then show it like it really was.
> ...



No that is not what I am saying at all. I also am very aware of the laws of Germany because I was born and raised here in Germany. I just feel that if you are going to portray something with a historical sense, you should keep it as realistic as possible. Do not cover up teh swastika or mess it up because it was the symbol of the Nazis.
 
I am a WW2 German militaria collector and I do not remove the swastikas from my uniforms and equipment because of what it was used for. It is historical and needs to stay the way it is and be appreciated for the historical value that it has.


----------



## SpitTrop (Mar 27, 2006)

Top 3 are Typhoon, P-47 and Il-2 Shturmovik. Of the 3 the Typhoon was reckoned to have the most firepower to bring to bear on a tank; 4x20mm cannon and 8x60lb rocket projectiles. More than the broadside from a destroyer!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2006)

> Top 3 are Typhoon, P-47 and Il-2 Shturmovik


To leave the Ju-87G's off that short list is damn near criminal, but I will agree with you concerning the firepower of the Tiffy....

However, we are talking armour busting, not ground strafing, so those 20mm are basically used to sight in the main tank busting armament, those sweet-ass 60 pounders... 

If they could've only mounted 37mm pods on the Typhoon...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

I go with the:

1. P-47
2. Tiffy
3. Ju-87G Stuka


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2006)

I dont think the P-47D was a better tankbuster than the Il-2 Type 3M with 2 X 37 mm NS-37 cannon....

I dont think rockets were better than cannon for tank busting...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

Ah thankyou I forgot the Il-2. Damnit. I would actually rate the Il-2 as the best tank killer overall anyhow. It was a tank and not very maneuverable or fast but she could pound out them tanks and relatively speaking was difficult to bring down.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2006)

Difficult to knock down, TILL the Germans found its weak spot.... Then they started falling like leaves....

They put a rear gunner in there for a reason....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

That is true as well, Im just speaking in relative terms to an aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 27, 2006)

Then I agree 100%...


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 28, 2006)

Yeap. My top four would be:
IL-2
Tiffy
JU-87G
P-47D


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 28, 2006)

Or Il-10...


----------



## Erich (Mar 28, 2006)

ah but the P-47 and Tiffy were not so great German panzer killers, I posted some quite eluminating information quite lengthy actually on the Normandie campaign which clearly showed the US/RAF tanks kills were something to really seriously adresse............not good; it must be in some back pages or ?

the Il-2 proved to be a better MT killer than tanks. In fact it was a ground support weapon better suited to quick fast attacks by T-34's.

Still the Ju 87G's and the Fw 190F-8 did the work unparalled and sadly we still do not have much written about any German ground attack units nor their historical functions 

hmmmmm, guess I am do to place some more German crew bios eh ?

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

Looking foward to it. That is another aircraft that I forgot too though the Fw-190F-8.


----------



## Udet (Mar 31, 2006)

Gentlemen:

The problem with the IL-2 can be approached following two patterns:

(1) Problems with the design itself. A slow, clumsy flying armored pig, uncapable of surpassing the top speed of the Stuka which had, for instance, a non-retractable undercarriage.

Also manouvering was horrible in the soviet design. One can understand the kind of nightmare dozens of thousands of USAAF airmen endured -and the countless psychiatric cases such missions produced- when they had to fly in those real large metallic tubes with wings, carrying several tons of bombs inside, knowing that you were slow and that manouvering was simply impossible: "what you will do is simple: fly straight ahead and learn to handle those .50 cals".

But when one knows manouvering was about impossible for a single-engined plane, which unlike the Stuka could retract its undercarriage, then perhaps you might consider re-thinking your views on the IL-2.

To make the long story short, the IL-2s never did come nowhere near in destroying the number of panzers claimed by the soviet department of mythology. The tale, however, does not end there. These soviet guys also portray the IL-2 as an "extremely efficient" destroyer of German fighters as well. (!)

In fact, and as Mr. Primus pointed out, the IL-2 got fitted with a rear-gunner, which of course provided the model with a minimum level of self-defense abilities.

That particular characteristic has been totally, overwhelmingly overhyped and overinflated. You can read things -hogwash- like "the rear gunner in the IL-2 came in as a nasty surprise for German fighters". I´d respond to that piece of jewelry "no shit!".

That some German fighters were indeed shot down by IL-2 defensive fire? Sure! So were RAF fighter pilots by Stuka rear gunners. The issue will of course follow a pretty similar fashion as in the case of panzers allegedly destroyed by IL-2s in huge numbers: they never excelled in that department.

The problem will rise to the surface quite pretty soon here though: if the massive boxes of four engined heavy bombers, each machine fitted with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns were doomed against the swarms of Bf 109s and Fw 190s, one can only wonder what made those mythologists believe the IL-2 could tangle with German fighters homing in for the kill.

The answer is simple: with or without a rear-gunner, the IL-2s are losers against fighters.

Yes, it was heavily armored, but there were other -more important- problems for German fighter pilots intercepting formations of IL-2s. Sometimes the IL-2s flew at very low altitude. Intercepting at such low altitude is always a dangerous task, but the danger of flying so low also affects the intercepted part and not just the intercepting side. 

I have guncamera footage when you can clearly see many German pilots had a thing for aiming directly at the cockpit. At certain distance, the MG 131 on top of the cowling of 109s and 190s, and of course their cannons, did not have trouble to kill the pilot, sending the IL-2 to bite the ground.

Some films are even disturbing: images of rear-gunners turned into human torches jumping from their positions.


(2) Problem number two gentlemen: the kind of crews which flew the IL-2. This is the ultimate issue. 

Hastily trained crews virtually uncapable of achieving anything significant, unless they got launched to the battle in massive numbers, as it was in fact done during 1944. 

The very well trained crews of both the RAF and USAAF had a very rough time in hitting any German panzers. The question: what made these soviet propaganda boys believe their ground-attack crews were that good, or even better than those of their western allies?

I have met veterans who survived flying the IL-2 in the furnace of 1944. Horrible mutilations and stories. Accidents when landing were the rule. Crashings when approaching the battle zone at very low altitude were very common as well. One of them told me that he saw this crashings in absolutely all the missions he flew -by the way, a not very high number of missions: no more than 15, until his plane got blown out of the air by a Bf 109.

The nearly 1 ton of armor in the model was in fact very helpful against light weapons, when they were greeted by enemy troops from the ground. Not against Flak, much less against German fighters.

They told me that the greatest successes of the swarms of IL-2s were against large concentration of enemy troops, supplies and vehicle lines. Those were the occassions when they indeed inflicted horrible damage to the Germans.

Whenever they saw German panzers manouvering on the battlefield and the IL-2s appeared, hitting anything could be some sort of a dream. I asked abouth the so-called "circle of death" portrayed as some sort of "brilliant" tactic to approach German panzers from the rear, where their armor was thinner. Hogwash.

Many guys even resorted to smash their planes against German motorized columns!

The IL-2 will certainly have the Gold Medal for the most shot down plane of the war.

It is most unlikely the soviets could produce the number of IL-2s they did without the vital aid of Lend Lease.

As conclusion dear gentlemen, the combination of these 2 problems: a mediocre design and hastily trained crews makes the IL-2 an unlikely candidate to get the award of the best tank-destroyer.

It made a contribution to the soviet war effort; it was not a good tank-destroyer though.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 1, 2006)

From what I have studied, neither the Fw-190 nor the P-47 have a chance to defeat any tank´s armour if it is in closed condition by guns. Their guns simply lack the penetration capabilities to do so. The Tiffy is on the barely edge to do so. Under some circumstances it will defeat f.e. Pz-III/Pz-IV armour at very close distance (sides only) on most it will not. The Ns-37 equipped Il-2, some Yak-9T with NS 37 (not US 37mm guns), the Hs-129 with MK 101/103 or BK 5.0/BK 7.5, the Ju-87 with BK 3.7cm and hypothetically the Me-262 with BK 5.0 cm are so far the only planes to put main battle tanks reliably out of action with their guns only. So either you put emphasis on bomb ordenance for tank busting or we start to realize that such specialized tank busting planes are better suited than our beloved Tiffy. Focke Wulf and P-47. My vote goes to the Il-10.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2006)

Il-10 for me too...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 1, 2006)

Udet I agree with you that the Il-2 is overated as an aircraft. She was slow and clumsy, hell she was a tank with wings. Tanks dont fly well. However, as an aircraft she was bitch to shoot down because of her armoured protection and she was a great tank killer.


----------



## Erich (Apr 3, 2006)

there is some unreleased info on the Fw 190F-8 that is in the wings literally.........evidently during 1945 the units manned with these craft and the Panzerblitz rockets did much damage to Soviet armored columns. Still say had JG 7 not been so closed in with airfield movements and limited fuel reserves in the spring of 45 we would of had groud kills abounding against the Soviets.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Udet I agree with you that the Il-2 is overated as an aircraft. She was slow and clumsy, hell she was a tank with wings. Tanks dont fly well. However, as an aircraft she was bitch to shoot down because of her armoured protection and she was a great tank killer.



Gotta agree with Udet here. A little research at the Smithsonian site generated the fact that the Russian's lost 14000 Il-2 in 43-44 (I think that is the right two years). 14000!! The lost rate to tank kill must be horrendous. This implies that it was not that difficult to shoot down. It must have been like the Sherman tank. It was no problem for a Sherman to defeat a Panther or Tiger, all you did was attack it with enough Shermans and you were going to get it! To heck with loss rate.

I think the best tank killer has two categories. Sky contested, or sky uncontested (or with sufficient fighter escort). For the first, I think you would want a fast flier with good punch and good protection. I like the big radial planes in this role, so I would select a FW-190 with heavy gun or added weapons, also the P-47, but you would have to add better weapons (the P-47 low loss rate was amazing). The Typhoon would probably be good but doesn't have that big recipicating armor plate up front and is liquid cooled (more vunerable). The P-38 would be good because it has two engines (where is our P-38 cadre?) and a pretty good punch and large weapons load but would need added weapons. I don't know much about the Il-10 but probably wouldn't fit this category. For the last category, you would want a heavily armored, manueverable plane with lost of punch. I am sure there were many here like the Ju 87, He 129 (with good engines), Il-2, and Il-10. Like the A-10, which is a great tank killer but you really want air superiority with it.

I always have a problem with the best of anything. Too many variables.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 4, 2006)

I'll put my vote in for the entire Ilyushin "Bronirovanni Shturmovik" (armed attacker) family: the Il-2 and IL-10.

Despite the drawbacks of low speed and vulnerability to fighters, in my mind they remain, along with the Hs-129, the premiere dedicated ground attack aircraft of the period.

Destroying stuff on the ground was the Shturmoviks sole reason to exist, and it did it amazngly well. They were simple to fly and operate, reliable in extreems of weather, sturdy, heavily armed and able to absorb massive amounts of battle damage. While they may not be the 'panzer smashers' or "black death" of myth and propaganda they were fierce opponents and their effectiveness against ground targets in all forms should never be underestimated.

Operating from foward airstrips, often in snow, ice, mud and dust, in a situation of clear air inferiority until 1944, they could bring an amazing array of weaponry against German targets: 7.62mm machine guns, 20mm, 23mm and 37mm cannon, 82mm and 132mm rockets, 50kg, 100kg and 250 kg bombs, anti-tank bomblets, anti-personel bomblets and even fuel air explosives and napalm in the final stages of the war. 

The Il-2s ability to sustain damage was/is legendary. No-one has denied its vulnerability to fighters. Yet the fact remains that around 1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage. I have a picture of an Il-2 with its pilot and gunner standing shoulder to shoulder in crescent section blown out of the wing by a large calibre AAA hit (88 or 122mm I would guess). At oblique angles, HMG and even cannon fire would often ricochette off. Even if the oil cooler and radiator were vulnerable on the Ilushins, its a little difficult to hit them if its fleeing the target area at 400 kph and 50m. 

Shturmoviks proved their worth time and time again. It is unfair to count the training level of their crews against them when discussing the design. That would be like saying the He-162 was a hopeless fighter because it was meant to be flown by hastily trained glider pilots with no jet experiance, or that the tempest was a great fighter purely because it was flown by pilots whop usually had lots of stick time. If the Shturmoviks had been operated be German, British, American crews, would the design suddenly bloom into its full potential? While Russian training wasn't always as good as it's western counterparts, it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war. It may not be representative, but I recently read an interview with an IL-2 pilot who had more than 250 hours of flight training in 1943 before transitioning to an operational pilot training unit where he recieved additional 'on the job' training, as it were.

Compare the Shturmoviks to other dedicated ground attack aircraft and as a balanced package they come out well ahead:

On the positive side they carried a better warload than either the Ju-87G or the Hs-128, bombs rockets and cannon all at the same time. They were also significantly quicker than either the Ju-87G or Hs-129 at low altitudes. The slowest Il-2s were the Il-2M3, armed with 37mm cannon. Even loaded as such they still pushed past 385 kph/240 mph at sea level. The fastest Il-2s were the single seaters, capable of around 435 kph/270 mph on the deck. The later Il-10 could do 500mph/ 310 mph at sea level. The Ilushins had far better armour than the Ju-87G, and although the HS-129 probably has better pilot protection, it lacks a rear gunner. Armour weight for the IL-2 went from 700kg in intial version to 990kg in the IL-2M.

On the negative side, it was slow and clusmy and unable to defend itself against fighters. But that is something it shares with all dedicated ground attack aircraft of the time. Neither the Ju-87G or Hs-129 could hope to out run or out manouver fighter opposition. All of them needed escorts or conditions of air superiority. The rear gunner position was hideously vulnerable initially although it was improved later on. One statistic is that for every one Il-2 pilot killed, they lost 6 gunners, which says something about the hard to down nature of the aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2006)

frankly the Il familie does not come out ahead, I've staed before it could zap German MT and horse drawn units but tanks were another story.

another German panzer killer

Ruffler:

Hauptmann Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer

Received the Ritterkreuz on 9th june 1944 as Hauptmann and Staffelkapitän of the 10.(Pz.)/SG 9 for 72 tanks destroyed.

Born on 7th January 1920 in Eisenhammer Silesia and joined the Luftwaffe on 1st October 1939. He went through the pilot training with the Air Warfare School 4 (LKS 4). On 1st March 1941 he was promoted to Leutnant and subsequently trained as fighter pilot. In June 1942 he was serving with 1. Erg.Jagdgruppe Ost, later on he was retrained as ground attack pilot posted with the newly formed 8.(Pz.)/SchG 1, put to combat tanks at the important section of the Eastern Front since the end of 1942.

>From 8th April 1943 he led the 8. Staffel as Staffelführer. The most uccessful German Groundattack pilot, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, remembered an experience with Ruffer:

" Oberleutnant Ruffer, excellent shot of one of the hs 129 equipped Panzer staffel, was shot down during a sortie over the Kuban bridgehead and miraculously, like Robinson Crusoe, landed on one of the smallest islands between the lagoons. He was lucky as a German shock troop soon returned him back to own lines"

>From autumn of 1943 until his death Ruffer served as the Staffelkapitän of the 10. (Pz.)/SG 9. During March and April 1944, in the heavy defense fighting, he and his unit achieved extraordinary feats. For these he was cited twice in the OKW reports.

Around 10. March 1944 he gets his 50th tank destroyed. He was awarded the RK for a sortie in which he singlehandedly destroyed 10 Soviet tanks of the KV type, that broke through the German lines and tried to surround and annihilate an infantery unit in that section of the front. After his landing from this mission the armorers found 6 unspent 30mm rounds in the magazine of his anti-tank gun. He was the first tank hunter flying the Henschel 129 who was awarded the Ritterkreuz.

On the 16th July 1944 around 19:30 hrs, on a sortie to stem the Soviet tank breakthrough between Kovel and Lemberg Ruffer was killed. During a low level pass over the Radziechow-Stojanow railway his Hs 129 was hit heavily by Soviet flak and burned after hitting ground.

Ruffer had flown about 300 sorties during the war and destroyed around 80 tanks

E ~


----------



## Udet (Apr 4, 2006)

Jabberwocky:

You have had the chance of meeting and speaking with how many men who flew the Shturmovik in combat..?

I say dark, you pop out and say light...I say good, you say bad...I say morning, you say night...I say pretty, you say ugly...

I´ll get back to you here and make a response to your last posting.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 5, 2006)

Yes Udet, but there is usually far more than one 'correct' opinion on any discussion, particularly one with as many variables as the combat performance of the Il-2. Such is the joy of the subjective nature of history, memory and truth.

For those who are interested, there was a figure taken from the Smithsonian website that more than 14,000 IL-2s were claimed shot down in 1943 and 1944.

Here is a link to the VVS losses for 1944. It's interesting reading. The sheer number of losses of all types is staggering. Every time I look at the Russian sacrifice to repel Germany in 1941-1945, it absolutely staggers me.

http://my.tele2.ee/airacesww2/airaces/articles/losses1944.htm

I wish the site had loss figures for the other years of the Great Patriotic War.

Interestingly, the Yak-9 makes up the highest proportion of fighter losses.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2006)

Absolutely. It should also be taken into consideration if we talk about losses that the Il-2 flew much more missions than their contemporary western great planes. And those missions ALWAYS are dangerous unlike the fighter sweeps, patrols or escort dutys, which from time to time led to intensive dogfights but not per se. Beside of this, the 23 mm VY guns of IL-2 as well as the 37mm NS 37 of the IL2m3 are capable to knock out Pz-IV reliably, and this was the most common german main battle tank type...


----------



## davparlr (Apr 6, 2006)

You must remember that quantity has an advantage over quality. If you put enough capable units against a known superior unit, quantity wins. See my statement on the Sherman tank. If the russians put up enough P-40s (just picking any old plane) with a cannon on it, they would have been effective against the German tanks. As effective as the same number of Il-2s, maybe, maybe not. Would its losses been greater than the Il-2, maybe maybe not. With the total number of Il-2 lost, this implies the Il-2 was thrown against the Germans in vast quantities which makes it difficult to judge its stand alone quality.

As for reputation, I suspect it was greater among the Russian press writers than it was among the operators and attackers.


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2006)

I believe in the Soviet arsenal the Il-2 series and variants were the most produced of any Soviet a/c ? with regard then it is simple math, yes the thing was shot down in droves and they still came up like a swarm of bees. The Il-2 which I have made mention was more of a threat to killing motor transport and total disruption of supply lines than a German panzer killer. The Soviets of course were # 1 in ground attack, the ugly almost worthless P-39 used as a fighter via lend lease but the biggest role was ground attack, many of the Yak, MIg fighters the same, if it had a cannon installed then use it for ground attack at no matter the cost


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2006)

Jabberwocky:

I will commence this posting by borrowing a phrase commonly used by my mexican mates here; whenever someone comes along with comments which are completely out of line they´ll say the comment "does not have feet nor head".

Well Jaberwocky, your comment affirming "1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage" more than qualifies to have the phrase applied. It lacks feet, and also lacks head.

May I know from where did you get such a piece of jewelry? Whatever the source might be I can tell you it is horribly wrong.

I have had the chance of speaking with some 15 men who flew the IL-2. Noteworthy to mention is the fact I did not just met once with each of them; many were my neighbors so I had the opportunity to see and to speak with them throughout many years.

Not that they are not proud of their victory; also, not that they have modified their speech for they still referr to the Germans as "fascist snakes". The fact remains they enlightened me further as to how horrific their losses were during the last months of the war, and also of the capabilities of soviet pilots throughout the entire "great patriotic war".

The IL-2s were the aerial version of soviet infantry, launching massive attacks in the largest numbers possible and to endure likewise horrible losses.

It is perhaps the most overhyped plane of the entire conflict. Read the soviet propaganda mythology and get shocked to read such a "perfection" of combat. A perfection western propagandists perhaps did not dream of. They put it that by 1944, every single IL-2 would reach the target right on time, wonderfully guided by ground control, every single bomb, rocket and piece of ammunition fired by each IL-2 hit the target: "fascist soldiers, tanks, artillery, all destroyed" (ah! and also Bf 109s and Fw 190s "shot down in huge numbers" by that wonder the Ilyushin was, hold your guts!).

After reading it, you fall under the impression the red army of 1944-45 is the perfect fighting force. From ancient times to present day, no army has ever come close to scratch the perfection achieved by the red army of the last year of the war. You can´t avoid laughing. When it came to filing totally wild and exaggerated claims the soviets did not do half jobs.

I will not contest the fact there were times when badly damaged shturmoviks made it back to base and that damage was so bad they were simply written off.

To affirm "1/2 of the total losses of IL-2s" were the product of such situation is a flat joke though. You perhaps were referring to crashings when attempting to land when returning from mission due to bad training.

Another part of your posting, that by the way lacks head and feet as well:

"it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war" (!!!!).

This is exactly what most experts, scholars, historians and buffs do not understand: the armed forces of the soviet union during world war two NEVER QUITE HAD THE CHANCE TO CREATE the alleged "superb, professional, out-of-this-planet-skilled" armed force that "emerged from the depths of the soviet territory to swallow the Germans" as the soviet propaganda has been depicting since 1945.

Total, complete, absolute, utter crap. A Pokryshkyn was a rare comodity in the military air force of the soviet union during the war, did you know this fact? His unit too had to absorb significant losses during the fight.

Losses of men for the soviet union were so horrible during the entire duration of the war they got effectively deprived of the necessary core of battle seasoned personnel to train the rookies getting drafted. 

I recall when I asked the veterans of the functioning of the ground forward air controllers widely described by the soviet accounts. The response might get your attention: many of the shturmoviks had no radios by 1945. )

They had to follow the leaders to reach battle zones.

Have you ever read the accounts, say, of JG 54? German pilots in the Leningrad front noted how persistent the VVS was -it is important to say German pilots were very persistent as well, perhaps more than the soviet pilots-. Whether in small or larger formations, the IL-2s would appear day after day, even during weeks when that particular front was not having intense activity. The Germans would bring down so many of them, and still there would not be one single day when the IL-2s wouldn´t show up, to again, take very high losses.

How come all these experts refuse to understand and acknowledge this essential principle that contributes creating an effective military force?

Everything was urgent for the soviets, men and war materiel. Very urgent, from the very first day, June 22, 1941 all the very long way until the final drive on Berlin in 1945.


Again, hoping this can be of help:

The MASSIVE boxes of four engined heavy bombers of the 8th and 15th USAAFs working on the "strategic bombing" capaign over the Reich were far more tougher cookies to bring down than the IL-2s ever came close to be.

The B-17, a large, sound item, had 4 radial engines, which unlike liquid-cooled engines, could take a far greater deal of damage and perhaps make it back home. Oh -again- add the scandalous number of .50 cals each bomber had....what came of them? They were DOOMED. Losers. Against fighters they lose. Simple.

(Right, the IL-2s had their liquid-cooled engines protected by armour but as Mr. Primus commented, when the German pilots learned of the weak points of the enemy plane, the shturmoviks commenced falling like leaves.)

You are not going to contest the fact a B-17 was by FAR a more difficult target to bring down are you?

Well, it was precisely those large sound planes, flying in those massive formations, carrying an insane number of .50s that found themselves doomed against fighters. Again, what made the soviets believe the shturmovik could "hold its own against fighters"?

I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.

It is an amusing activity to read on some other forums, and realize that in fact, there are people who are 100% convinced the IL-2 was not only the "greatest tank killer" of the war, no, they do not stop there. They move a little step further and claim the shturmovik could "accept a dogfight" against Bf 109s or Fw 190s -quoting the exact words used by posters-.

They too swallowed the argument of the vaunted 12.77 mm UB defensive machine gun manned by a rear gunner. As someone said on some other thread here, the point of that machine gun has been effectively turned into a bloody urban legend. 

I have films of stuka rear gunners setting Spitfires and Hurricanes ablaze. We know the rear gun in the stuka was of lighter caliber (MG 15 and MG 81 Z-7.92mm). During 1939 and 1940 all British fighters were fitted with guns about identical caliber of those of the defensive rear gunner. The Germans unlike the russians never made a scandal out of their rear gun in the fearsome dive bomber. It provided the plane with a minimum level of self defense capabilities, and there were times when the rear gunners succeded in shooting down RAF fighters. Yet, without proper fighter cover and presence of enemy fighters they go nowhere, just as whenever there were no enemy fighters around they could carry out their work.

All these conditions fit perfectly in the situation of the IL-2, exception taken for IL-2 pilots never had the skill Stuka pilots had in the business.

Pulling them out of their ignorance is not my task, so I will just have the required fun whenever I read the IL-2s "could accept dogfights" also that the rear gunner was one of the world´s wonders.

With or without that rear gunner, manning whatever bloody gun, the shturmoviks are losers to fighters.


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2006)

There are, however, certain things to be remarked:

(1) Luftwaffe fighter opposition from late 1943 throughout the whole 1944 was extremely scarce in the eastern front. 

The bulk of the jagdwaffe was brought west to deal with the ever growing formations of heavy bombers of the USAAF. Interceptions of IL-2s by German fighters during said period where not very common, but when interception happened, the IL-2s suffered accordingly.

Still, and as Davparl commented, losses of IL-2s were horrible in the 1943-1944 period. Thanks for the data DAvparl, I already had those numbers.

Also, did you know that in 1945 ALONE, the VVS lost the humble number of +/- 11,000 combat planes to all causes? (Repeat 11,000- eleven thousand!), the IL-2s comprising +/-40% of such losses.


(2) As I said, the IL-2 did a significant contribution to the soviet war effort. That is not being disputed here. 

Since the Luftwaffe stripped the eastern front of its fighter force to take care of the western skies, the IL-2s did not suffer that much from fighters during the 43-44 period, but from Flak and the mediocrity of the crews you bet it suffered, and it suffered very greatly.


(3) Most German pilots who fought against the IL-2s will of course say it was "difficult to shoot down". So far I would have a difficult time in recalling any episode of German pilots making fun of the enemy hardware.


(4) I brought up the speed Stuka/IL-2 speed comparison to enlighten people on some technical features of the soviet ground attack plane.

We do know the IL-2 of course could carry a far wider variety of weapons such as heavy cannons, bombs and non-guided rockets, but this is a useless comparison for the soviet craft was designed as a ground attack machine from the offset, whereas the stuka was a dive bomber, the "flying artillery" of the Blitzkrieg notion. It was the task of the Stuka to deliver its bombload with the highest possible accuracy to then return to base for refitting bombs. (Exception taken in the case of the Ju 87-G deployed during the last year of the war; what they did was to remove the dive breaks -btw, removed from the D-7 variant on, which was fitted with cannon armament too- and had two 37 mm cannons for tank hunting missions installed).

By the way, the rails under the wings of the soviet plane -for the rockets- diminished the already poor flying carachteristics of the plane even a bit further. 

(5) I believe you have a photo showing a brutally damaged IL-2 that made it back to base. You ought to be careful with soviet photos of the era we are discussing here.

Every single photo taken back then was processed by the hands of soviet propaganda; every shot was carefully taken. There are no coincidences in soviet war photographs of the era. 

I have nearly 75 films of German fighters intercepting IL-2s. At least 5 are of the first IL-2 "one-seater" while the reast are of the IL-2 M3s and believe me, you see them getting torn to pieces by German fighters.

One things is for sure: you will find countless times more photos of B-17s with horrible damage that made it back to base than of IL-2s. You have to believe that.

Erich:

You are correct, the IL-2 -along with the Bf 109-, is the most produced plane in history of military aviation.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 9, 2006)

I have to agree 100% with Udets above post... The average Il-2 pilot was a fresh faced farm kid with the basics of rudmentary flight, kinda like Luke Skywalker... They didnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of going toe to toe with fighters....

BUT....

There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule....

3-4 outta 100 Shturmovik pilots knew what they were doing, and were very VERY good at what they did...


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2006)

siade note more German Panzer killers coming ................


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 9, 2006)

Yes Erich some 36000 Il-2 produced.

One has to be careful with what the Trinity, Udet, Huck and Kurfurst, have to say.



> I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.



The USAAF *NEVER* considered stopping the bombing raids. They considered going to night bombing as the British did. What they ended up doing was bombing targets within escort range.

Christer Berstrom of Black Cross/Red Star series of books:

"_22 June 1941 - 1 July 1942, the Il-2 loss rate was a terrible 7.7 % (one lost in every 13 sorties)._"

"_Through 1944, a total of 4,100 Il-2s were lost in combat - compared with the 8,800 at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 47 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year._"

"_U.S. 8th AF: Through 1944, total of 3,497 heavy bombers were lost in combat - compared with the 1,686 heavy bombers at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 207 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year._"

Was the Il-2 loss rate that terrible in comparison?

posted by Denes Benard, author of many aviation books, on another board:

Year--Total Losses--Losses to enemy action--% of strength at hand 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1941--1,100--600--73.3 (54.5% of all losses) 
1942--2,600--1,800--34.2 (69.2% of all losses) 
1943--7,200--3,900--45.0 (54.1% of all losses) 
1944--8,900--4,100--46.6 (46.1% of all losses) 
1945--3,800--2,000--27.3 (55.6% of all losses) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Total: 23,600--12,400--70.3 (52.5% of all losses)

.............................
as of 31 May 44

In Russia

Luftlotte 1

Stab/JG 54
I/JG 54
II/JG 54

Luftlotte 4

IV/JG 51
Stab/JG 52
I/JG 52
II/JG 52
III/JG 52
I/JG 53
III/JG 77
part II/JG 301

Luftflotte 6

Stab /JG 51
Stab Staffel/JG 51
I/JG 51
III/JG 51

393 pure day fighters (FBs not counted)
-----------

Luftflotte 3 (France, Belgium, Holland)

Stab/JG 2
I/JG 2
II/JG 2
III/JG 2
Stab/JG 26
I/JG 2
I/JG 2
III/JG 26

168 pure day fighters
--------------------------


Luftflotte Reich
Stab/JG 1
I/JG 1II/JG 1
III/JG 1
Stab/JG 3
I/JG 3
II/JG 3
III/JG 3
I/JG 5
II/JG 5
Stab/JG 11
I/JG 11
II/JG 11
III/JG 11
10./JG 11
Stab/JG 27
I/JG 27
II/JG 27
III/JG 27
IV/JG 27
II/JG 53
III/JG 54
I/JG 400

648 pure day fighters 

So Udet is correct that most of the LW's fighters were used to combat the heavy bombaers, BUT Luftflotte 3 had less than 1/2 of what was on the Russian Front to defend France, Belgium, Holland.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2006)

davparlr said:


> It must have been like the Sherman tank. It was no problem for a Sherman to defeat a Panther or Tiger, all you did was attack it with enough Shermans and you were going to get it! To heck with loss rate.



Well when you put it that way, I will have to agree with you then.


----------



## Udet (Apr 10, 2006)

Mr. Kanuk:

I will get back to you later on this.

Mr. Krazy, there is something in your postings that reminds me of Carlitos Jiménez Botella, Gennadiy Afanasevich Masulin, Viorel Simion, Plamen Apostolov, Chuck "Big Mac Fries" Jackson, Syoma Svyatoslavich Akayev and of -the very famous- Frank Mboma.


----------



## Erich (Apr 11, 2006)

a little different scenario sort of ...........

Loco buster with the Ju 88C-6

Udo Cordes

Oberleutnant
born 22.07.1921 in Dortmund

RK on 25.05.1943 as Leutnant after 150 combat missions and 41 locomotive kills

While Cordes is one of the most successful bomber pilots ("Der Lok-Töter") he is mentioned in this book as he was in combat with II./SG 2 "Immelmann" at wars end. 

In spring 1942 he arrived at the Ostfront and flew successful missions with 4./KG 3 (shortly also with 6./KG 3) for what he was awarded the DKiG. In January 1943 he was transferred to the 9.(Eis.)/KG 3 under the leadership of Hptm. Fach. Here he developed his own attack tactics against the supply trains of the Soviet's, which he used to destroy 41 locomotives, 19 trains of which were 2 tank wagons and 3 ammunition. Under the worst weather conditions he shot up 5 locomotives on 08.03.1943 and under similar circumstances 6 locomotives and a complete fuel train on the 16.03.1943. Furthermore he destroyed until the KC award 11 tanks, 2 flak emplacements and achieved 2 aerial victories.

1944 until the disbandment in March 1945 he was Staffelkapitän of the 14.(Eis.)/KG3 where he achieved further successes. From 01.04.1945 until wars end he was with the Stabsschwarm of II./SG 2 (since 23.2.1945 (?)) as Adjutant) flying Fw 190. On 23.04.1945 he was shot down but took to his parachute to save his life. His last combat mission was on the 07.05.1945 near Dresden against Soviet tanks. On the 10.05.1945 he was POW with the Soviets who released him on the 02.11.1949.

In all he flew 296 combat missions as bomber and attack pilot and besides others destroyed 81 locomotives.

by the way Hauptmann Fach coverd in a magazine article shot up 63 Soviet locos with the Ju 88C-6 modified armament of 3 mg's and 3 2cm weapons

E ~


----------



## Erich (May 5, 2006)

back on topic, concerning A. Korol I am now in touch with his Bordfünkers son from 1945. Hopeful this chap can add some interesting bits on Soviet tank popping soon from his fathers flugbuch and or his impressions


----------



## Bullockracing (May 14, 2006)

I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons for the Brits, the P-39 for the Russians, the 190 with the 30mm underwing pods for the Germans, the Americans get the P-38 (surprise!).

No kidding, I would actually prefer to generate a sortie (as a CO) that would be a success as a mission with these aircraft. The traditional ground attack planes stereotyped for a tank-killing mission are under-performers compared to my picks, and generally (as mentioned before) really can't stop a heavy tank anyway. 

I'm currently braced for impact on this one....


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

The Hurricane IID/IV were no more survivable than the Il-2. While carrying the Vickers-S 40mm cannon the Hurricane was slowed down to such levels that it would be an easy target for the enemy fighters, and it was less armoured than the Il-2. 
However, the Hurricane IV could carry rockets with four Hispano 20mm cannon. This would make it effective against the lighter tanks and any 'soft' targets. These Hurricanes had a lot of success in North Africa and South-East Asia, but were of little use anywhere else. No. 6 Sqdn. did keep it's cannon equipped Hurricanes up until the end of the war however, moving right up through Italy and the Balkans from North Africa. 
For the British, you're better off taking the Typhoon. It can go into the combat zone, and leave the combat zone much quicker. 

The P-39 was not suitable for tank busting duties. And it was never used in that role by any air force that used it. It's a common myth that the Airacobra was used in CAS with the VVS, but it just a myth that appeared after a misunderstanding of the Russian language. 
The only "reports" I have heard of the P-39 being used to knock out tanks were from the American press reports about the Airacobra in North Africa. But this was the same "report" that stated the P-39 was prevailing over the Bf-109 in the theatre. Hardly something I take as a serious report.
Airacobra's were used in the ground attack role in most theatres however, when the oppurtunity arose. In most cases it was a low-level air superiority fighter that covered the advancing troops. The only place the P-39 was specifically sent to attack enemy ground or naval positions was in the PTO and CBI. It found a short-lived, but successful, role as a dive-bomber against Japanese shipping. 
For the Soviet Union I would stick with the Il-2/Il-10. While unable to leave the battlefield quickly, it is an effective killing machine. The tactics surrounding it's survival, and it's fighter cover needed to be improved. 

The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war. They had excellent armour values to protect their under-belly from low-calibre AA rounds, and retained the performance to handle themselves against enemy fighters. While not carrying massive cannons or rockets, these machines used properly could inflict massive damage on an enemy formation with proper tactics.

_"Our task was to do all we could to delay the thrusts, to give the German ground forces time to improvise defensive positions to stop the rush. Wherever there was a hole in the front, it was our job to try to plug it. Our Focke-Wulfs were armed with two 13-mm machine-guns and two 20-mm cannon, which we used for strafing attacks. The bombs we used during these operations were mainly the SC 250 and SC 500 and also SD 2, SD 4 and SD 10 bomblets carried in large numbers of containers.
"When we found enemy units moving forwards unopposed, as a matter of policy we concentrated our attacks on the soft-skinned supply vehicles; these were relatively easy to knock out with machine-gun and cannon fire and we knew that without frequent replenishments of fuel the tanks spearheading the advance would not get far. If the enemy armoured units were actually in contact with our ground forces, however, then the tanks themselves were our main target."_ 

Leutnant Werner Gail, III/SG 3 based at Idriza in August 1944. The unit was operating the Fw-190F. 

Most ground attack planes would aim for the supply columns, and supply trucks. This made dedicated tank destroyers quite pointless in my opinion. But what sets the Fw-190F and G apart is the 5mm armour protection along the bottom of the plane, under the pilot and engine. Along with extra 6mm armour around the engine cowling. 

Attacking enemy armour used a general tactic of approaching at 300 MPH, at 30 feet, and drop the bomb when the tank disappeard from view. This would either bounce the bomb into the tank, or smash straight into it. A one second delay would let the Fw-190 escape before the bomb and, hopefully, the tank explode. Then the Fw-190 would proceed to attack any soft-skinned targets with it's machine-gun or cannon, or if need be become a fighter. The Fw-190F and G are good choices for Germany. 

The P-47 would be a wiser choice for an American ground-attack plane, or the Corsair. Both could carry bombs, and both were able to smash 'soft' targets to pieces. The P-38 would not be able to take as much ground fire as either of these planes. 
There's so many US planes that could carry the ordance to deliver effective strikes against armoured forces. But I would go for those most survivable, and that would be the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO. The P-47D going into battle with two 500-lbs bombs under the wings would be a deadly machine to enemy armour, and the eight M2 .50 cal machine-guns would tear apart the soft-skinned targets. While the armour and air-cooled engined provided a lot of survivability for the plane and pilot. 

My overall choice, however, is the Fw-190F.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

planD said:


> The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war.


I agree 99% cause the Il-2 was extremely effective as well..



> The Fw-190F and G, while not carrying massive cannons or rockets


Ummm.... Panzerblitz??? 

A lot of Fw190 F-8's were fitted with 24 2.16 in (55 mm) R4/M rockets, or 14 220 lb (100 kg) RBS B/F21 rocket bombs, or two clusters of 3 9.84 in (280 mm) WGr.28 rockets, or Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets in 2.16, 3.07 and 5.12 in (55, 78 and 130 mm) calibers...



> For the British, the Typhoon... And the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO


Agreed 100%...


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

I didn't think the Fw-190F-8 used the rockets much, well not least compared to the simple SC 250 under the fuselage and four SC 50 bombs under the wings. They also trialed the SG 113A 77mm on the F-8, right? You know more about it than me.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 14, 2006)

I am pretty sure that the Hurribomber could outperform the Il-2, given the comments in this thread regarding it's handling characteristics. 

I have read comments in books from Russian pilots who have used the 37mm cannon on the P-39 to hit vehicles. Not as a planned sortie, but more as targets of opportunity.

The P-38 had the hard points to carry rockets, and the 39mm cannon had the punch to poke holes in light armor that the .50 cal didn't. If one round bounces off, so will the rest of the rounds behind it. On light armor, a .50 cal spray will do nothing other than make the vehicle commander duck under the hatch. A 37mm will punch holes in things that a .50 will not. No particular distaste for the P-47, but given the option of which one I think has the capability to do more damage to light armor, I would go with the P-38, just for the cannon.


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

You stated; _"I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons..._"

This is not a 'Hurribomber' as the Hurricane to which you refer (Hurricane IID) could not carry bombs. The Hurricane IID while probably being more agile than the Il-2 was still nowhere capable enough to handle itself in a dogfight. 
The 'Hurribomber' would be a more effective choice, but there's nothing a 'Hurribomber' can do that the Typhoon can't. And there's plenty the Typhoon can do which the 'Hurribomber' can't. 

I'm sure the P-39 was used to strike vehicles, but it would not be an effective tank destroyer. Practically every fighter would have taken shots at ground targets at some point, this does not make them dedicated ground attack machines. The P-39 would be vulnerable to ground-fire, it was best suited as a low-level air superiority fighter. 

The P-38 only carried a 37mm cannon in the P-38 and P-38D variants. The first major production P-38, the P-38E was fitted with a 20-mm cannon. And all P-38s that followed kept that armament. I never implied that the P-47 would be destroying armoured vehicles with it's .50cal, that would be the bombs job. While the P-38 could carry bombs and rockets, it's less survivable. The P-47 could do all the P-38 could in the GA role, and was more survivable. The bombs would destroy the armour, and the machine-guns could destroy the soft-skinned targets. 
If the USAAF went by the rules of the Luftwaffe, if the enemy was not engaged with one's own forces, you would attack the soft-skinned targets as a priority. Making the P-47 more suited for the task.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 14, 2006)

The vast majority of P-38s carried a 20mm AN-M2 (Hispano II essentially), not a 37mm.

The only 37mm armed P-38s were those of the first few production batches, namely the 29 original P-38s and the subsequent 36 P-38Ds.

From the P-38E onwards the USAAF replaced the 37mm cannon with the 20mm.

The 23mm Madsen was installed on some of the prototypes (23x106mm, 175 gram shell, firing at 400 rpm), but abandoned as it had a low rate of fire and poor reliability, which is saying something after the trouble the USAAF had getting 20mm cannon to work properly.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

The P-47D carried 10 5" HVAR rockets, which demolished MANY a german tank... It was extremely armored and it's big *** radial could absorb massive damage and still get the pilot home...

The P-38 was not intentionally used as a tank destroyer.... Rockets were the preferred method for the Allies in the tank destruction department...

The 190F-8 excelled in tank busting duties with the Panzerblitz rockets, and in being the better platform than the others mentioned, deserved the top nod.... The Il-2 Type 3M had 2x 37mm high velocity cannon and provisions for 32x 3.2" (82mm) RS-82 rockets that made mincemeat out of many German armoured formations, and with adequte fighter cover, cut great swathes across the German lines...

Those 2 aircraft pretty much top the list of Tank Busters, with a couple of possibles (Me-262)....


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

The Fw-190F is far above because of it's survivability , even when operating without fighter escort. The Il-2 was armoured and armed to the teeth, but unlike the Typhoon, Fw-190 and P-47 it needed heavy fighter escort to survive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2006)

Ill agree with you on that. I think the top 3 are definatly the P-47, Typhoon, and Fw-190. The Il-2 was good as well though.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2006)

I would not rate the P-47D and Tiffy as a better tank killer than the Il-2..... Better all around craft for sure, but not in the designated tank buster role..


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

Thanks for the correction on the Hurribomber, pD.

See, I did catch some flak with that post! I guess I am more interested that a relatively sluggish aircraft like the Il-2 would be considered a peer to much higher-performance fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and the P-47. If I had one of each of the three aircraft for a ground attack squadron, the Il would be left behind every time, considering that if my unit was attacked by fighters, the survivability of the Il would be lower than that of the Tiffie or the Jug. Ground fire is a constant, and speed and maneuverability are your friend to avoid it, which the Il is lacking in comparison.


----------



## Erich (May 15, 2006)

read the story with the facts during Normandie of both the Jug and Tiffie. the outlook was quite grim for both even with rockets as hot shot contenders for the best tank killer. Certainly the Il-2, Ju87G and Hs 129 or the prime sports in this thread. MT was another story as the RAF/US fighters shot up loads of wheeled transport and Locos


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

So I guess the question should be does the performance advantage offered by the fighter-bombers like the Tiffie/Jug outweighs the destructive capability of the Il-2, Ju-87G or Hs 129 when balanced against the need for fighter escort?

Anyone care to weigh in on this?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 15, 2006)

No it does not outweigh the destructive capabilities....


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

So pretty much an unescorted Tiffie or Jug is more cost-effective than a Il-2/Ju87G/Hs129 with a fighter escort it seems. Would you all agree?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2006)

I would say yes, because the P-47 or Tiffy can defend itself better.


----------



## Udet (May 23, 2006)

Bullock, hello!

Well, possibly...

What exactly is the definition of "more cost-effective" here?

If strictly referring to the number of planes scrambling for ground attack missions (namely fuel consumption, ammunition spent and, perhaps, potential losses) then it´s probably more cost-effective to unleash 100 Typhoons that will require no escort (100 planes only) than sending 100 Stukas or IL-2s which might require a few dozens of fighters to provide escort. (say, a total of 120-130 planes).

100 planes vs. 130 planes? 100 is -apparently- more cost effective. Ok.

Kind of a tricky game that we have here.

The problem, however, might rise to the surface when we know of the investigations carried out by the RAF and USAAF. As the allied armies advanced further into Germany, German tanks and vehicles found either destroyed or abandoned across battlefields underwent thorough inspection.

This particular problem can have a direct impact on the cost-effective issue you are commenting. Let´s see:

The Typhoons, just like the P-47s in the ground attack mode hardly hit any tanks, vehicles or any other motorized items the Heer deployed in battles.

When targets were large concentrations of troops and vehicles Typhoons and P-47s of course did not have that much trouble in hitting the mark.

A VERY different thing happened when they Typhoons attacked Panzer and other motorized formations in motion though: hits were as scarce as water in the Sahara is; and not just that Bullock, losses were far greater for the attackers -Typhoons or Jugs- than the losses caused to German armor during such attacks. (!!)

Incredibly as it might sound, and when the outcome of allied ground attack missions is now known, USAAF and RAF pilots attacking German armor created what can be one of the wildest overclaiming precedents -in direct contest with B-17 and B-24 gunners.- They claimed the destruction of number of tanks and vehicles that simply did not exist in the order of battle of the Heer for the entire Normandy campaign.

Erich has posted priceless information in the forum regarding this issue; Niklas Zetterling is another good source.

So, launching formation after formation of Typhoons to attack enemy armor and motorized units will have as result that they will fail to accomplish the task, in any possible degree. by not inflicting sufficient losses to regard the German formation as "depleted", much less to ensure complete destruction of the enemy force.

There´s however one thing they can certainly attain: to cause critical delays to German panzers trying to reach frontlines (as it was achieved during the war).

So, one mission of Stukas (including that dozen or dozens of escort fighters) can ensure a far greater level of destruction of enemy tank/motorized formations than Typhoons or Jugs can come close to attain flying 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11 missions.

In conclusion:

Depending on the mission and enemy forces present, a flight of Stukas, whether scorted or unescorted, will be overwhelmingly more efficient in either causing massive damage or complete destruction of the enemy target, while a flight of Typhoons or Jugs, even if numerically superior to the flight of Stukas, will fail to cause enough damage, if any...

My opinion on which kind of deployment could be the more-cost effective.

As additional comments:

Chances are you´ve heard of the G-6/R6 version of the Bf 109, which had one MG 151/20 cannon under each wing -in a gondola-; virtually universally depicted as either "easy prey" or "no match" for allied fighters as a consequence of the additional weight and drag of that configuration. 

Well, the Typhoons in ground attack roles using non-guided rockets had a set of rails under each wing -where rockets were positioned-; from the comments I´ve collected in past years, German guncamera included, it´s very clear the rails under the wings of Typhoons were far more problematic to the British pilot than the under-wing pods in the Bf 109 G-6/R6 were to the German pilot -there are large numbers of victories against USAAF fighters attained in that particular version of the 109, but that´s an ingredient for other discussions.

So, in addition to the fact they were not good in the ground-attack mode Bullock, the Typhoons with underwing rocket-rails were not efficient if intercepted by Fw190s or Bf 109s, even after having fired their rockets.

Cheers!


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2006)

I've got a personal from a friend/vet that flew P-47's with the 406th fg in Normandie before getting shot down by AA. It's pretty plain the Jug couldn't destroy armor except for a lucky hit by bombs . . . . now what did I do with it


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2006)

I would think (maybe others here can verify) while Allied fighter bombers might not of destroyed alot of tanks, I think that it would of been very demoralizing for the Germans to see. 

Think about it, your airforce is never around, you get attacked at will. Friends still get killed, still no fighter protection from your airforce. This goes on day after day, having to dive for cover, strafed, bombed at will. I would think it would very demoralizing more than anything for the German troops.


----------



## plan_D (May 23, 2006)

As much as most people believe, the most important target for the ground-attack aircraft is not the tank but the tank's support. The Allied aircraft, Typhoons, Thunderbolts and Lightnings were more effective in their area of expertise because they weren't striking at tanks. Attacking the soft supply trucks, or the locomotives carrying supplies slowed the German advance or retreat by depriving them of the fuel and supply they needed to move and fight. 

In the exact same way that the Fw-190F/G was used in the GA role, the Allied GA aircraft would be used against the support, not the army. The German tactic was to attack the support when the enemy was on the move, and attack the enemy itself when combat was engaged.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 24, 2006)

plan_D said:


> As much as most people believe, the most important target for the ground-attack aircraft is not the tank but the tank's support. The Allied aircraft, Typhoons, Thunderbolts and Lightnings were more effective in their area of expertise because they weren't striking at tanks. Attacking the soft supply trucks, or the locomotives carrying supplies slowed the German advance or retreat by depriving them of the fuel and supply they needed to move and fight.
> 
> In the exact same way that the Fw-190F/G was used in the GA role, the Allied GA aircraft would be used against the support, not the army. The German tactic was to attack the support when the enemy was on the move, and attack the enemy itself when combat was engaged.



I agree, good point.


----------



## Udet (May 24, 2006)

The problem is the fighters of both RAF and USAAF hit neither the tanks nor their softer support vehicles.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 24, 2006)

Udet said:


> The problem is the fighters of both RAF and USAAF hit neither the tanks nor their softer support vehicles.



You sure on that point? I have seen and read alot of books with stats saying number of vehicles destroyed by Allied F/B's. Yes they did not do a great job on tanks but trains, trucks, supply columns etc were much easier targets.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2006)

I dont know where that comment came from either....


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2006)

the Jug and Stang were nasty Loco killers, have talked with many whom bagged them besidies the kills from 55th fg P-38's and other 9th AF groups. soft skin vehicles are not a real prob to flame up as photos and many cine films illustrate


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2006)

a little story from F.B. of the 55th fg, who destroyed some 25 locos and 1 Me 262A

Major Ryan was leading the 343rd Squadron which was leading the 55th
Group and I was leading his second section of 8 aircraft. While watching
Giebelstadt Airdrome as we approached I saw these two take off and call
them into Ryan and requested permission to attack which was granted. My
old friend Don Penn was leading the 38th Squadron joined in quietly and
we got seven of the enemy aircraft as they were taking off and forming up
for a mission. Lt. O'neil broke formation on his own and just as I
started to fire he pulled up in front of me nearly getting himself
killed. He got some hits on the 262 and it showed a little fire in the
left engine which I later learned was from too rapid increase of the
throttles which flew out burning fuel as the engines had no fuel
controllers. O'neil would be killed breaking out of formation to do his
own thing a short time later. As for locomotives I preferred an attack
from the side or quartering from behind, but a head on would work ok with
the altitude being what ever you were flying at the start depending upon
how much flak you were getting at the time. We always went after the
loco first and then finished with the cars. One had to be careful with
the cars because they might be carrying explosives and blow up in your
face and maybe knocking you out of the air as sometimes happened.

Frank


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2006)

As I have found out many times while strafing Locos while playing IL-2.......


----------



## Udet (May 24, 2006)

Erich, Hunter368 and Primus:

Note I did not include locomotives and train cars on my list, you agree on this?

I have seen the footage of locos and train cars getting hit too; trains are large targets and unless protected by tunnels, there is no way to conceal them. So if there is good weather trains are in trouble when attacked by enemy fighters, what´s new about this?

Not the same can be told about AFVs, for the German panzertruppe became masters in the art of camouflage in France during 1944; an antire armored column would "dissapear" from sight in seconds when alerted of the presence of enemy planes.

I digress: neither Typhoons nor Jugs were successful in hitting panzers, armored vehicles or trucks.

German armored units such as the 21 Pz. Div., Panzer Lehr and 12 SS.Pz.Div, as well as the s.Pz.Abt. 503 engaged the enemy during the Normandy campaign. Note that if the versions of all those frenzied Typhoon and Jug pilots returning to base after those "successful ground attack missions" have had just a few grams of accuracy, then the allied armies advancing further into France would have faced absolutely no German armored units, at all.

Now that there were times some of these units arrived late to critical points in the front -as a consequence of air attack- is true; that their panzers, armored vehicles and support trucks got hit heavily is FALSE.


----------



## Hunter368 (May 24, 2006)

Udet,

I will partly agree with you and partly disagree. I agree that using a fight bomber (that does not have presion guided missiles or bombs at the time) to attack small armored units was not truly effective as it is today. Yes you would get some tank kills but few. You would have to nearly have a direct hit with a bomb to kill a tank. In Hans Ulrich Rudel autobiography he said you needed to land a bomb within (can't remember for sure off the top of my head) about 25 feet (I have the book in a box right now it could alittle more or less but that is close to the range) for a tank kill to be achieved. For a F/B to do that it would be hard. Their .50 or 20mm guns would have little to effect on a tank. So I agree with you that although F/B did achieve some tank kills they were not a efficient weapon vs the tank.

Now that being said. They were very effective vs softer targets, like trucks, open topped APC, horses (which were used alot still), men, trains etc. Yes air crews exaggerated their ground kills but it is no different then any other part of war. The "fog of war" causes incorrect numbers to be reported, but they did not do so anymore than anyone else in WW2. But their effects were no less real, meaning although they didn't kill everything they claimed they did kill alot of vehicles never the less. 

Here is what Hans Ulrich Rudel has been credited with for ground kills: 

519 Russian Tanks

1 Battleship

1 Destroyer

70 Landing Craft

800+ Motorized Vehicles

150+ Artillery -, Pak and anti-aircraft positions

Plus 9 air kills.

Do you think all those were "real" kills? I don't think so, but his effectiveness was still huge. 

Quotations from Hans Ulrich Rudel :

"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!"

"Lost are only those, who abandon themselves!"



In his post-war manuscript about the attack at Mortain von Gersdorff, the chief of staff of 7. Armee, wrote that the majority of the equipment losses had been caused by enemy air power. You will see the effect by is not little, most of those air losses were from Allied F/B. Here is the losses:


----------



## Bullockracing (May 25, 2006)

If I'm following this all correctly, it appears that the machine guns or cannons actually mounted to the aircraft (in traditional means) has little or no effect on armor, and bombs or heavy rockets are required to "kill" even a light to medium tank. How much armor can the largest guns on each side penetrate?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2006)

If u'd really like to know, go back and read both parts of this thread... We've went over this time and time again, including websites and graphs/charts that show the penetrating power of certain rounds....

Bottom line, either the 8lb rockets, the 37mm cannons that the Russians and Germans mounted, napalmn and to an extent, bombs were the primary air assault means of tank destruction..


----------



## Jagdverband 44 (May 25, 2006)

JU 87G was a really good tank killer.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 25, 2006)

And once again, it most certainly was, and is in the top 5 for best dedicated tank killing platform....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 26, 2006)

as far as dedicated tank killers go where does the hurri Mk.IID go?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

Hmmm that is a good question.

This is no order and maybe we can order them now together but lets see here are lets say the top planes for the job:

Ju-87G
Il-2
Fw-190F
P-47
Tiffy
Hurricane Mk.IID

Now lets discuss and decide what to elliminate and come up with the all time best or what not.


----------



## Gnomey (May 26, 2006)

I'd agree with that list Adler. There is always the Hs-129 to consider as well although it was underpowered.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

That is why I dont consider it. It was a very very good design and could have been extremely distructive had they just put some DB engines in it, instead of those damn French pieces of ****.


----------



## Gnomey (May 26, 2006)

Very true! They did upgrade them later on but not enough DB's would of done the job or even some BMW 801's. The first version had two 495hp Argus (the second 2 Gnome-Rhone 690hp engines) how anyone thought it wouldn't fly like a pig with the amount of armour must of been an idiot...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 26, 2006)

But the Hs-129 was an effective tank killer, it just had some crappy flight characteristics... It is one of my favorite planes, crap engines or not, and the pilots that flew them were some of the bravest and best ground attack pilots around...

And just to be specific, the 2 Rustsätze Kits to consider are the Hs-129B-2/R2 with 2x20mm, 2x 13mm, and 1x 30mm Mk103, the B-2/R3 with 2x20mm and 1x 37mm BK 3/7, or the Hs-129 B-2/Wa, which was the factory installed version of the above weapons...

Either way, it destroyed many Russian tanks, and I would rate it higher than the P-47, as a tank killer only...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

As a tank killer it is hard to rate anything higher than it, but those damn engines is what held it back.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 26, 2006)

Yea, score up to the thread "What If..."


----------



## Gnomey (May 27, 2006)

Agreed if it had had better engines it could of been a really good tank killer (not that it wasn't already).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hmmm that is a good question.
> 
> This is no order and maybe we can order them now together but lets see here are lets say the top planes for the job:
> 
> ...



mmmm, whilst they did play a majoy part should we count fighter bombers? they racked up kills but with bombs and rockets, which can be dropped by most planes, they're hardly dedicated tank killers, and the simple ability to drop bombs/fire rockets doesn't make you the best tank killer?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2006)

I dont see why not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 29, 2006)

but do you see my point about with fighter/bombers it's the disposable store used and a lot of luck that destroys the tank, and almost any plane can drop bombs, but dedicated tank destroyers such as the -87G and IID are a different stories, very few planes could mount the guns they did and the destruction of a tank relies more on pilot skill and the actual aircraft............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

Yeah I see what you are saying. If anyone else something to add to the list that is fine.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 29, 2006)

I agree to an extent too Lanc, although the Typhoon was pretty much in limbo as a fighter until the assault on the French mainland and the loading of those 8lb rockets that SOME people think didnt destroy a single tank during the Normandy invasion....


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I agree to an extent too Lanc, although the Typhoon was pretty much in limbo as a fighter until the assault on the French mainland and the loading of those 8lb rockets that SOME people think didnt destroy a single tank during the Normandy invasion....


 
I've had debates on other forums where people claim rockets weren't effective because of their low chance(something like 5%) of hitting the target. What they don't factor in is, one squadron of FBs carried almost 100 rockets which means you'll get about 5 direct hits in an attack and near misses are going to blow up any soft targets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 29, 2006)

I am not saying that they were not effective at all, but I think they were more effective than people think. I think it depends on the type of Rockets. I know the R4Ms used against Bomber Formations but I think they would have been quite effective as well especially in the way that you are talking about Dac.


----------



## Dac (May 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not saying that they were not effective at all, but I think they were more effective than people think. I think it depends on the type of Rockets. I know the R4Ms used against Bomber Formations but I think they would have been quite effective as well especially in the way that you are talking about Dac.



The 3" rocket wasn't as effective later in the war but the 5" would take out a tank from the rear or side depending on the model. Panthers were vulnerable to this. I guess if the Luftwaffe had more aircraft availble for ground attack later in the war there would have been more use of rockets. 

They still did pretty good with the underpowered aircraft they had. Somebody like Hans Rudel had to be very brave to fly day after day in an aircraft that many thought was obsolete.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2006)

Underpowered aircraft?

By 1943 they were useing Fw-190s for tank busting rolls and I call a Fw-190 hardly "underpowered".


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

When compared to the allied tactical forces the Luftwaffe's use of fighter-bombers was limited. They didn't have the fuel, planes or the pilots to spare for the effort that was required. So much of the Luftwaffe was occupied just defending the Reich. The Fw-190f was a good fighter-bomber, and was effective against tanks with it's 30mm cannon but their numbers were dwarfed by the thousands of Sturmoviks, Typhoons, Thunderbolts etc...in operation with the Allies.

I was was talking about the Hs-129 and Ju-87G, when I said underpowered.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

the Fw 190F was armed with only two 2cm weapons not 3cm. there were numerous F's in production primarily serving on the Ost front where they attack hordes of Soviet tanks at will, this was the prime reason why the Ju 87D's were removed and transfered out to the night groiund attack gruppen and then the Fw 190 came into play with panzerblitz rockets. Again as i have mentioned over the last 2 years there really needs to be a book written specifically on the German ground attack units operating late war 44-45 Fw's as we would find that they indeed destroyed numerous Soviet panzers with rockets more so than any Allied ground attack a/c during the war.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 31, 2006)

> there really needs to be a book written specifically on the German ground attack units operating late war 44-45 Fw's as we would find that they indeed destroyed numerous Soviet panzers with rockets more so than any Allied ground attack a/c during the war.


I agree 100% erich, and the many eyewitness accounts and a few interviews I've had on the subject substantiate this....

It would be a book I would definatly purchase, and speaking of which, when is the JG300 Vol 2 English comin out????


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 31, 2006)

The best tank killer I can think of is A BIG AS**D EXPLOSION!!!!!!


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

Les no doubt around September as the Dora volumes at least the 1st one is due for July or so they stated. right now to me it is doubtful much will happen for EE till the fall, with too many projects in the works


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

Erich said:


> the Fw 190F was armed with only two 2cm weapons not 3cm. there were numerous F's in production primarily serving on the Ost front where they attack hordes of Soviet tanks at will, this was the prime reason why the Ju 87D's were removed and transfered out to the night groiund attack gruppen and then the Fw 190 came into play with panzerblitz rockets. Again as i have mentioned over the last 2 years there really needs to be a book written specifically on the German ground attack units operating late war 44-45 Fw's as we would find that they indeed destroyed numerous Soviet panzers with rockets more so than any Allied ground attack a/c during the war.



Like with the Bf 109F and it's 20mm underwing cannons, the Fw 190F could be fitted with two 30mm cannon in gondolas.

I'd buy a book on the Fw190 tank busting in the east in 1944-45.


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2006)

no they did not have underwing gondolas or the silly Mk 103 on the prototype that never flew in action if this is what you refer to. There were no underwing cannons fitted to Schlachtgeschwader Fw 190F's or G's only bombs, bomblets and rockets


----------



## lesofprimus (May 31, 2006)

Erich is correct Dac, the Fw-190F/G was never fitted with underwing gondolas...


----------



## Dac (May 31, 2006)

I guess the reference books I'm going by are wrong, a couple claim the Fw 190F sometimes used 2 MK 108 cannon.


----------



## dinos7 (Jun 3, 2006)

i believe i would say the ju-87 stuka would be the best, just my opinion


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 3, 2006)

> a couple claim the Fw 190F sometimes used 2 MK 108 cannon.


Heres a pic of an Fw-190 with 108 gondolas, but it is an A-8/R3......


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2006)

Les the prototype you present has Mk 103's in response to tests with a couple of these in regard to the success with the same single weapon system on the Hs 129. For the Fw 190 it just did not work, due to strengthing problems in the wings when the long barrels were fired and vibration characteristics were too extremem to even aim properly as the rounds were placed in such a wide area during target practice


----------



## Dac (Jun 3, 2006)

I like the Hurricane IID, according to this Tony Williams article the No. 6 Squadron in "Flying Can Openers" destroyed 47 tanks and 200 other vehicles in North Africa.

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~autogun/sgun.htm


----------



## red26 (Jun 5, 2006)

I think the P-47 was the best tank killer in the war It's 8, 50cal's could beat up any thing. And pluse it culod also carry ord. on it and it was fast across the deck making it hard to hit. It also had the best reputation of bringing the pilot home.

Sorry if the spelling is off a bit


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2006)

U arent really implying that .50 calibre bullets could destroy a tank are u??? Even a French tank could withstand 5,000 impacts from a .50 cal....


----------



## Dac (Jun 5, 2006)

Some people I've encountered claim it was possible to destroy tanks by bouncing .50 cal rounds off the ground into the belly armor of a tank, but that doesn't sound too likely to me.


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2006)

another myth ...........

the .50 ammo was excellent for the ground attack work of the JUG and STANG but don't anyone claim it could do away with German armor


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 5, 2006)

There are reports that state that some German tanks were destroyed by skipping 20mm rounds under them, but not the .50 cal...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

Dac said:


> I was was talking about the Hs-129 and Ju-87G, when I said underpowered.



And the Hs-129 hardly made up the bulk of the Luftwaffe ground fleet. I do however agree that past 1944 the bulk of the Luftwaffe needed to defend the Reich.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 6, 2006)

Extremely unlikely. The Tiger I had 28 mm bottom plating. If You put a typical Hispano Suiza MK II 20 mm round at 45 degrees impact obliquity (typical if the rejected projectile hits the bottom of the plate UNDER the tank) against the plate, the plate will be holed at 2554 ft./sc. minimum striking velocity (.5 cal rounds will always fail to make a hole). However, the yaw effects of a rejected projectile will greatly increase the minimum necessary striking velocity to penetrate the plate. Other than pure luck, I would regard these storys as fairy tales...
Typical bottom armour of light and medium tanks was only 10 mm. A .5 cal round would need a minimum striking velocity of 1776 ft. / sec. at 45 desgrees and WITHOUT YAW OR TUMBLING. Take a 33% yaw into account and the minimum striking velocity for a .5 round increases to 3.453 ft. / sec. for holing. No, these hits are not probable to knock out a tank anyway.


----------



## Dac (Jun 6, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the Hs-129 hardly made up the bulk of the Luftwaffe ground fleet. I do however agree that past 1944 the bulk of the Luftwaffe needed to defend the Reich.



Erich pointed out that the FW 190F was used in large numbers against Soviet armor, something I don't know much about. There's a lot of info on Sturmoviks and western FBs out there, I'd like to learn more about the history of Fw 190s in ground attack.

There's over 40 pages on this thread so I guess I'll start here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2006)

Erich is also a huge wealth of info also.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jun 28, 2006)

*kiwimac:*



> Yeah, read somewhere they did that to the HS 129 as well. Man all you need was one of those HS 129 with the 6x75mm recoiless rifles PLUS the 55 mm rockets.
> 
> Like the a-10, not fast, but by God, the punch!



That sounds the shiznit!! Any more info?

I like the FW190F, P47 IL2 and Hurricane IID. I don't much rate the Tiffy.

I think these are the most important factors (in order):

Armament

Armour/strength/defense

Speed 

Manouverability

I find it ironic that light AT weapons were probably the best at dealing with IL2's.


----------



## Erich (Jun 28, 2006)

actually Bf 109G's with 20mm's and the highly effective 2cm HEI M Geschoss took out many IL-2's on the Ost front. If you study the Luftw fighter aces visibly appareant serving with JG 51, 52 and 54 esepcially and tally their IL-2 kills; quite impressive

there is a book written some years ago just on the ground attack Fw 190F variants, but unsure of the ISBN or publication date


----------



## Erich (Jun 30, 2006)

from German friend C. Charles with his explanation of German Luftw. "Panzer" kills

the prozess for verification for tank claims was ordered 22. May 1944, Az. 95/44 (LP (A) 5, V) and was published on 12. June 1944 in Luftwaffenverordnungsblatt.

As with all orders from higher ranks it was quite complicated. For example it explained exactly what a "Panzer" was. As a rule it what quite similar to the prozess for verifivation of Abschüsse. What is important is, that you had to have an witness in the air or on the ground (members of your own crew were not allowed) and that the claims were confimed at the Luftflottenkommando, not at the RLM.

The order also says, that a Panzervernichtung >> generally << is to be estimated like an Abschuss. But it also says, that the circumstances of the claim are important ("5 claims at one day or single claims against an dangerous flank-attack are more worth than 5 claims during many weeks"). For that reason copies of the pilots "Leistungsbuch" had to be forwared when requesting honors for Panzervernichtungen.

IMHO this order does not say that an "Panzervernichtung" is to be counted as a "Flugzeugabschuss", but only that - in connection with the granting of military honors - it is worth as much as an Flugzeugabschuss. I don't know, whether there was a later order, allowing the direct counting of a Panzervernichtung like an Abschuss.


----------



## tomsong3320 (Jul 23, 2006)

fire bomb a tank talk about a tv dinner interesting


----------



## Badsight- (Jul 24, 2006)

for tank "busting" you want cannon 

the probable best plane for gunzo tank strafing was probably the Hurricane II-d . . . . . but slow

best tank busters that had a decent level of survival against Fighters was probably the FW190-F Typhoon

the specialised slow-speed G/A aircraft like the Sturmovik Hs-129 Ju-87 were too slow speed extremely vunerable . the Hurricane MkII-d wasnt much faster either but it carried guranteed tank openers in those vickers 40mm

the FW-F8 the Typhoon might have had poor results from their rocket attack combat attacks , but they had the speed to survive better

bomb runs ? well you can only carry one or two decent enough to bust the tank open , so for gunzo tank attacking , the best compromise was probably the Hurri MkII-d


----------



## Falk44 (Aug 26, 2006)

Hello to all members!

I am a fellow of goog old Germany and especially interested in subjects
as CAS and tank busters (naturally Hans-Ulrich Rudel and the Ju 87 G
but also his antagonists in Great Britain, the U.S. or the Russians, for
Example Jefimov or Stepanjan). Can you give me any informations? For
example on prominent Hurricane tank busters? The Hurricane - I belief
to remember that the Hurricane Mk IID with two Bofors 40 mm flew
earlier than the famous Ju 87 G. More than 36.000 Iljushin 2 were 
built during WW2 (about 230 Ju 87 G 1 and G 2). The Henschel 129,
a special development for CAS (as the Il-2) was build in a number
of about 800, but at no time as successful as the Ju 87 G or the Iljushin
2, perhaps because the Hs 129 had no gunner in the rear. 

I would be interested how many Il-2 were armed with two 37mm guns - instead of 4 23 mm guns?

Please contact me.Also, if you have any questions about this subject.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 28, 2006)

Willkommen aus Ansbach hier.


----------



## Tony Williams (Aug 29, 2006)

Falk44 said:


> Can you give me any informations? For
> example on prominent Hurricane tank busters? The Hurricane - I belief
> to remember that the Hurricane Mk IID with two Bofors 40 mm flew
> earlier than the famous Ju 87 G.


Not Bofors - the smaller and much less powerful Vickers S.

See THIS article on tankbuster guns.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## wolfpath (Oct 18, 2006)

Udet said:


> I do not think the IL-2 is the best tank killer of WWII, at all.
> 
> The USAAF has worked hard to prove all their fighters were absolutely superior to anything the Germans had (they were not). The soviets have worked likewise.
> 
> ...






I am a teacher of history (and geography, italian and literature) and it is very interesting to me to read this kind of things...Many compliments!


----------



## wolfpath (Oct 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Willkommen aus Ansbach hier.



beautiful picture....did you make it?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 19, 2006)

I gotta say the Typhoon made short work of the German tanks during D-day and days after, but i would accept it being the best all-round Close Support plane


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 19, 2006)

The Typhoons had a very bad hit rate against armour with their rockets if I remember right - upwards of 100 rockets used for one hit.


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 19, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> The Typhoons had a very bad hit rate against armour with their rockets if I remember right - upwards of 100 rockets used for one hit.


200, according to Operational Research. Even when practicing in ideal conditions (and with no-one shooting back at them) it took, on average, 20 RPs fired for every hit on a tank. And RPs were accurate, compared with bombs...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2006)

Have to agree with Tony...


----------



## johnbr (Oct 19, 2006)

For a tank kill how about the Rheinmetall G104 cag 365mm recoilless cannon
Muzzle velocity proectile 1'034ft/sec
Case 1'050ft/sec
Pressure 1'700 to 2'000psi
Recoil 0.3937 inch
From of tist right hand


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 20, 2006)

wolfpath said:


> beautiful picture....did you make it?



What picture?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> The Typhoons had a very bad hit rate against armour with their rockets if I remember right - upwards of 100 rockets used for one hit.



Well Rockets even now havnt really Advanced, theyre still pretty inaccurate, they may have be improved through better coordination of fire, but the fact that the 200 rockets fired to get 1 hit in my mind doesnt reflect the aircrafts performance just the chinsy weaponry


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 21, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> but the fact that the 200 rockets fired to get 1 hit in my mind doesnt reflect the aircrafts performance just the chinsy weaponry



The weapons an aircraft can carry affect its effectiveness in doing its job, though. You could say that the plane is just the delivery vehicle: it's the weapons that do the damage. In reality, it's the whole package - the weapon system, in modern parlance - which matters. 

If you really wanted to knock out tanks from the air, nothing beat a good, big, cannon.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2006)

I agree, a big cannon or a bomb.

To me the best tank busters are (and in no particular order) the Il-2, Ju-87G-1, Fw-190F-8, P-47D, and Hurricane IID.

Honorable Mention goes to the Typhoon and the HS-127 (she would have been a great tank buster had it not been for her shitty French engines).


----------



## k9kiwi (Oct 22, 2006)

How about the B-29?

Any tank that was parked in two Japanese cities was toast by the end of the day.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2006)

Hs 129 Chris, not the 127... I hold the Hs-129 in a higher regard as a dedicated tank-buster than I do the P-47D, but the Fw 190F-8, the Ju 87G and the Il2 round out the top 4...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 22, 2006)

Ah why did I say 127. Damn it, I meant 129.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 23, 2006)

i'm curious as to why les mentioned the P-47D and to an extent the -190F in his list of dedicated ani-tank aircraft, the Hurricane Mk.IID being far superior.............


----------



## plan_D (Oct 23, 2006)

The greatest dealers of death have to be the Il-2, Ju-87G and Hurricane IID / IV. However, these planes were not the greatest protectors of their crews. 

And we must take into account what armour we're dealing with. Even without the RP, the Typhoon could deal considerable damage to the Wehrmacht armour - remember, the Pz.Kpfw III and IV were the majority armour pieces albeit the Pz.Kpfw V was more numerous in the Ardennes Offensive, even if they did lack the fuel to run them all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 23, 2006)

> i'm curious as to why les mentioned the P-47D and to an extent the -190F in his list of dedicated ani-tank aircraft


I didnt mention the P-47D, Adler did, and I was just voicing my opinion that the Hs-129 was a better tankbuster than the -47D...

As for the Fw 190F, if u remember Lanc, the Panzerblitz destroyed many many Russian tanks, and was superior in every way shape and form to the Hurricane...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 24, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i'm curious as to why les mentioned the P-47D and to an extent the -190F in his list of dedicated ani-tank aircraft, the Hurricane Mk.IID being far superior.............



What are you talking about the Fw-190 was a better aircraft in all catagories when compared to the Hurricane....any mark.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 24, 2006)

I think hes talking about its Air to Ground capability's


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 25, 2006)

It was not far superior to the Fw-190F in air to ground capability.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2006)

i wasn't i was comparing them in the dedicated anti-tank role, i said the Mk.IID was superior for the simple reason it was a dedicated tank-buster and as such the -190F shouldn't be in a dedicated tank-buster's dicussion on account of the fact the F series was a ground attack/anti-shipping series, if you get where i'm coming from, which it appears, as ever, no one does


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2006)

Tanks drive on the ground, shipping sail on water (surface) so you could say air to ground or air to surface otherwise its pretty much the same thing, now i do know that they made certain planes back then for one purpose, but the Typhoon, the Il 2 Sturmivok, hurricane IID / IV, the Stuka or the 190-f doesnt matter what they were built for they were used for bombing not just tanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Exactly Hussars. For the first time I think we are agreeing on something here.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2006)

Thankyou, 

but back to what i was originally saying, the Typhoon was the main CAS aircraft in the RAF and RCAF during the french,Dutch and German campaign and it did an excellent job, and i got to tell you this is the first time ive ever heard bad things about the Typhoons arsenal, ive heard personally from veteran RCAF pilots that they preferred the rocket load due to the fact that they could spend more time flying their plane then instead of concentrating on aiming and assuming where a bomb is gonna go, and i do know that rockets naturally are very innaccurate weapons, but these Typhoon pilots destroyed alot of Panzers with those rockets.


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 28, 2006)

Still think the 40m armed Stuka was the best tank killer.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 28, 2006)

Stuka was never armed with 40mm (that was the Hurricane MKIID), Stuka had 37mm...


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

Somewhere I have seen stats that state that only about 2% I think of rockets fires by Tiffies actually ever did any damage - the rest was psychological, as with the Ju87b.

Johnnie Johmson says in "Wing Leader" that his people were highly hacked off when they were kitted out with rockets on their Spits, and that they much preferred having two 250lb bombs each.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Yeap it was armed with 37mm FLAK 18 which was actually an anti aircraft gun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Somewhere I have seen stats that state that only about 2% I think of rockets fires by Tiffies actually ever did any damage - the rest was psychological, as with the Ju87b.



I have seen the same.


----------



## ndicki (Oct 28, 2006)

If you want to try it in any simulator (as opposed to arcade game), you have to come to the conclusion that those figures can't be far off.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2006)

Yea agreed here as well nd.... Its not easy to have pinpoint accuracy with rockets when the damn AAA is all over u as well... Very low launch to hit ratio... 

However, from available information, the Germans using the Panzerblitz armed 190's had a much higher chance to hit %... Not sure why tho... Erich could probably throw up some info here.... 

The amount of armour that was supposedly destroyed at Normany by the Tiffys has been completely exaggerated to the point of insanity... Erich had posted some statistical info in the past concerning this...

As far a simulators go, there seems to be no better tank buster in the IL-2 series of games next to the Yak-9K with that basterdous 45mm cannon in the hub... Kills everything except the Ferdinand...


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about the Fw-190 was a better aircraft in all catagories when compared to the Hurricane....any mark.



As a fighter plane the Fw 190 certainly completely outclassed the Hurricane, no question. But the Hurricane IID and IV were much better at knocking out tanks because their 40mm cannon had vastly superior accuracy to any rocket or bomb, and had the punch to penetrate the rear or side armour of the Pz IV. 

While the Hurris were vulnerable to flak and fighters, they wreaked havoc on any tank columns they found in North Africa. Only the Tigers were fairly safe from them.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 29, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The amount of armour that was supposedly destroyed at Normany by the Tiffys has been completely exaggerated to the point of insanity... Erich had posted some statistical info in the past concerning this...


The RAF and USAAF CAS units claimed about ten times the number of tanks that were actually knocked out, according to Allied Operational Research.



> As far a simulators go, there seems to be no better tank buster in the IL-2 series of games next to the Yak-9K with that basterdous 45mm cannon in the hub... Kills everything except the Ferdinand...


But these planes were actually used as fighters and carried HE ammunition - not much use against tanks.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 29, 2006)

> But these planes were actually used as fighters and carried HE ammunition - not much use against tanks.


They were actually not used at all due to the unreliability of the NS-45... But as I was talking about a simulation, the point is moot...

The Yak-9T with the NS-37 was the tank busting/ship destoying/aircraft exploding variant that saw extensive service...


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 29, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> They were actually not used at all due to the unreliability of the NS-45... But as I was talking about a simulation, the point is moot...


They were used by a crack fighter squadron which evaluated them in combat. They claimed one kill for every 10 rounds fired...but the skill needed to use the big gun effectively meant that the Yak-9K wasn't suitable for general use.



> The Yak-9T with the NS-37 was the tank busting/ship destoying/aircraft exploding variant that saw extensive service...


Again, it was primarily a fighter, loaded with HE ammo. I'm not saying that it didn't occasionally engage in ground attack - any fighter might do that if the situation called for it - but it was issued to fighter squadrons, not close support units: they had the Il-2 for that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

Tony Williams said:


> As a fighter plane the Fw 190 certainly completely outclassed the Hurricane, no question. But the Hurricane IID and IV were much better at knocking out tanks because their 40mm cannon had vastly superior accuracy to any rocket or bomb, and had the punch to penetrate the rear or side armour of the Pz IV.
> 
> While the Hurris were vulnerable to flak and fighters, they wreaked havoc on any tank columns they found in North Africa. Only the Tigers were fairly safe from them.
> 
> Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum



The Panzerblitz armed Fw-190s were very successful at knocking out tanks. Rudel even used one after replacing his Ju-87 with it.


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Panzerblitz armed Fw-190s were very successful at knocking out tanks. Rudel even used one after replacing his Ju-87 with it.



Do you have any evidence of the hit rate achieved?

Many books say that the Typhoon's RPs were very successful against tanks, also...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

I am going to have to look through my stuff and see what I can find. It was more than the 2% for the Tiffy though...

Let me see what I can find though first. Erich might have better info that what I have, but then again his info might say I am wrong....


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 29, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am going to have to look through my stuff and see what I can find. It was more than the 2% for the Tiffy though...


Actually, the hit rate for the British RPs was 5% in training, 0.5% in combat, according to Operational Research who examined what was actually happening on the ground at that time.

As far as I'm aware, no other country conducted such detailed on-site investigations to verify what the fighter-bomber pilots claimed (the Germans were not in a position to do so, as by 1944 they were generally retreating). So bearing in mind that the OR teams discovered that the RAF and USAAF fighter-bomber pilots overclaimed their tank kills by 10 times, it is reasonable to divide any other such claims by 10, unless there is other clear evidence to the contrary (e.g. a tie-up with Allied admitted losses).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2006)

German confirmations came from wing men in the unit. Rudels claims for the most part are believed to be fact and he was the most successful tank killer.


----------



## Tony Williams (Oct 31, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> German confirmations came from wing men in the unit. Rudels claims for the most part are believed to be fact and he was the most successful tank killer.



Sorry, that isn't good enough. Rudel was undoubtedly a phenomenal tank-killer, but his wingmen were in no better position than himself to confirm that what he attacked was a tank (rather than some other vehicle) let alone that it was destroyed, as this was usually far from obvious.

There are only two pieces of evidence that count in confirming the number of claims: examination of the wreckage on the ground, or admitted losses which match up to the claims. In the case of the Allied fighter-bomber pilots, they often claimed more tank kills than there were enemy tanks in the area. No doubt these were backed up by their wing-men, as well.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2006)

Allright that I will deffinatly agree with, and examination of the wreckage was most of the time not going to happen...


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2006)

well I am firmly in the belief that Soviet masses of T-34's and Stalin lined up on the roads leading into Germany were dead ducks under the rocket firepower of the Fw 190F-8 Schlacht units, but as Tony wisely has stated who went back to examine the evidence ? well surely not any of the Wehrmacht unless the ground was gained back in their control.
I am going to assume that the RAF Tiffy's actually attacked German armor from quite a greater height than the Fw's, as reading several German accts, the Fw's would skim over the trees for the sheer surprise of the onward attack and then try and hit the Soviet armor/MT broadside of possible, letting off their rockets and if ground Flak was not intense would circle back and then line up on the column in-line and low and let loose with their 2cm weapons.

Shortly I am receiving 1-2 photos and a letter/document through a photo collector on SG 1 ace Siegfried Fischer, so I will post that here. According to SG 1 records S. Fischer was incredibly successful against Soviet armor with his Fw 190F-8 that he was nicknamed " Blitz von Pommern"


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 29, 2006)

Gotta agree with Tony and Erich... While Rudel was undoubtably the leading tank killer in the history of armed conflict, his total was probably half/two thirds of what is officially listed....

Looking forward to seeing what u can post on Fischer Erich, as any info concerning the Panzerblitzers is exciting....


----------



## Udet (Nov 29, 2006)

Lord Williams:

Although the Yaks were primarily designed to perform air combat duties, as fighters _of course_, they saw intense action in the ground attack mode, especially during 1944 alongside their armored flying turkey comrade, the IL-2 M.


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 1, 2006)

Udet said:


> Although the Yaks were primarily designed to perform air combat duties, as fighters _of course_, they saw intense action in the ground attack mode, especially during 1944 alongside their armored flying turkey comrade, the IL-2 M.



I don't doubt it - as I said previously, any fighter may be called upon to attack ground targets, and late in the war, with the Luftwaffe in steep decline, I'm sure that they did a lot of ground strafing.

What I have no evidence for is whether the Yaks were given AP ammo for the NS-37, rather than their usual HE. Without it, they wouldn't have been able to penetrate tank armour. But if loaded with AP, they wouldn't have done so much damage to soft-skinned vehicles.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## exec228 (Dec 19, 2006)

Udet said:


> Lord Williams:
> 
> Although the Yaks were primarily designed to perform air combat duties, as fighters _of course_, they saw intense action in the ground attack mode, especially during 1944 alongside their armored flying turkey comrade, the IL-2 M.


many fighters were engaged in mud moving in conditions of air superiority.

as for Yak-9T, NS-37 has both shells, OZT (frag incendiary tracer) and BZT (armour piercing incendiary tracer)


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2006)

think I will stick with late war Fw 190F-8 with Panzerblitz Rockets


----------



## Tony Williams (Dec 19, 2006)

exec228 said:


> as for Yak-9T, NS-37 has both shells, OZT (frag incendiary tracer) and BZT (armour piercing incendiary tracer)



I know that the gun could fire both types, but that is not my point. The Yak-9T was used by fighter units, who would have been issued with HE shells. I have seen no evidence that these units were issued with AP ammo.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## exec228 (Dec 20, 2006)

Erich said:


> think I will stick with late war Fw 190F-8 with Panzerblitz Rockets


why they were so numerous (115 airplanes as Baugher said) when Faterland urged in them, calling even Hitlerjugend with Faustpatrons to stop armoured wave?
imho if Fw 190 F-8/Pb1 were SO successful, they would be manufactured in many more pieces.


----------



## Erich (Dec 20, 2006)

? do you mind rewriting your statement again, I am not totally following

yes the F-8 with Panzerblitz was very successful against Soviet armor in the low level attacks from the flanks

forget the silly hitlerjugend in a/c if that is what you are implying, last ditch stupidity


----------



## exec228 (Dec 21, 2006)

rephrasing:
why this successful and needed aircraft was so low in numbers?


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

The F series for ground attack work became the basis for replacement of the Ju 87D especially on the Ost front. the Luftwaffe may have been slow to learn but not so much from Soviet mid alt. fighters but by the hampering slowness over Soviet tank columns and taking it in the shorts from Soviet ground based triple AA. the F-8 with various arms had the cannon arrangement of the standard A-8 fighter and could perform the work of ground attack with underbe4lley armor and then if need be kick back and take on attacking soviet Migs, Yaks, etc.........

10th Panzerstaffel of the SG's still retained the Kanonvögel for additional punch but the F-8 became the overall standard in late 44 till wars end with the Panzerblitz rockets. due to the fact that so many claims/victory's against Soviet A/C ad armor`MT's were destroyed by wars eventful end we do not have a complete picture of the F-8 and it's role. many former Ju 87 pilots flew the single engine job and scored both a/c to their tallies and of course armor.

as to few a numbers maybe look as to what the Luftwaffe's role was in the skies; only after January's 1945 end was the Luftwaffe ordered to concentrate the bulk of all it's forces to the Ost front to try in vain to keep the area of Berlin free. A very slight modest day fighter force was kept at home defence ~ JG's 300, 301, 53 and were slaughtered every time they per chance flew on missions


----------



## exec228 (Dec 21, 2006)

"friedrich with various arms" is quite different from "friedrich with panzerblitz". friedrich-8/gustav-8 are not bad jabos in general, but i feel that you insist on panzerkiller f-8/pb1.
joe baugher says that luftwaffe payed attention to the problem earlier than your january 1945. actually lw begun to receive f-8/pb1 inn december.
and if f-8/pb1 would be effective, lw would not cease ordering this version in february.
so, why "highly effetive tank killer f-8/pb1" was manufactured only in 115 pieces since december and order ceased in february?


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

re-read my posting, I have German acts in my position stating so. Panzerblitz was tested in the fall of 44 according to vets on the ost front with very limited numbers in their possession at the time. panzerblitz rockets stood in captured barns as shown by evidence of US army photos, doh ! you can plainly see why they did not get to the front when so desperately needed. why do you say 115 repeatedly as that is pure crap with an order ceasing in February ??, there were 100's captured as I just mentioned, F-8's sitting in fields captured by the Russians and US forces with the Panzerblitz rockets attached


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

I'll make a response to my response, I see what you are saying now as I was still confused. The rack system was also added in the field not just the factory given of 115 type a/c, this is why I say crap to the amount of F-8's equipped with the Panzerblitz rocket and the numbers of captured/trashed F-8 lying about on the fields.

by the way why do you try and remain invisible on the forums ?


----------



## exec228 (Dec 21, 2006)

1)do you have any reports on f-8/pb1 effectiveness? i'm interested in hit ratio and average number of hits per destroyed tank.
2)because this button is available to press, and i pressed it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 21, 2006)

> by the way why do you try and remain invisible on the forums ?





> 2)because this button is available to press, and i pressed it.


Noob...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 21, 2006)




----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

one shot one kill, same as a 3.7cm tungsten round at the right spot. consider the fashion of attack low down and mean unlike the up and then bank down into it by the Tempest. Ratios ? who gives a rats ass

you still have not answered correctly exec about your supposed unseeness, and your smart ass comment(s) will not get you any brownie points...........wonder if you are viewing these forums on company time ?


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 21, 2006)

I am very much a 'noob' on this forum, and over the last few weeks I have 
been able to sort out some of the personalities and who, when they 'speak',
I can take what they say to the bank. When I am reading data posted by
Erich, or Tony Williams, or FlyboyJ, or derAdler, and many others, I pretty
much have confidence they are speaking from experience and/or years of their
own homework and research.

And there lies the pity with exec228. He flashes on here with figures and 
answers and lists and I am initially wowed, but then I trip over the attitude.
The in-your-face brazen "me right, you not" attitude, and suddenly I find
myself discounting anything he has posted. And that is sad because I 
would think anyone who takes the time to log on here and submit ideas
and information wants to be taken seriously, or at least be respected. So 
hopefully exec228 and others who fit that mold will come around, or at least
take a valium and chill just a bit. To eveyone's benefit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)

I see it this way twoeagles. Everyone has knowledge on certain areas and the reason most of us are here is to share out knowledge and learn even more from the others. There are some though that are self processed know-it-alls that are here for there secret agendas.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> When I am reading data posted by
> Erich, or Tony Williams, or FlyboyJ, or derAdler, and many others, I pretty
> much have confidence they are speaking from experience and/or years of their own homework and research.



I usually just make crap up  



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I see it this way twoeagles. Everyone has knowledge on certain areas and the reason most of us are here is to share out knowledge and learn even more from the others. There are some though that are self processed know-it-alls that are here for there secret agendas.



I have a secret agenda. It's so secret that I haven't found it out yet... I stumbled upon this site one day randomly searching for something about WWII birds... ended up sticking around because of the atmosphere here. It definitely is a very diverse crowd w/ a wide array of interests and specialties. I particularly like the fact that there are members from all over the globe. Different viewpoints...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 21, 2006)

Many different viewpoints that all revolve around "I'm better than you! Hahaha!"


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Noob...


nothing to do, except expulcing malice on me?


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

Erich said:


> one shot one kill, same as a 3.7cm tungsten round at the right spot. consider the fashion of attack low down and mean unlike the up and then bank down into it by the Tempest.


i consider fashion of spraying with rare hits, probably even without.



Erich said:


> Ratios ? who gives a rats ass


of course you don't.
shooting is more important than hitting.



Erich said:


> you still have not answered correctly exec about your supposed unseeness, and your smart ass comment(s) will not get you any brownie points...........wonder if you are viewing these forums on company time ?


why should i report my actions?
i'm free to act under rules.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 22, 2006)

exec228 said:


> nothing to do, except expulcing malice on me?



Hey we got a live Meatball here Les!


----------



## exec228 (Dec 22, 2006)

1.my joke about tanks was not understood. it was reacted quite aggressively.
2.then heavyweight people don't want to talk constructively.
so, where is my guilt?

i'm trying to ask kinda respectable member about effectiveness of f-8/pb1, and he makes me think that he just believes f-8/pb1 to be an effective panzer killer and invites me to join this imagination.

i'd be very sad if this beliefth is not backed up with some IRL reports about hit ratio.

because i know that pilots of il-2 in combat conditions could not achieve satisfactory results with brs-82 and brs-132 (though these rockets are destructive enough for panzers WHEN HIT SCORED).

also, mr. Williams confirmed low effectiveness of RP's when said that tiffies could hardly hit such a small target, which the panzer is.

that is why i am really interested in expert opinion of lw effectiveness of rockets vs tanks, when other airforces did not enjoyed it.

afaik principal decision was to use cluster of cumulative bomblets, such as "PTAB 2.5-1.5" for Il-2, which could penetrate 70mm of armour. Il-2 could take 192 of these 1.5kg HEAT bomblets and cover 30mx200m with one drop. none of tanks survived in this area.

use of cumas was quite shocking and made wehrmacht to deconcentrate tanks to reduce casualties, thus sensibly reducing punch force of panzer divisions.

afair both il-2 and ju 87 used clusters of cumulative bombs.


----------



## Nicodemus (Dec 22, 2006)

Trying to get into the discussion here 

Erich, do you have any more info on Panzerblitz actions in 1944-45, especially concerning Fw 190F-8 units of SG 1? I have some interesting pictures in Word documents, but I can't get them on the forum yet. Anyway, if you or someone else has any info at all on Panzerblitz Fw 190s post it rightaway.


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2007)

getting back to Herr Fischer that flew the F-8 mit Panzerblitz, translated and sent to me from Germany

Blitz of Pommern":

Siegfried Fischer
Oberfeldwebel 
Born 27.11.1918 in Pommerndorf (Kreis Hohenelbe/Sudetenland)

RK 28.02.1945 as Oberfeldwebel after 670 combat missions (Feindflüge)

Since February 1941 in Sicily with 6.St.G1. First Feindflug on 15.04.1941 from Trapani against a British naval formation near Malta. Since june in Russia where he fought on almost every focal point and distinguished himself. His units were 6.St.G. 1, then 5. Staffel(July 1943-April 1944), 8./SG 1 (May 1944-February 1945) 9./SG 1 (March - April 1945). He was specialized in bridge destruction and he destroyed about 30 important bridges. Amongst them the "Rollbahn" -bridge west of Smolensk (Pocket of Smolensk), Ukra bridge near Juchnow and the Wolga bridge near Rschew.

Since autumn 1944 he achieve large success in Westpreußen-Pommern against tanks with his Fw 190 equipped with tank breaking (armour piercing?) rockets and bombs. These actions earned him the name "Blitz von Pommern". One day he shot down 2 enemy a/c when he was still fully loaded and afterwards he destroyed 4 tanks on the same mission. Repeatedly he landed behind enemy lines and rescued own crews

He was shot down behind enemy lines several times. On 08.08.1941 he was hit near Weliki Luki about 5km in hostile territory. he managed to take the parachute and despite severe burns he reached the own lines. One time he was downed 30 km behind the HKL, but he and his Bordfunker Anton Kraus fought their way back to the own troops. On 17.04.1945 he was shot down by Flak, took his para but was severely wounded and transported to a military hospital. From 21.04.1945 until 18.09.1946 he was (wounded) in soviet captivity.

All in all 713 combat missions, 123 thereof on Fw 190. 12 times shot down. He achieved 15 aerial victories, knocked out 80 tanks and participated in the destruction of a submarine near Malta.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2007)

Very interesting and extremely tantilizing Erich my friend... The only real info I know of is concerned with Schlachtgeschwader 77...


----------



## marlin (Jan 5, 2007)

Someone here mentioned the Beaufighter as being a credible tank killer. Where and when would that have been ? Do they want to justify that comment ?
Marlin


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 5, 2007)

marlin said:


> Someone here mentioned the Beaufighter as being a credible tank killer. Where and when would that have been ? Do they want to justify that comment ?


Whoever said it obviously had their crack pipe in their mouth...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 6, 2007)

The Beaufighter was used as a tank killer in the CBI theatre with some effect, although there wasn't a significant amount of Japanese armour for it to destroy.

The Beau could take 8 x 60 lbs RPs or 2 x 500lbs, but against light armour, such as Japanese tanks, the nose mounted 4 x 20mm were enough to gaurantee a kill.

Beaus scored kills against Japanese half traks, command vehicles and the like around Imphal and in Burma. can't find any confirmed kills of tanks, but there are accounts of Beaufighters straffing columns which included armour.

If I was going to ground straff, the 4 x 20mm and 6 x .303 of the Beau would be about the most fearsome combination of the entire war. Something like 120 rounds per second


----------



## Bullo Loris (Jan 7, 2007)

Hi, for me the best is Hawker Tempest.

Bullo Loris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

Bullo Loris I have a question for you. Are you a member of the Warbirds Resource Group? If you are not, do you have permission to use there banner.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2007)

The Tempest as the best Tank Killer???


----------



## mkloby (Jan 7, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The Tempest as the best Tank Killer???



Les thanks for making me laugh on a daily basis


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2007)

Ur welcome loby...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2007)

Nice siggy too.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 7, 2007)

Damn everyones being nice to me...

Somethings up... Possibly the Al Bundy Curse???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)




----------



## mkloby (Jan 8, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Damn everyones being nice to me...
> 
> Somethings up... Possibly the Al Bundy Curse???



What's that, when nice things happen it means something absolutely horrible is just around the corner???


----------



## Erich (Jan 8, 2007)

ok Les I like change , your an ***


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2007)

Yes loby, Al Bundy from the TV show Married With Children...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 8, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Yes loby, Al Bundy from the TV show Married With Children...



That was my favorite show growing up... poor guy never got his Viper when his Dodge cracked 1,000,000 miles...


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 8, 2007)

Al Bundy curse? What's that. Having a hot slutty daughter?

Oops. Those were inside words.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

well i wouldn't mind you having a hot slutty daughter 

but no i don't think the tempest is the best, just one of the better ones Britain had to offer...........


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 14, 2007)

An antitank craft who wasnt. 

*Me-110C-6 with ventral Mk-101.*









*The same without fairing.*


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 14, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> An antitank craft who wasnt.
> 
> *Me-110C-6 with ventral Mk-101.*


Actually I believe that this model (of which very few were made, and were used only in summer 1940, I think) was used primarily if not entirely in the ground attack role, including against tanks in the Battle of France. 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 15, 2007)

I if wonder in that date was available the H-Panzegranate , according to my sources that was first introduced in the Hs-129B1 in late 1942.


----------



## akdhc2pilot (Jan 20, 2007)

The "best tank killer" was perhaps the little unarmed L-4 Cub that controlled the guns of an artillery battalion, and if needed could call in all the guns of a division. They claimed a large number of tanks and other vehicles and can arguably be credited with saving our a**es at Anzio. For lack of data I won't claim that they killed more tanks than the ground attack birds such as the IL-2, but they may have. Artillery spotting Cubs turned back a lot of attacks all through the campaigns in Italy, France, Belgium, and Germany. The lowly little Cub actually weilded more high-explosive firepower than a whole squadron of bomb-laden B-25's...and more accuratey too. Read "Janey, A Little Plane in a Big War". It's an excellent book and very entertaining as well as informative. "The Cub That Roared" is also a good one. Referring to L-4's and L-5's, Patton said that his "secret weapon" was the Cub-type plane.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 20, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> I if wonder in that date was available the H-Panzegranate , according to my sources that was first introduced in the Hs-129B1 in late 1942.



I think your sources are correct - there were other 30mm AP rounds used by the MK 101 in 1940.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 20, 2007)

akdhc2pilot said:


> The "best tank killer" was perhaps the little unarmed L-4 Cub that controlled the guns of an artillery battalion, and if needed could call in all the guns of a division.


I don't think that indirect artillery fire was any more effective than bombing - in both cases, there was a rather random distribution of munitions in the area occupied by the tanks, and unless the tanks were packed really close together, the vast majority would have missed.

I believe that by far the most effective tank killer was direct-fire high-velocity guns, whether mounted in tanks, tank destroyers or on wheels.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Jan 20, 2007)

i'd take either a tiffy or Mk.IID hurricane...............

Mmmm.....and i wonder how the Mosquito would have faired if development had been continued with the 57mm Mollins gun,


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 20, 2007)

Not well, too susceptible to groundfire...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

because she's a twin? no more susceptible than the Hs-129 and she could absorb more than her fare share of damage, i'm certainly not arguing she'd have been the best of the war i just don't believe she can be eliminated so easily on those grounds...........


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 21, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> because she's a twin? no more susceptible than the Hs-129 and she could absorb more than her fare share of damage, i'm certainly not arguing she'd have been the best of the war i just don't believe she can be eliminated so easily on those grounds...........



The Tsetse (Mossie with 57mm Molins gun) was designed as a tankbuster, with extra armour to protect against ground fire. Even so, it would have made a bigger target than the Hs 129, and a more vulnerable one (liquid-cooled engines).

The RAF changed its priorities and handed the three dozen Tsetse made over to Coastal Command. I think that the reason was that they believed that dedicated, single-purpose anti-tank planes weren't the way to go: like the USAAF, they preferred to use fighter bombers which could use rockets against tanks and guns against anything else, and could take on enemy fighters on even terms. Unfortunately, this rather ignored that fact that the rockets were many times less accurate than guns. 

In training, Typhoons managed a 5% hit-rate against tank-sized targets with RPs, compared with 25% for the Hurri IID and 33% for the Tsetse. In combat, the Typhoon+RP score dropped to 0.5%. I'm not sure what the Hurri IID managed, but the fall-off in hit rate would have been far less - judging by the records of a few engagements, they managed to hit just about everything they attacked.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 21, 2007)

The Mossie was also made of wood Lanc, and the dual engines never entered my mind...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 21, 2007)

Tony Williams said:


> I think your sources are correct - there were other 30mm AP rounds used by the MK 101 in 1940.
> 
> Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum




Thanks for your answer.

by the way I think that the very low rate of fire in the mossie 57mm and the tilted gun would made hit a medium tank extremely difficult.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 22, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> by the way I think that the very low rate of fire in the mossie 57mm and the tilted gun would made hit a medium tank extremely difficult.



They did test the Tsetse against a tank-sized target. They found that on a typical attack run it could fire four rounds, and that on average one out of three hit the target. So it could, in theory, hit a tank with every pass; allthough in combat it is unlikely that the crews could have done as well as that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

> They did test the Tsetse against a tank-sized target. They found that on a typical attack run it could fire four rounds, and that on average one out of three hit the target. So it could, in theory, hit a tank with every pass; allthough in combat it is unlikely that the crews could have done as well as that




Four ? it seems very optimist , the gunsight armonization whit this emplacement must be hellish.








By the way, I had posted the information you ask about the Mauser gun in the other forum.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 23, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Four ? it seems very optimist , the gunsight armonization whit this emplacement must be hellish.


It isn't as bad as it looks - the nose of the Mosquito is sweeping upwards at the point where the gun muzzle protrudes, so it isn't angled downwards in the way that it appears. 



> By the way, I had posted the information you ask about the Mauser gun in the other forum.



Which one?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> The Mossie was also made of wood Lanc, and the dual engines never entered my mind...



what's that got to do with the price of milk? she proved time and time again that she could absorb masses of damage and make it home, the twin engines adding further reliability..........


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2007)

Masses of damage??? Comeon dude.... There is no way in Sam Hell that a Mossie could ever take near the amount of punishment that the Hs 129 could take....

And the fact that its made with wood is a very important fact when concerning ground attack missions...


----------



## Hunter368 (Jan 23, 2007)

"Sam Hell" I have not heard that one in a long time. Oldie but a goodie.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

> Which one?




The one in wich I am moderator.8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2007)

hunter said:


> Oldie but a goodie.


Are u by chance implying that Im an old fu*k??


----------



## mkloby (Jan 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Are u by chance implying that Im an old fu*k??



 I think he was commenting on your eloquent and charming manner of speech!


----------



## riseofnations (Jan 29, 2007)

The Stuka was of course vulnerable to enemy aircraft but if you were solely to consider its ability to detroy tanks then you cant overlook what it achieved in this role


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 29, 2007)

riseofnations said:


> The Stuka was of course vulnerable to enemy aircraft but if you were solely to consider its ability to detroy tanks then you cant overlook what it achieved in this role



It might be more accurate to say that you can't overlook what *Rudel *achieved in the Ju 87G - that's what its reputation is based on. Even though his claimed score was almost certainly considerably overstated, he was still highly effective. I haven't heard that any other of the 87G pilots came close. 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

The second was Anton Hübsch with "just" 110 tanks destroyed.


----------



## Erich (Jan 29, 2007)

I had a tank killer thread at least for pilots somewher on these forums, now where did I put that ........ ?


----------



## Tony Williams (Jan 29, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> The second was Anton Hübsch with "just" 110 tanks destroyed.



Well, I don't call just over 20% of Rudel's claimed score all *that *close.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Thumper (Jan 30, 2007)

hs129


----------



## Civettone (Feb 1, 2007)

Lightning Guy said:


> The Hs-129 was a virtual death trap in an air-fight and its French made engines were woefully underpowered. I really wouldn't go there.


Relatively few Hs 129s were shot down by enemy fighters. I even recall the Romanians losing only about three of theirs by the hands of Russian fighter planes after an entire year of operations.
Also, the G-R engines were quite sufficient. Of course when having to carry a 75mm gun it's another thing. In fact, the Hs 129 carried a small load. A single 37mm gun would have been excellent for it (IMO). Meanwhile the Ju 87 could keep up its traditional role as an interdiction bomber.

Another plus for the Hs 129 is its low cost. Even though I would still see it proven, the Hs 129 was apparently cheap or easy to build.
Kris


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 1, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Are u by chance implying that Im an old fu*k??



Being that you are only couple years older than myself......no.  I am more saying that I have not heard that term used since my Dad died 2.5 years ago, he used some good ones. He had been a carpenter for more than 40 years, he had some good ones.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 6, 2007)

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but what is the story behind this gun pod on a Ju-87?

Crap, sorry about the damn size.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 6, 2007)

Here's a couple more that I found. Again large pics, but the detail is fascinating.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2

Tony Williams is "the" guns and ammunition writer for Janes..

TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2

© Anthony G Williams

This summary is based on material from 'Flying Guns: World War 2' by Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony G Williams

Amended 24 June 2004

The advent of highly mobile tank warfare at the start of World War 2 prompted a search for ways of destroying tanks from the air, with variable success. There was a preference in some quarters for using fighter-bombers armed with rockets or bombs, but while these were effective in general ground attack, including disrupting supplies to armoured units, they proved largely ineffective in directly knocking out tanks for the reasons spelled out in 'Flying Guns: WW2':

" The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."

Experience showed that the best way of knocking out tanks was to use a cannon powerful enough to penetrate the armour. This article examines the weapons used and takes a retrospective look at an 'ideal' airborne anti-tank armament.

The Guns

A wide variety of airborne anti-tank guns was fielded by three nations: the USSR, Germany and the UK. The USA developed one, but did not use it. This section describes their characteristics, but the armour penetration figures need to be regarded with caution because of the varying standards of measurement used in different countries. The variations not only include the usual parameters of striking distance and angle, but also the quality of the armour and the definition of 'penetration'. Also, some figures resulted from ground tests, others allowed for the extra velocity imparted by the speed of the aircraft.

The USSR fielded two guns in the anti-armour role, and tested a third. The 23mm VYa and 37mm NS-37 were developed specifically for aircraft and used in both the air combat and anti-tank roles. The NS-45 was a version of the NS-37, with the cartridge case necked out to 45mm. It was tested in air combat and proposed for various anti-tank aircraft, but not adopted.

The VYa was a gas-operated, belt-fed gun (a scaled-up 12.7mm Berezin) chambered for a powerful 23x152B cartridge. It is credited with penetrating 30mm at 100m and 25mm at 400m (striking angle unspecified). This was adequate against light tanks but not enough to reliably penetrate medium tanks.

The NS-37, unusually for the USSR, used a short-recoil mechanism and was belt-fed. It was a particularly slim weapon, with a compact mechanism, suitable for fitting between the banks of a liquid-cooled vee-engine to fire through the hollow propeller hub. The powerful 37x195 ammunition is quoted as penetrating 48mm / 500m / 90 degrees, enough to pose a threat to the side or rear armour of virtually any tank. The 45x185 cartridge of the NS-45 increased this to around 58mm.

All of the Soviet guns used conventional full-calibre steel shot, fitted with a windshield to improve the ballistic coefficient. This is rather surprising, as they used the much more effective tungsten-cored projectiles in ground anti-tank guns.

Germany fielded several different guns in the anti-tank role. The first was the 30mm MK 101, which used powerful 30x184B ammunition. This was later supplanted by the MK103, which used an electric-primed version of the same cartridge, with the same performance. The MK 101 used a short-recoil design, and in its anti-armour role was fed by a 30-round drum. The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.

The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees.

The remaining German guns were adaptations of ground anti-tank guns with long-recoil mechanisms, and saw little use. These were the BK 5 (also briefly used for air combat in the anti-bomber role) which was a PaK 38 fitted with an autoloader and a 22-round magazine for its 50x419R ammunition. It is unclear whether this saw action in the anti-tank role. More famously, the PaK 40, which fired massive 75x714R cartridges, was used in two versions; a semi-automatic one with a 10-round vertical magazine, and the fully-automatic BK 7,5 with a 12-round rotary magazine. This could penetrate 132 mm / 500 m / 90 degrees (104 mm / 500 m / 60 degrees) when used on the ground, so was clearly capable of dealing with the toughest tank. Both BK 5 and BK 7,5 fired the normal APCHE projectiles, which were more destructive and reliable in their penetration than the Hartkernmunition rounds, being less affected by unfavourable striking angles or add-on armour plates.

The British fielded only one airborne gun in the anti-tank role: the Vickers Class S. This was designed around the naval 40x158R AA case, with special armour-piercing loadings. As such, it was much less powerful than the Army's 2 pdr anti-tank gun, but the attack speed of the aircraft helped to provide a penetration quoted as 50-55mm (range and striking angle not specified). This was a long-recoil gun which was fed by a 15-round drum (a sixteenth round could be carried in the chamber). A 30-round drum and a belt-fed version were developed but not adopted. The same fate befell an interesting adaptation to use the Littlejohn squeezebore shot. The AP projectiles fired were full-calibre steel shot, without even a ballistic cap.

The British developed other weapons for this purpose. The 6 pdr (57 mm) Molins gun was intended for this role, but used only by Coastal Command. The 47mm Class P gun was not ready until after the war.

The USA did fit one 37 mm gun to its aircraft - the M4. However, this fired low-powered 37x145R ammunition and was not very effective against tanks, being intended for air combat. Much more impressive was the M9, which was a belt-fed development of the Army's M1 long-recoil AA gun and fired powerful 37x223SR cartridges. Special AP loadings were developed for this gun but it was never used in action.

Airborne anti-tank guns

see link

He has his own forum.. and is quite happy to answer questions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

He posts here from time to time. Allways has good info.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 12, 2007)

And a friendly and helpful guy.
And a good writer. Did you know that he wrote a novel which can be downloaded for a small price? 


Kris


----------



## tpikdave (Mar 20, 2007)

Wow, if that Russian guy ever fell down, he probably wouldn't be able to get up with all that metal??


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2007)

This is a seriuos contender, specially if the Pzg40 30 mm amo is used.


----------



## Tony Williams (Apr 20, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> This is a seriuos contender, specially if the Pzg40 30 mm amo is used.


The Mk 103 installation was a failure and never saw action, except perhaps on a trial basis. The recoil proved too heavy and disturbed the aim, so it was very inaccurate.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 20, 2007)

Funny, one might think that the wings wich were enough strong to ram a bomber would suit for this cannon.


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 15, 2007)

I don't know which A/C was the best tank buster, but I vote for any airplane that Hans Rudel flew.


----------



## tpikdave (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm sorry, but I have always felt that those medals looked really stupid. I mean it looks like the guy got a medal for every time he took a pee. You would think that the wearer would have to put a broom up his bum or walk around bent over????


----------



## Tony Williams (Sep 16, 2007)

tpikdave said:


> I'm sorry, but I have always felt that those medals looked really stupid. I mean it looks like the guy got a medal for every time he took a pee. You would think that the wearer would have to put a broom up his bum or walk around bent over????



The military worldwide seem to like doing that. I mean, I was struck by the fact that General Petreaus had a chest full of pretty ribbons on his uniform when in front of a Congressional Committee last week. But the guy first saw combat in 2003, when already a general. So what did he get all those awards for?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 16, 2007)

Yeah that has become a problem. Most in the military disapprove it.

Oh well atleast I can say that my 13 medals were all earned....


----------



## tpikdave (Sep 16, 2007)

Its military law not custom, that dictates when in dress uniform an officer (maybe enlisted too dunno) must wear ALL medals. I think that should be up to the individual but its been this way for 2 centuries.


----------



## Tony Williams (Sep 16, 2007)

tpikdave said:


> Its military law not custom, that dictates when in dress uniform an officer (maybe enlisted too dunno) must wear ALL medals. I think that should be up to the individual but its been this way for 2 centuries.



Sure - but what did Petreaus do to _earn _them?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 16, 2007)

Tony Williams said:


> Sure - but what did Petreaus do to _earn _them?



I've heard a lot of guys railing on the general for this. First off, I'll point out that not all awards are combat related - there are many that are not. I recall the general rating a Bronze Star; but other than that, many acheivement awards. If you don't have any bonafide eyewitness accounts that indicate he was undeserving and does not legitimately rate any of his awards - then please let it go rather than demean the general.


----------



## Tony Williams (Sep 16, 2007)

My comment was not a criticism of General Petreus (I have no doubt that he was entitled to wear those ribbons) but concerned the military's habit of covering their chests with award ribbons. At one time, a medal meant that the recipient had at the very least participated in a campaign, and in some cases with great distinction. These days, they seem to hand them out like sweets.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I've heard a lot of guys railing on the general for this. First off, I'll point out that not all awards are combat related - there are many that are not. I recall the general rating a Bronze Star; but other than that, many acheivement awards. If you don't have any bonafide eyewitness accounts that indicate he was undeserving and does not legitimately rate any of his awards - then please let it go rather than demean the general.



Agreed mkloby but it is a proven fact that it has become a problem.

When I was in Iraq our BN gave out Bronze Stars to E-7 and aboves for achievement of just being in the combat zone. E-6 and below recieved ARCOMs. What a croc of ****. Same thing for W-3 and above recieved Bronze Stars and W-2 and below recieved ARCOMs. O-5 and above recieved Bronze Stars and O-4 and below recieved ARCOMs. 90 percent of the E-7 and above, O-4 and above never left the wire. It was the W-3's down to the E-4s that were flying outside of that wire and taking shots from the enemy.

Same with the Air Medal. I am proud of mine because I earned both of mine, but basically if you brought an aircraft to a hover a few days you got the damn medal! So ofcourse all the Staff Officers and QC NCOs came out and got there hour here and there in the traffic patern around the camp inside the wire and got there air medal!

It is bull mkloby and I pray that it is not this way in all units.


----------



## tpikdave (Sep 18, 2007)

*Der Crewchief*

That(the great bronze star givaway) would seem to go along with my John Kerry Vietnam syndrome theory. Which is as follows: Any politically ambitious jackass that wants to advance his political career by enhancing it with a record of military prowess can set off an explosive device close enough to himself (of course not in doing so, endanger any of his own personnel) to give himself a shrapnel-rash and ensure himself of a spot on some ticket somewhere. 

This was all made possibel by the legend of PT109, and boy was that a legend. If I had been Kennedy's CO I would have fired him. First on the grounds of putting his crew in jeopardy and second being run over by a large Japanese ship while asleep. DOH, but we made him president!!!!


----------



## 16KJV11 (Sep 27, 2007)

In the Air Force, you get ribbons for all kinds of non combat related stuff.
Everything from Commendation Medals, Achievement medals, Outstanding Unit Awards, longevity, good conduct, long term deployment overseas and a host of other impressive regalia.
Just stay in long enough and keep your nose clean and you'll catch up to Audi Murphy!
You can look like a real war hero to the unlearned


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2007)

There is nothing wrong with that either. There are awards given out like that in all services. They are given out for achievment. I recieved an Army Achievment Medal for my work in planning, taking apart and shipping an entire company of aircraft from Germany to the United States. 

There is nothing wrong with Achievement an Comendation awards.

The problem is when higher awards are given out like candy.


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

stuka was terrible for alied tanks it was the best tank killer.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 3, 2007)

I got 3 over 10year I for 6 years of undetected bad behaviour and 2 UN tour medals. I just counted the medals I got from my Uncle a grunt in ww2 he has 6 .3 for combat one for Normandy and one for North West Europe one for Italy . 3 for others things like volunteering


----------



## Stukazoo (Feb 19, 2008)

Lightning Guy said:


> All in all, the Il-2 was less vulnerable that the Ju-87G and considerably better armed.



Not as easy to fly though and nowhere near as versatile, but a hell of a lot more boring....


----------



## Stukazoo (Feb 19, 2008)

The Stuka started the war, the Sturmovik finished it.... but the Stuka operated in all theatres of operations and was used by more nations than any other aircraft, including the Russians, albeit in a research capacity... which, if ultimately not the best, certainly the most feared and loved tank killer..


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 19, 2008)

Stukazoo said:


> The Stuka started the war, the Sturmovik finished it.... but the Stuka operated in all theatres of operations and was used by more nations than any other aircraft, including the Russians, albeit in a research capacity... which, if ultimately not the best, certainly the most feared and loved tank killer..



When did the Russians use it? Was it before the treaty was broken by Hitler?

This is from wiki and I am not totally relying on it. This is what "they" say 

Operators
Bulgaria 
Bulgarian Air Force 
Czechoslovakia 
Czechoslovakian Air Force operated captured aircraft postwar. 
Germany 
Luftwaffe 
Hungary 
Hungarian Air Force 
Italy 
Regia Aeronautica 
Japan 
Imperial Japanese Army Air Force received Ju 87s for trials. 
Romania 
Romanian Air Force 
Slovak Republic 
Slovak Air Force 
Yugoslavia 
SFR Yugoslav Air Force operated captured aircraft postwar. 
UK 
Operated a few captured aircraft[38] 
USA 
Operated a few captured aircraft[39]


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 19, 2008)

Is wiki wrong here?


----------



## Stukazoo (Feb 19, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Is wiki wrong here?



According to Manfred Griehl's excellent Junkers JU87 Stuka (Airlife 2001) pg 154..
"At least one JU 87 A-1 was delivered, along with a few other combat aircraft, to the USSR in 1940 and served at the test centre, TsAGI, for a detailed investigation and performance testing"

I wondered why the Sturmovik was so similar in appearance to the Stuka....

Wiki sometimes needs an update eh?


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 19, 2008)

Yes, at times unreliable. I did too. Well thanks for sharing that!


----------



## Stukazoo (Feb 19, 2008)

You're welcome...
Trying to find some info on Horst Woltersforf's Dornier 215 partially recovered recently off the coast of the Netherlands.. recommend any threads?
I've been in touch with the recovery company but they only had a partial idenfication of the unit code G9+?M ... see, Wiki is also useful 8)


----------



## Tony Williams (Feb 20, 2008)

Stukazoo said:


> I wondered why the Sturmovik was so similar in appearance to the Stuka....


It isn't. About the only thing they have in common is that the engine is at the front, with the pilot behind it  In other words, they are no more similar than the vast majority of WW2 single-engined combat planes.

The prototype Il-2 first flew in October 1939, *before *the Russians received a Ju-87.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Is wiki wrong here?



Never use Wikipedia as a golden source! It can be rewritten by anyone and is allways full of mistakes.

Wiki is good to use as a quick source but you have to be careful with it.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 22, 2008)

Well, I don't care what you guys came up with, I say the Sturmovik delivered a heavy punch, while providing superior protection to the occupants from ground fire.

...however, has anyone compared the P-39/P-63's role in the "Great Patriotic War" against the Sturmo or the Stuka?
I think the Bell's were faster and more agile, and that big 37 in the nose gave it a pretty hard punch, too.

I also understand the P-38's were wonderful ground strafing machines, due (in part) to the 20mm cannon they carried.

However, for tanks, I don't know.





Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2008)

> Well, I don't care what you guys came up with, I say the Sturmovik delivered a heavy punch


Well then, if u dont care what WE guys think about the subject, why the fu*k are u here in the first place???? I suppose ur vast knowledge of the subject makes u a much more qualified source of information....

Is that it???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2008)

Welcome back Dan...


----------



## B-17engineer (Feb 22, 2008)

Yea, I was just going there Quickly, I was about to go out to eat. 


Yea. I guess dan is back!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> Yea. I guess dan is back!



You should probably still call him Les...


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2008)

Ur fu*kin goddamn right u call me les... When u get to the point of calling me by my given name, u'll know when...


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Well then, if u dont care what WE guys think about the subject, why the fu*k are u here in the first place???? I suppose ur vast knowledge of the subject makes u a much more qualified source of information....
> 
> Is that it???



LMAO - welcome back D - it's as if you never left!


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2008)

I used to lay awake at night, my Bride at my side, hallucinating about how much fun I was missin here at the site during my absence... 

I got the cold sweats several times, convultions twice, as well as the one recurring nightmare where P-38Pilot came back saying he was now a Navy SEAL with 4 confirmed kills....

I really did infact miss u scumbags...


----------



## Elvis (Feb 23, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I don't care what you guys came up with, I say the Sturmovik delivered a heavy punch
> ...


Why the f*ck am I here, _Daniel_?
Because I like old f*cking airplanes and I f*cking like discussing them with others.
On top of that, my f*cking point of view is just as f*cking valid as any other mother f*cker's is around here.
If you don't f*cking like it, then either don't f*cking read it, or go jump in the f*cking lake.




Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2008)

Well well well as*hole, like to think ur all big and bad all of a sudden??? Ur balls just drop and u want to try them out??? Mommy didnt put out a bowl of cereal for u this morning???

Awww.........

Poor little Elvis....

Heres alittle update, just to clue u in pal..... U barked back at the wrong bull.... This thread aint about what ur undeveloped lack of knowledge thinks is ur favorite, but which was the best.... Ur point of view??? U got 100 posts as*hole, no one here cares about ur point of view... Fu*k u cu* guzzler.... If u took the time to read the entire thread, u might educate urself some on the subject.....

To come into the thread and say u dont give a sh!t about what we say is retarded and plain stupid... Furthermore, by posting what u did, u proved to everyone here what kind of true blooded meatball u really are....

Ur gettting a major infraction for ur outburst.... U wanna lip off like that u can do it in a PM fu*khole.... But seeing how ur banning is right sround the corner, I could care less about ur sorry ass.....


----------



## Elvis (Feb 23, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> U wanna lip off like that u can do it in a PM fu*khole



...you mean like _*you*_ did? 
Maybe you need to follow your own advice, the next time you wanna pick a fight.


Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 23, 2008)

I dont need to follow my own advice, Im a Mod here and can do what I feel is necessary to keep the balance here.... If I wanted to pick a fight with u, u'd know it moron....

Maybe u can carry on at another web site, cause ur 2 inches from gettin banned....


----------



## Ruedesheim (Mar 16, 2008)

S. Arndt, Schwerin, 
Thank you for the Photo of Anton Korol.
I would like to here more about him


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 9, 2008)

Udet in a Ju 87 is hard to contest


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 9, 2008)

Elvis (and anione else who doesn't know about Les) DONT MESS WITH LES! 
While you shouldn't harass any mod or admin here, Les is far less leinent than the other mods or admin here. (which are generally lax, though they can still bite if provoked) Most forums have (and, arguably need) a "hard @ss" mod that keeps order, and deals with a proportionally higher number of idiots on the sight. (and those who may know what the're talking about but don't know when to shut up or cool down) Responding in kind to a mod's attack on you won't help, argue respectfully, otherwise you may just be falling into a trap. You (Elvis) haven't had any problems on here yet and are a decent guy, and you're fairly new with no dissipliary offenses. (same for me) So don't harass mods (there's no good excuse) and certianly *DONT MESS WITH LES!* Respect their Authoritah! 


But bact to the topic at hand, the Il-2 was a good attack plane with incredible damage resistange and pilot protection. The liquid cooled engine was no more volnerable than a radial in this case due to the placement of the radiator and the amount of armor. Hoever, the rear gunner was of limited value with a decent armament but very volnerable, and most importantly the ship had a volnerable belly mounted oil cooler that could be easily disabled by rifle caliber bullets. (which a radial engine requires as well)

As a tank buster I'd say it was probably better than the Stuka though. (though the Stuka was more maneuverable it was lacking in other areas, and when weighed down with heavy cannons it's performance was definately worse and much more volnerable, but it was a dive bomber first and foremost and decent in this role, but having a radial engine would hae helped)

The Il-10 was excelent, fast, no more iolcooler volnerability, better all around performning, and more capable than the Il-2 in all respects, but it came a bit late to be useful.

On the P-39/P-63, the M4/M10 37mm cannon was not a particularly good anti tank weapon, though not as useless for this as a MK 108 and probably better than most 20mm guns, it wascertainly less useful than the MK 103. But the M9 cannon fitted to the XP-63D was an excelent gun for this role. The M9 could penetrate 60mm of armor at 460 m opposed to the M4's 20 mm. See: The WWII Fighter Gun Debate: Gun Tables

The radiator and oil cooler of these a/c were mounted directly under the engine with air intakes in the wing roots and exhausting along the belly aft of the engine. This was a fairly protected location with the volnerable area made as small as possible, but not much moreso than the P-40. (nd in general the P-40 was a tougher a/c as well, at least compared to the P-39)


----------



## tpikdave (Apr 10, 2008)

kool kitty89

Well said. It does no good to carry an argument or a miss-statement that is misunderstood , further than one post. Anything other than that will just start a war. Better yet, is to lay back and let the pieces fall. I speak from experience being a hothead myself...yet a hothead that has learned his lesson. 

Face to face we are far less prone to argument because we can see each others facial expressions, body language, and feelings. Message boards leave a lot to be desired when it comes to heated communications.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2008)

But back on the real topic, the Il-2 is intersting as it's veolnerabillity doesn't come from the structure or the engine, the positioning of radiator plus armor makes it about as good as a radial would be. But the oil cooler, which would still be required for a radial engine, was the ship's weak spot, the F4U (which was otherwise an extremly tough plane) had a similar problem with it's wing root oil coolers being taken out with somthing no larger than a rifle calibur round thhis is including the F4U-5. (which did away with most/all of the wood and fabric skinning and control surfaces of earlier models replaced with aluminum surfaces)


I haven't read through the whole thread (which I usualy do before posting), so I'll do that now and get an Idea of where you guys are. (and what's been gone over)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 10, 2008)

And Les started a poll: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-anti-tank-aircraft-world-war-2-a-12055.html


----------



## bf109 Emil (Apr 11, 2008)

Might be hard for an Allied pilot or craft to compete with these tank destroying/aircraft results..

Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions and successfully attacked many tanks, trains, ships, and other ground targets, claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed - including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery guns, a destroyer, two cruisers, a battleship and 9 aircraft which he shot down[1"
PANZERJÄGER:

From 1942 the Ju-87G-1 was developed to act as an anti-tank aircraft mainly on the eastern front. It was fitted with a 1400hp Junkers Jumo 211J engine. It had a maximum speed of 314km/h, a ceiling of 8000m and a very limited range of only 320km. The reduced speed and range was due to the armour plating installed to protect the pilot and gunner when flying low-level tank busting missions. It was armed with two [Flak-18 37mm cannons] in pods under the wings and a 7.92mm machine gun in the back for the gunner.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 11, 2008)

The optimum fighter-bomber tank buster should use disposable weapons which hinder performance very little with mountings that add little drag. The fighter should have high performance and good protection and damage resistance.

The Panzerblitz II (varient of R4M) and HVAR weapons were both excellent for this. Both were accurate weapons which were mounted on small racks which had minimal effect on performance. The Fw 190 used it well, likewise the F4U could carry 8x 5" HVAR. Though it didn't do so (to my knowledge) the P-47D should have been able to carry a similar HVAR armament. (much better than the 6x 4.5" rockets carried in the highly performance degrading 3x cluster Bazooka tubes -M10 rocket launcher-) The P-38L could carry 10x 5" HVAR or even up to 12x (rather poor) M10 4.5" rockets, but the liquid cooled engines (albeit 2 of them) would still be too vulnerable compared to the single R-2800 or BMW 801 of the others IMO. Though the F4U also had vulnerable oil cooler which would be a disadvantage.


The Hs 129 may have been better with some decent engines. With some 1,000 hp class engines and it's moderately low wing loading it would have been fairly able to evade fighters. (I prefer the 30mm and 37mm cannon as thy still leave decent performance, unlike the 75 mm gun...) The centerline mounting was good as well. (I'd say the single cannon is better than the Stuka's or Il-2's 2x cannon of similar caliber) It was probably the best dedicated ground attack a/c, but needed to be developed better. 

The fact that there are 2x engines and both are radials is very good for survivability, along with strong airframe and good pilot protection. (and no vulnerable rear gunner to be machine gun fodder for enemy fighters)


There were still other relatively low priority radial engines that could have given the 129 sufficient performance (albeit all at larger diameters than the tiny 14M, weight would be a bit more too) The Gnome-Rhône 14N, Bramo 323, BMW 132, and maybe some others would fit the bill.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 11, 2008)

Agree with all u posted KK... In the Poll thread about this subject, I voted for the 190 Panzerblitz II for the obvious reasons...

Good post...


----------



## tpikdave (Apr 12, 2008)

A plane like the FW190 cannot be overrated enough. It could take off as a tank buster, do its job, then change socks and come out as a fighter or fighter-bomber. What a magnificent bird it was!!


----------



## Udet (Apr 12, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But bact to the topic at hand, the Il-2 was a good attack plane with incredible damage resistange and pilot protection. The liquid cooled engine was no more volnerable than a radial in this case due to the placement of the radiator and the amount of armor. Hoever, the rear gunner was of limited value with a decent armament but very volnerable, and most importantly the ship had a volnerable belly mounted oil cooler that could be easily disabled by rifle caliber bullets. (which a radial engine requires as well)
> 
> As a tank buster I'd say it was probably better than the Stuka though. (though the Stuka was more maneuverable it was lacking in other areas, and when weighed down with heavy cannons it's performance was definately worse and much more volnerable, but it was a dive bomber first and foremost and decent in this role, but having a radial engine would hae helped)
> 
> The Il-10 was excelent, fast, no more iolcooler volnerability, better all around performning, and more capable than the Il-2 in all respects, but it came a bit late to be useful.



Again the IL-2...

If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.

Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.

These stories about the incredible damage resistance of the IL-2s seem confusing when knowing a bit on the casualty rate of such plane. Like the pilots of JG 2 and JG 26 did in the Channel/Low Countries/France with the Spitfires during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943, when RAF pilots got slaughtered in humilliating fashion, the German fighter pilots in the Eastern Front feasted with the IL-2.

Pilots from units like II. and III./ JG 3 or I., II. and III./JG 52, or JG 51 shot down IL-2s like turkeys taking very low casualties in return [ridiculously low in many cases].

In the very first day of operations of JG 3 for Unternehmen Zitadelle, meaning July 5th, 1943, the pilots of the Geschwader shot down 43 IL-2s; one should also add the IL-2s destroyed in the same day by pilots of the gruppen of JG 51, JG 52 and JG 54 flying in the same area [and those lost to Flak].

During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.

And how come the IL-2 is a better tank buster when compared with the Stuka? That the USSR belongs in the victors club will not mean their devoted ground attack plane was a better tank buster than the one utilized by the defeated side.

The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.

Need examples? See the air battles in the Kuban bridgehead during 1943 where large formations of Stukas of Fliegerkorps I flew in operations; they never came close to take the losses the IL-2s did, say, in the opening day of Zitadelle.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 12, 2008)

Udet said:


> Again the IL-2...
> 
> If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.
> 
> ...



Welcome back, Udet. Where you been?

Agree with you on the Il-2; IMO, it was overrated. IIRC, Hartmann scored a majority of his victories against Il-2's. His preferred tactic was to approach them from below behind take out the ventral oil cooler; almost a guaranteed kill.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 12, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Agree with all u posted KK...


I'll second that notion and while I consider the matter "water-under-the-bridge", upon reflection I do think that Les could've handled it better (just my opinion).


...MOVIN' ON...



Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2008)

While I had go back to the last page to remember what Elvis is talking about, upon reflection, I think that ur a fu*kin ******* whose "last jab at Les" (ur opinion) gets u a nice little infraction...

U shoulda kept ur fu*kin mouth shut and moved on... Instead, u decided to ignore the other posters and myself with ur last gasp....

I dont give a rats ass what u think I could or couldnt have handled better, in any facet of my life, let alone a fu*kin message board such as this... No one here gives a sh!t what u care about, ur opinion of, or ur interpetation of, ANYTHING related to this message board....

One more run of the mouth about anything here and ur gone... I have no time to screw around with the likes of ur type here, so its short and sweet....

Shut ur fu*kin yap or I'll do it for u....


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2008)

U already had a 9 point infraction, so I was nice and gave u another .5 instead of bannin ur ass...


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 12, 2008)

Dan,

Being happy and married is making you soft, couple years ago you would booted a guy like Elvis after his second comment to you. LOL Good to see you back Dan, hope all is well with you, your son and wife.


Elvis,

Just stop talking, drop it or your next post most likely will be your last here.


----------



## stasoid (Apr 12, 2008)

Udet said:


> Again the IL-2...
> 
> If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.
> 
> Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.



Some of your postings look politically biased. 

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion. 
And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 12, 2008)

> In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis.


Are u fu*kin high or just stoopid??? 

I guess all those Polish, Hungarian, Rumanian etc etc civilains exterminated by the Russians' push to Berlin were accidents???


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 12, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Some of your postings look politically biased.
> 
> In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion.
> And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.



Wrong, you are soooooo wrong its not even funny.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Udet, I was just comparing the planes by capabillities not tactics used or what they acomplished. (or commited...)

In some ways it was better than the Stuka, but in others not so, but hell the Stuka was designed as a dive bomber too.

I would have liked to have seen a radial engined stuka, that would've been interesting to compare.


But I still prefer the Hs 129 as a dedicated attack plane, granted it could have used some better engines, but even so performance was on par or better than the Il-2 or Stuka. The twin engines were certainly an advantage, and I personally think the lack of a rear gunner is better off. (debatable, but the gunner was really of limited value, vulnerable, and the whole set up added weight and excess material) For a dive bomber the defensive armament makes more sence...


For some reason the Hs 129 reminds me a little of the A-10...

If you look at the characterisics of the a/c just a bit more power could have given the 129 a chance aganst enemy fighters. (depending on the AT cannon carried) Even if you considder some extra weight gain (more than just the engine's weight) power loading would be in the same range as some fighters with the previouly mentioned engines, as would wing loading. (though the airfoil would affect things too, I dont know about it)



And Elvis, just stop making comments like that... PLEASE, You have intersting, intelegent info and oppinions on this forum which you've expressed in a respectful/polite manner (for some reason you hven't demonstrated either in this thread ) and I'd hate to see you go for such a stupid reason... 
In truth you mishandeled that situation too, and a Mod has the luxury to do so while we lowly members  do not. (I mean no offence to either side here, I just don't want this to end badly...) Mod's (and admins) are here for an important reason, and they got there for a reason too, the tough ones no less so.
Making snide remarks (even mildly, though mild can escalate to more...) doesn't help anyone. Even if it's not a mod being argued with that kind of stuff can ruin things, look at what happened to the ETO fighter 1939-42 thread...


----------



## Udet (Apr 12, 2008)

KK:

I understand. But at least i wanted to comment a bit further on the alleged incredible resilience to damage of the IL-2.

Knowing the German style of mismanaging their dwindling resources [both human and material] during the war, the ground-attack planes department too observes anomalies consequence of their messy managerial methods.

Why to continue having the Stuka (G version) and the Henschel Hs 129 in operations during the second half of the war when knowing both planes are utilized for ground-attack missions...but more importantly when assessing the overall situation of Germany during 1944?

And the mess did not stop there...the brilliant Focke Wulf Fw 190 too was deployed in the ground-attack mode (F-8 version) as the war progressed.

If we were to address the fact one of the three planes was better than the others at specific types of missions we should also consider this significant fact: YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT ALL, YOU CAN NOT COVER IT ALL. Go for one of the three birds and produce it in the biggest numbers possible.

A little standardization would have been good; uniformity in their processes related to allocation and administration of budgets, raw materials, aircraft production premises and laborforce....something the Germans never really learned during the war.

This is neither to attack nor critize any of those 3 planes, in one way or another all three were excellent when used in ground-attack missions; i´m strictly referring to the consequences of their business practices.

Neither the Ju 87 Gs nor Hs 129s existed in numbers sufficient to inflict even heavier losses to the Soviet armored forces.

And what about the Focke Wulf 190 F-8? Superb in the ground-attack mode, but the Fw 190s were also required in larger numbers in the Reich´s skies. If we assume the Fw 190 F-8 would have been the definitive choice, the materials, premises and laborforce utilized to produce the Ju 87 Gs and Hs 129s are now used to produce more Panzerblitz.

Why not picking only one of these three planes? Things would have been easier in virtually all aspects: a more homogeneous program for producing only one type of ground-attack plane, spare parts, armaments, and the training programs for ground crews and pilots. Perhaps a bigger number of ground-attack planes with properly trained crews would have been available for operations in this scenario.

Even the ancient Hs 123 continued serving in ground-attack units during 1944, mainly in night harrassment missions. 

There were some organizational efforts made by the Luftwaffe command when some of the _Stukageschwadern_ (St.G) were reorganized into _Schlachtgeschwadern_ (SG), but such measures represented mere designation matters and did not cover any of the aspects i am referring to in the posting.

Thus some elements of StG 1 became SG 1, others from StG 2 "Imelmann" became SG 2, etc, etc.


SoDstitch, hello: well, i have not been away all that much, but most of my recent participations here have occurred on threads dealing with ladies in bikinis and jokes!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 12, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Some of your postings look politically biased.
> 
> In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion.
> And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.



So, what is your basis (i.e facts) to support your thesis that USSR 'never targeted' civilians? 

As a tangential question, what are your thoughts about sitting on the Danube for two months while the Warsaw uprising was systematically wiped out by Gestapo and SS? And any particular thoughts about the Soviet citizens that Stalin exterminated before the war started?

Are you perhaps 'politically' biased?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2008)

stasoid said:


> In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis.



Are you smoking crack???!!!!

You dont actually believe that do you?

You should come over here and speak to my wifes grandmother and she can tell you stories of civilians being lined up in the streets and killed by Soviet soldier. You should listen to the story of how she was raped by one when she was 7 years old... 7 years old!

Want some facts:

*Winter War between Soviets and Finland*
Soviet soldiers and partisans attacked civilian areas on multiple occasions. In 2006 photos were released, showing the civilian dead.

*Soviet Invasion of Poland 1939*
Soviet Policy included "Ethnic Cleansing"

Between 1939 and 1941 1.5 Million Poles were deported to Labor Camps in the Soviet Union. The majority did not return.

100,000 (estimation) Polish Prisoners of War were executed by the Soviet Army.

*Germany 1945*

Aprox. 2 Million German civilians killed (many by cold and lack of food) by Soviet Soldiers.

There were mass killings and mass rapings (read above my statement about my wifes grandmother).

Information below is from wikipedia but it is no secret that it is pretty accurate:

_"Fleeing from the advancing Red Army, more than two million people in the eastern German provinces of (East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania) died, some from cold and starvation, in the post-war ethnic cleansing, or killed when they got caught up in combat operations. The main death toll, however, occurred when the refugee columns were caught up by units of the Red Army. They were overrun by tanks, looted, shot, murdered; women and girls were raped and afterward left to die (see also: Prussian Nights).[25][26][27] In addition, fighter bombers of the Soviet air force penetrated many kilometers behind the front lines and attacked columns of refugees.[25][26]

Those who did not flee suffered by taking the burden of Red Army's occupying rules: Murder, rape, robbery, and expulsion. For example, in the East Prussian city of Königsberg, *in August 1945 there were approximately 100,000 German civilians still living there after the Red Army had conquered the city. When the Germans were finally expelled from Königsberg in 1948, only about 20,000 were still alive* (see also expulsion of Germans after World War II)."_


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 13, 2008)

A far cry from Lenin's image for the country. He was by no means perfect either, and he may have agreed to the integation of the Red Terror (an idea originally suggested by Stalin as well iirc), but I dout he'd ever condone the atrosities committed under Stalin's rule. (Lenin's ideas and ideals may have been the closest to ever get Comunism to work) I do wonder how things would have gone had Lenin lived longer...


But one thin that's really ironic is thier images, which one looks more sinister compared to reality of their actions:












But we're gettin way off topic. (and I personally don't like to get into the moral, phylosphical, and political aspects too deeply in these discussions, it's certianly interesting but it tends to get way off topic, and cause very heated debates and can escalate to worse...)


----------



## Udet (Apr 16, 2008)

Kool Kitty: that this abomination was mummified and that´s still being kept in Moscow makes me feel like vomitting. But oh well, several other superb criminals of war such as Spaatz, "Civilian Bomber" Harris and Eisenhower are honoured as heroes.

Also on July 5th, 1943 in the Kursk salient:

JG 51 destroyed 10 IL-2s
JG 52 destroyed 17 IL-2s
JG 54 destroyed 17 IL-2s.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 16, 2008)

I thought they removed Stalin's body and buried it, though Lenin's is still there.



> His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until October 31, 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 17, 2008)

Guys
this thread is just too big to read all of the posts, so please pardon me if i am about to cover old ground

You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR

If i am right (and i am not suggesting that yet), wouldnt the western FBs like the P-47 etc be a better choice than the stukas, given their much greater level of survivability???? I guess Im saying that in the post war wash up, it appears that FFARs were judged to be more effective than big guns on planes


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 17, 2008)

> In the very first day of operations of JG 3 for Unternehmen Zitadelle, meaning July 5th, 1943, the pilots of the Geschwader shot down 43 IL-2s; one should also add the IL-2s destroyed in the same day by pilots of the gruppen of JG 51, JG 52 and JG 54 flying in the same area [and those lost to Flak].


you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.



> During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.
> The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Guys
> this thread is just too big to read all of the posts, so please pardon me if i am about to cover old ground
> 
> You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR
> ...



The problem was that the rail launched 60 lb 3" rockes of the RAF and the 4.5" rockets launched from 3-tube launchers ("tripple bazooka") were not very accurate and the launchers put a severe penalty on performance. (albeit not as much as cannon posd would) The HVAR used from "zero length" launchers and the Panzerblitz II (anti tank variant of R4M) were both more accurate and offered much less of a performance penalty, particularly after firing. 
For fighter-bombers at least these are the best choice. For the P-47, F4U, or Fw 190.

But for dedicated attac a/c the cannon would be better, particularly in a centerline mounting as in the Hs 129. For a modern comparison look at the A-10. (GAU-8 30mm cannon) Granted this isn't a complete parallel but there are alot of similarities. In fact the Hs 129 is probably the best dedicate attack plane of these. It could have used some better engines though, and better development in general.

For the engined the RLM had forced Henschel to use "low priorety engines" so they firt went to the far too underpowered ~450 hp As 410 engines, and ended up using ~700 hp Gnome-Rhône 14M radial engines, but while much improved this still left somthing to be desired. (particularly at full combat load) As I mentioned on the previous page:
There were still other relatively low priority radial engines that could have given the 129 sufficient performance (albeit all at larger diameters than the tiny 14M, weight would be a bit more too) The Gnome-Rhône 14N, Bramo 323, BMW 132, and maybe some others would fit the bill.


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2008)

Agreed 100% KK...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 17, 2008)

I know les, you said that already.  I was just repeating it for parsifal's post.

And *parsifal* you should read the last 2-3 pages on it there are some good points on this. Also there's also this: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-anti-tank-aircraft-world-war-2-a-12055.html


----------



## Udet (Apr 19, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2008)

Udet said:


> Ramirezzz said:
> 
> 
> > Also this is hilarious, are you suggesting an exodus similar to that of the millions trying to flee the advancing Red Army during late 1944 occurred in the Soviet Union as the Wehrmacht advanced further into the Bolshevik pond during 1941 and 1942 and that my boys took advantage of that to straf fleeing civilians as standard procedure [like the brave IL-2M flyers did during late 1944]?
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2008)

The germans certainly strafed refugee columns in the west during the 1940 campaign. moreover it served a legitamte military purpose. Congestion of the road system brought military redeployment and manouvre on the allied side to a virtual standstill. 

Even the terror bombings of places like Warsaw, Rotterdam (admittedly a mistake) and Belgrade had purpose. They were factors that brought wavering nations to the peace table

The ultimate terror bombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can only be justified on that basis.

This is a very sensitive issue, and i dont have the final answer. This is the basic question....when is a target a legitimate military target???


----------



## Tony Williams (Apr 20, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Guys
> You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR



Guns are far more accurate than any unguided rockets.

There were two reasons why powerful guns for ground attack went out of fashion (until they were revived in the A-10, the MiG-27 and the Su-25). One was that a plane carrying a big gun was limited in its usefulness to ground attack only, whereas a fighter bomber with RPs could be used for a variety of tasks. Air Forces much prefer to have such flexibility (in contrast, Armies prefer to have dedicated ground attack planes supporting them, but they don't order the planes...). The other reason is that tanks were getting so well-armoured that increasingly big and powerful guns were needed to deal with them. The A-10's 30mm GAU-8/A is effective against tanks mainly because it uses depeleted uranium ammo, which wasn't available for a long time after the war.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2008)

Thanks Tony, that does make sense, along with the fact that in WWII super heavy gun armament really adversely affected performance more than the launcher rails for the rockets. 

I wonder if there are any records on the numbers of vehicles and trains shot up by rocket equipped FBs in France in 1944


----------



## OGGleep (Apr 24, 2008)

The A-10 is my favorite aircraft by far. I couldn't imagine being in a ditch in some desert watching 2 circle in for their attack run on my position.

I imagine a C-130 would have the same "crap in my pants" factor only you probably wouldn't notice them until everyone around you starts imploding.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2008)

OGGleep said:


> The A-10 is my favorite aircraft by far. I couldn't imagine being in a ditch in some desert watching 2 circle in for their attack run on my position.
> 
> I imagine a C-130 would have the same "crap in my pants" factor only you probably wouldn't notice them until everyone around you starts imploding.



Ever notice that the title of the thread is "Best Tank Killer of WW2"....


----------



## OGGleep (Apr 25, 2008)

Yes someone mentioned the A-10 so I chimed in =)


----------



## DauntlessDriver (Apr 28, 2008)

Hmmm... how about the Thunderbolt? Or are we talking specifically designed planes here?

If we're talking about specifically designed planes, then my vote couldn't be with the Stuka... good, sound frame, but without any fighters, it was target practice.

I'd have to go with the "Tiffy."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 28, 2008)

The Typhoon wasn't designed for ground attack though, it just happened to fit that role very well, like the P-47.

And the only main problem with the P-47's anti-tank ability was not a design limitation, but the standard weapons. The USAAF's main ground attack rocket was the 4.5" rocket launched from bulky 3x cluster "bazooka tubes" which were inaccurate and performance degrading. The 5" HVAR were much better and could be launched from simple wing racks (Zero length launchers) which had almost no effect on performance, there were eventually fitted to the P-47, particularly the P-47N. The Corsair was using these much earlier though. (the NAVY being the major user of the HVAR)

And the P-47 was included in the Poll as well: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-anti-tank-aircraft-world-war-2-a-12055.html


----------



## DauntlessDriver (Apr 28, 2008)

Ahhhh.... I undershtand now... I zink I'll go take an Adveel!


----------



## Mitya (May 24, 2008)

The best tank killer Il-2 Il-10. И хикакин!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

Why dont you state your reasons why?

It is hard to start a discussion when someone just states that "said acft is the best".


----------



## Mitya (May 24, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why dont you state your reasons why?


Why? Just me. Ok?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 24, 2008)

Great conversation starter...


----------



## Waynos (May 24, 2008)

I would choose the Typhoon due to its heavy armament of 4 20mm cannon plus rockets or bombs, heavy tough structure (just look at the thickness of those wings, how did Camm think he was designing a replacement for the Spitfire???) and 400mph top speed. 

True, it wasn't designed specifically for the role, but if it had been, it should have looked exactly the same


----------



## buzzard (May 24, 2008)

I think that the P-47 was the most effective tank-killer. The Typhoon was unreliable, and demanded a huge amount of maintenance. It was also more susceptible to battle damage, and the exhaust gases leaking into the cockpit didn't help much either...

The Il-2/10, Ju 87 and the Hs 129 were all easy meat in the presence of enemy fighters. the Jug may have been at a disadvantage vis a vis the German fighters down on the deck, but it could still acquit itself quite well, and by the summer of '44, the caliber of the average LW pilot was no match for the Americans.

Fast, tough, reliable, and armed with 8 .50s, 500 lb bombs, rockets, and napalm, the Jug was the best.

Incidentally, I've read that due to a design flaw in the Tiger's air vents, many Tiger crews were slaughtered by .50 cal. bullets ricocheting around the crew compartment. Can any Panzer buffs confirm this?

JL


----------



## Tony Williams (May 24, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Incidentally, I've read that due to a design flaw in the Tiger's air vents, many Tiger crews were slaughtered by .50 cal. bullets ricocheting around the crew compartment. Can any Panzer buffs confirm this?


Another baseless legend...

The Typhoon and P-47 were both great fighter-bombers, well able to destroy a range of ground targets, but they were both quite useless at the specific task of tank destroying. The reason was the same in both cases: their guns weren't powerful enough to knock out tanks (except very rarely, by chance), and the rockets and bombs they carried were far too inaccurate to hit a tank (except occasionally, by chance).

When the British Operational Research teams examined Panzers left on the battlefield immediately after various 1944 battles in Northern France, they discovered that very, very few of the knocked-out tanks had been hit by air attack. On average, the Typhoon and P-47 units claimed about ten times as many tanks as they actually destroyed.

To consistently knock out tanks from the air in WW2 required one of two different tactics: one was to saturate the area with bombs dropped by vast fleets of heavy bombers (this did work in Normandy, but was very inefficient). The other was to fit large-calibre high-velocity guns, which were far more accurate than rockets. The Hurricane IID and IV were very good at this, but the 40mm guns weren't powerful enough to deal with Tiger tanks. The Ju 87G was effective in Rudel's hands at least, the Hs 129 was probably the most accurate, but suffered from poor performance.


----------



## buzzard (May 24, 2008)

While it's true that Allied fighter-bomber pilots made grossly exaggerated claims, this hardly makes the P-47 (and others) 'useless' in the anti-tank role. Numerous accounts by the panzertruppen tell a very different story...

Tanks are not aircraft or ships. They do not crash or sink when damaged. A knocked-out tank that is not totally destroyed can often be recovered and put back into action. the Germans were masters at this. Even after the saturation bombing of the heavies, many of the damaged and overturned tanks were rapidly put back into action. I agree that the effects of the rockets have been over-hyped, but the 500lb bombs used by the Jug did not require a direct hit to knock out a tank. And IIRC, most of Rudel's kills were made with bombs much smaller than that...

Napalm was an extremely effective weapon against the WWII tanks, and had it not been in such short supply, it would have made the Jug even more effective. Certainly more so than the sitting duck Hs 129. In any case, even the heavy cannon armament of the Henschel and the Ju 87-G was not a guarantee of success. They still had to hit the areas of vulnerability to ensure the complete destruction of the tank. 

The BOR teams were on the battlefield after the enemy had been driven off by land forces, so it's not surprising that most of the tanks they examined were destroyed by the same. And since a force retreating under the harrassment of ground and air attack does not always have the luxury of recovering its damaged tanks, many repairable AFVs were left behind. Do the reports mention how may of the tanks found had been previously damaged and repaired?

"quite useless", indeed  

JL


----------



## Tony Williams (May 25, 2008)

I looked into this in some detail for *Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45*. These are some relevant extracts:

The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units (one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture. 

As the Allies were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue in great detail). 

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.​
And on the subject of the accuracy of bombs and rockets:

In contrast, one direct hit with a bomb or 60 lb RP meant certain destruction for the heaviest tank. However, their accuracy left a lot to be desired. Even under practice conditions, the hit rate for the RPs against tanks was no better than 5%. This was graphically illustrated by a demonstration put on by Typhoons against a captured Panther tank placed in the middle of an open field, helpfully painted white with large red crosses on it to make sure the pilots could see it. Of the 64 RPs fired (launched in a typical steep dive at ranges of 750-900 m), only three hit the tank. In battle, RP accuracy was considerably worse than this, with the official British calculation of hit probability against a single tank being 0.5% (in other words, 200 RPs had to be fired for each hit). Furthermore, some 20 – 30% of RP warheads failed to explode.​
And:

Bombs were even less accurate than RPs. An analysis of Typhoon bombing attacks revealed that only 50% of bombs dropped landed within 120 m of the target, with an average radial error of 144 m. The absolute minimum safety distance from friendly troops for P-47s dropping bombs was about 250 m. The probability of dropping a bomb close enough to a tank to disable it was extremely small. Napalm bombs were used later to some effect, but were an even greater hazard to any friendly troops in the area.​


----------



## Kruska (May 25, 2008)

Hello TW,

German records show a similar picture regarding attacks of Allied Ground Attack a/c’s. The Alarm call; “Tiefflieger” (Low Level a/c attack) horrified many Wehrmacht soldiers to such an extent that even some tank crews fled their tanks upon hearing this, some got subsequently killed (being exposed) and therefore intact tanks were left behind. 

Due to the massive destruction of soft/light armored vehicle columns, infantry formations, trains or artillery emplacements the alarm call “Tiefflieger” contributed largely to even panic reactions by many Wehrmacht formations, also due to the reason that the majority of the units deployed against the western allies were of inferior quality and mostly non-combat experienced.

Many undestroyed tanks were simply left behind, because the fuel supply trucks and the repair maintenance crews and vehicles had been destroyed during the attacks. Many tank commanders were inexperienced and simply lost direction, upon receiving information that bridges had been destroyed by allied ground attacks (only very few were able to support a 40t + tank in this period) especially in France, the tank crews were even ordered on many occasions to abandon their tanks.

Even though the a/c themselves were not particularly very successful in the “direct” immediate destruction of tanks, it would still be their overall battlefield contribution that in return caused the Wehrmacht to lose considerable numbers of tanks.

As such the western allies did not really have “tank buster” a/c but as I mentioned in another post, I would refrain from separating/dividing the mission task of Ground Attack into strafing and anti tank role.

As for the question; best Tank Killer I would still forward the Hs129 despite the argument of underpowered engines. It had about the same speed as the IL-2 but was far more maneuverable then the IL2.

I do not have much information, if not to say almost none, but I do not recall that the Hs129 suffered under allied a/c in the North Africa campaign more than a Ju87 or Bf110. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 25, 2008)

THe engines of the Hs 129 were also not that relable and (for radial engines) not very resistant to battle damage, however I agree that the 129 was a good design. (and the engines were a huge imrovement over the Argus ones)

And were still probably tougher than the the Stuka's liquid cooled engine. (which was a good deal slower with cannons than the 129) And the Il2's radiator and engine were placed in such a way and with such armor that they were not at a disadvantage to radial engines. (though the oil cooler was vulnerable, something solved on the much improved Il-10)

In fact I'd say the Il-10 was the best dedicated ground attack a/c of WWII, but it came too late to be of any significant consequence. (and if developed more with better engines I think the Hs 129 would still be better)

The Hs 129 is similar in many ways to the A-10 though, just an interesting note. (the "bath tub" armor plate surrounding the pilot, twin engines, heavily armored canopy heavy caliber centerline armament)


----------



## Kruska (May 26, 2008)

Hello kk89,

NO, No, you got it all wrong: the A10 is similar to the Hs129 not the other way around  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

Well yeah... 

I think the best wording would probably have been something like "the A-10 shares some notable feateres with the Hs 129"

But still in interesting note. (particularly the 'bath tub' armor)


----------



## Kruska (May 26, 2008)

Hello kk89,

Yes you are correct about the “bathtub” idea, but somehow I do find more resemblance between the Northrop A-9 and the Hs129 then to the A-10.

The A-10 to me is a very unique a/c which no one had or ever designed to be so extremely effective in supporting CAS. I just loved to watch this destroyer during maneuvers, almost standing in the air whilst making a turn – really incredible
. 
Regards
Kruska


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

Yep.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 26, 2008)

Gotta agree with everyone here except buzzard.... The P-47 was NOT a great tank killer, nor was it an accurate one... People uneducated on the topic usually pick either the Tiffy or the Thunderbolt...


----------



## parsifal (May 26, 2008)

I agree that none of the Allied FBs were great tank killers, but they were still excellent ground attack aircraft. An awfull lot of soft skinned vehicles were destroyed by the allied FBs in 1944, which greatly reduced the combat effectiveness and mobility of German mobile formations. For example, I believe Lehr lost more than 100 soft skinned vehicles in its approach to Normandy in 1944, and that its mobility was reduced to about half.

Allied FBs might not have been great FBs in a direct sense, but as part of an all arms team, they were excellent, because they applied indirect inhibitors to the combat formations containing the enemy tanks


----------



## Tony Williams (May 26, 2008)

Definitely: the P-47 and Typhoons were good ground attack planes, as I've said, and scared the daylights out of inexperienced Panzer crews, as has also been said. They made an important contribution to the general disruption of German army effectiveness, including Panzer units. But good tank killers....not.


----------



## renrich (May 26, 2008)

Thanks for your very informational posts, Tony. I suspect that there are a number of myths about WW2 that don't hold up to close scrutiny. Fighter bombers may not have been effective against tanks but they sure were hard on the horses.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2008)

It would be more accurate to say that the RAF and USAAF fighter-bombers were effective against the Wehrmacht's armour in a roundabout way. The destruction of communications and supply by the U.S. 9th and 2nd TAF caused severe disruption to the movement of German armour throughout the entire North-West Europe campaign. 

I've always said that destroying enemy armour on the field is a last ditch effort; being able to prevent that armour reaching the field is the real success. The amount of tanks abandoned by panic stricken crews, or destroyed on their train journey, or left for lack of fuel, or out of position because of reduced mobility is really uncountable. The Allies should consider themselves lucky to have such brave men flying those vicious and deadly sorties into immense flak barrages on their side. And thankful that the Germans did realise how little affect the fighter-bomber really had on a tank itself. 

Interesting note in _Panzer Leader_ is Guderian accusing Rommel of being afraid of the Allied air forces. It seems that Guderian recognised the inability of Allied air power to destroy his armour in 1944... and it's taken 60 years and 20/20 hindsight for most other people to come to the same conclusion.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

P-47's fitted with HVAR's though would be pretty good. As a dive bomber or with the poor tube launched 4.5" rockets, not so much.

The F4U, being a particularly accurate dive bomber, was better in this, and as it was USN/USMC, it was using HVAR's much sooner than the AAF a/c.

renrich, was the F4U-4 the first production Corsair to have (main gear) dive brakes, or were earlier ones using them.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2008)

I'm no expert on Korea but I believe the Allied forces recognised the failures of the current technology when it came to attack armour from the air. It's only logical to attack the supply routes to prevent several tanks from moving and shooting, rather than spending masses of energy on destroying one tank.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 26, 2008)

True. (on the importance of the suply lines)

But the Corsair did perform anti-tank duties in Korea though. 



And another nore on the P-47 was it did have some advantages ovet the Corsair in ground attack, considerable less vulnerable oil cooler(s), somewhat more damage resistance with all metal structure (in most circumstances) on F4U-4 and earlier.

However overall the F4U had better overall low-medium altitude performance than contemporary P-47's (particularly in maneuverability, and in climb)
And could carry a heavier payload (on -1D and later models). 
And was a very accurate dive bomber. (perhaps the P-47 may have been with dive brakes, but probably not as accurate as the F4U, which was apparantly about as accurate as a SBD)

(use of Napalm and HVAR, are circumstancial advantages of the Corsair in WWII)


----------



## JoeB (May 26, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I'm no expert on Korea but I believe the Allied forces recognised the failures of the current technology when it came to attack armour from the air.


The fighter bomber aerial weapons, tactics and results in that case were somewhat similar to 1944-45 in NW Europe: rocket/bomb/napalm equipped fighter bombers knocked out a pretty small fraction of what they were credited with, but in that case it was a fairly high % of all the NK tanks knocked out. However it was also similar in that attacks against other motor transport (including direct support vehicles for tanks) were a lot more effective, those support vehicles which quickly mostly wiped out. And, even if the planes overclaimed a lot, tanks moving around in any concentration in reasonable weather in daylight would still be overwhelmed. In sum, large-scale NK armor operations pretty much ceased about a week and a half into the US/UN intervention in the war. 

The planes were probably somewhat more effective than Allied WWII fb's, using the HVAR (plus quickly deployed shaped charge versions of same), but circular error probable of such rockets were still pretty big compared to a tank. Napalm was used relatively more often than in WWII v tanks and that was pretty effective.

On other side, the Il-10 was only briefly used by the North Koreans in daylight against airfields and a couple of cases v UN ships: it just couldn't survive against the opposing fighters, and apparently didn't get any opportunities to attack UN tanks.

A lot of the foregoing stuff on WWII is very well gone over, though doesn't hurt to bring it up again. In the same somewhat redundant vein though, it doesn't seem as if there was the same level of operational analysis about the effectiveness of mainly gun-armed tank killing planes on Eastern Front, the type of analysis according to which we can fairly accurately criticize the real accomplishments of western Allied fb's as pure tank killers. A lot more of the German/Soviet accounts seem to come from claims of pilots. OK their heavier guns may been more capable of hitting tanks than rockets or of penetrating them than .50cal/20mm but doesn't mean they didn't also vastly overclaim (perhaps) fooled by the dust stirred up by near misses or by decoy smoke, or attack already dead tanks multiple times (that was clearly a big factor in UN v NK tanks case in Korea).

Joe


----------



## buzzard (May 27, 2008)

I don't have time to make a reply, but I think this link may be of interest in relation to the accuracy of German aerial tank-kill claims.

Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk - The Dupuy Institute Forum

JL


----------



## renrich (May 27, 2008)

I don't know of another fighter that was purpose designed to use the landing gear as dive brakes before the F4U. Of course, the portion of the door which hung down in front of the main strut of the gear was the primary influence on dive speed. The Corsair was found to be able to dive at 85 degrees and was almost as accurate as the SBD which I believe made it slightly more accurate than the SB2C. I wonder how effective a dive bomber could be if a tank was moving at say 15 mph. Dive bombers had a difficult time hitting small ships(much larger than a tank) traveling at speeds of around 15 mph.


----------



## Tony Williams (May 27, 2008)

JoeB said:


> A lot of the foregoing stuff on WWII is very well gone over, though doesn't hurt to bring it up again. In the same somewhat redundant vein though, it doesn't seem as if there was the same level of operational analysis about the effectiveness of mainly gun-armed tank killing planes on Eastern Front, the type of analysis according to which we can fairly accurately criticize the real accomplishments of western Allied fb's as pure tank killers. A lot more of the German/Soviet accounts seem to come from claims of pilots. OK their heavier guns may been more capable of hitting tanks than rockets or of penetrating them than .50cal/20mm but doesn't mean they didn't also vastly overclaim (perhaps) fooled by the dust stirred up by near misses or by decoy smoke, or attack already dead tanks multiple times (that was clearly a big factor in UN v NK tanks case in Korea).



I have no doubt that some overclaiming occurred. However, guns were inherently far more accurate than RPs or bombs, and didn't suffer from the same aiming difficulties either. Accounts of Hurricane IIDs do indicate that their attacks were devastatingly accurate and effective, against those tanks they were capable of penetrating.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 27, 2008)

renrich, I meant which was the first model of the F4U to have the dive brake setting for the gear. Did all the production models have them?

And I was inclusing napalm for the dive bombing attacks too.

(diving attacks with brakes, firing HVAR's is something to consider too)


----------



## drgondog (May 27, 2008)

Tony Williams said:


> I have no doubt that some overclaiming occurred. However, guns were inherently far more accurate than RPs or bombs, and didn't suffer from the same aiming difficulties either. Accounts of Hurricane IIDs do indicate that their attacks were devastatingly accurate and effective, against those tanks they were capable of penetrating.



Slightly off topic - but I just saw the A-10 at Gila Range 3. That is one very impressive gun with both the inert AT loads on a T-80 and the HEI..I have seen a lot of firepower demos but I am a Hog convert.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 28, 2008)

Oh and another interesting note: 
Republic P-47D Thunderbolt


> Underwing zero-length launching stubs for a total of ten five-inch HVAR rockets were fitted to Thunderbolts from production blocks P-47D-30-RA onward.


----------



## renrich (May 29, 2008)

KK, reviewing my sources, it appears that all production models of the F4U had the dive brake capability.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

Ok, thanks.


----------



## buzzard (May 29, 2008)

Deciding that as a P-47 advocate, I was in dire need of a little more education on the subject of WWII tank-busters, I did a little research, esp as it relates to over-claiming...

One of the popular exemplars of the lethality of the Hs 129 as a tank buster is Major Bruno Meyer's report of his 60+ Hs 129B-2s inflicting a devastating attack on Russian armor on July 8/43 during the battle of Kursk.*

The 26th Guards Tank Brigade were heavily engaged with the panzers. antitank guns, and infantry of the SS LAH, when the Hs 129s (with Fw-190s in support)came to the rescue. 40+ Soviet tanks were claimed as destroyed, for the loss of 2 Hs129s. A smashing success...or it would be if it was only true.

Soviet 11 Guard Corps records show the 26th actually lost 8 T-34s, and 3 T-70s on that date. This while also fighting the elite SS Leibstandarte Adolph Hitler division. It's unlikely that the Hs 129 actually killed even six tanks, some of which were the relatively weakly armored T-70s. So it looks like the degree of German overclaiming (the Luftwaffe claimed the destruction of 1100 tanks during Operation Citadel) is on par with that of the Allies. Not even Rudel's claims should be accepted without a degree of skepticism.

The claim that guns are inherently more accurate than bombs, rockets, napalm, etc, is a valid one but it begs the question of whether that makes them more effective. That the 3 cm Mk 103 and BK 3.7 cannons were not up to the task of efficiently 'knacking' the better Soviet tanks is demonstrated by the increasingly desperate attempts to up-gun the Hs 129, culminating in the Hs 129B-3. 

Burdening an already over-weight and underpowered a/c with a viciously recoiling 1500+ Lb 75 mm cannon may make it look ferocious, but it probably posed more danger to the hapless pilot than to Soviet armor. Esp if any fighters chanced upon it. And with pilot losses approaching 20% /sortie, I'm sure the few survivors of the Schlachtgeschwaders were more than happy to trade in their big guns for the Fw 190. The Hs 129 was a dog. It may be appealingly similar in concept to the redoubtable A-10, but in execution...

That the Jug is a more capable combat a/c than the Hs 129 and Ju 87 is indisputable. That it was not more effective as a tank-killer is more a reflection of the lack of specialized anti-tank training, and the inadequate supply of napalm in the ETO. While napalm is a danger when used in close proximity to friendly troops, it is devastating when used against concentrated armor, esp on congested roads.

Tony Williams says,

"One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them."

This lame effort to tie the overall losses (from all causes) of Allied tactical a/c to the relative efficiency of Allied tank-busters is specious to the extreme for reasons that are obvious to anyone, ill-educated in the subject or otherwise. It doesn't even name the 'one source'...

When you get right down to it, NONE of the combatants had a truly effective anti-tank a/c. So I'll cheerfully concede that the P-47 wasn't the 'Best Tank Killer of WWII"'. None of them were good enough to merit such a singular title. The Jug was the better combat a/c, tho.

JL

* Partially derived from: Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk - The Dupuy Institute Forum


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 29, 2008)

The Germans could have also used some more powerful anti tank guns, that were still suitable for aircraft to carry. (a higher velocity 30mm gun, or Better 37 mm gun, like the US M9 or soviet NS-37, both lighter weapons with higher muzzel velocity and heavier projectiles, and the soviet gun had a 60-70% higher RoF than the BK-37 or M9)


But I agree fighter-bombers are probably the best. Not as accurate as dedicated a/c, or as individually effective against the tanks, but they can tangle with enemy fighters and come home. And using HVAR, bombs/napalm, or the panzerblitz II (anti-tank R4M) they had some decent weapons that presented little or no performance penalty once expended/dropped. (the pylons, "zero-length" railless launchers, and R4M racks would add some drag, but very littly weight nothing like rocket rails or externally mounted cannon)


----------



## Tony Williams (May 30, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Deciding that as a P-47 advocate, I was in dire need of a little more education on the subject of WWII tank-busters, I did a little research, esp as it relates to over-claiming...


I have not the slightest doubt that there was considerable overclaiming in all circumstances where aircraft were involved, simply because the pilots were in no position to confirm the results by direct examination (U-boats suffered from a similar problem). The Germans falsely claimed more than once that the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal had been sunk, which you would think would be hard to get wrong  

I also agree that there was no such thing as an ideal WW2 anti-tank aircraft. nobody managed to put together a good combination of aircraft, gun and ammunition: all had some significant disadvantages in terms of their performance or weapon effectiveness in the role. I summarised this in this article: TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2

Having said that, it is clear from the available evidence concerning the relative accuracy of guns compared with bombs and rockets, that if you wanted to hit a tank-sized object with any kind of reliability, you needed to use guns. The hit rate they achieved in combat was many times greater than with other weapons. And if you wanted to knock the tanks out, you had to use a gun and ammunition combination reliably capable of penetrating at least the side and rear armour of the principal enemy tanks.

Apart from the Hurricane IID and IV (whose 40mm guns lost effectiveness against the later German tanks) and the Tsetse (which was reallocated to Coastal Command duties when the RAF changed its mind) the Allies in NW Europe never had a plane + gun combination capable of knocking out tanks with any reliability. The Luftwaffe and the Russian AF did have such combinations, although they were all flawed one way or another so their performance was not as good as it could have been.

Now if we had had the ground attack version of this plane, the results may well have been different  BRITISH WW2 MULTI


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2008)

I see it this way, though i am the first to admit I have not researched the subject properly. Killing things by direct close support was not the primary objective of such aircraft. rather it was to cause the enemy to seek cover at the same time as the land forces being attacked should be doing other things, like counterattacking. in this way the airpower is acting as a "force multiplier" for the ground forces. It does not do a lot of killing itself, but it either makes the job of killing the enemy ground forces by ones wn ground forces easier, or vice versa.

So the question ceases to be a direct argument of which aircraft was the best at direct killing, rather which aircraft was the best at keeping the enmy's heads down. At the beginning of the war, the stukas were very effective at this, especially with their sirens wailing. however, by 1944, both the allies and the despised IL-2s were also forcing the axis to keep their heads down, and the Germans always placed the allied air support aircraft as high on the list of reasons for their defeats.


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I see it this way, though i am the first to admit I have not researched the subject properly. Killing things by direct close support was not the primary objective of such aircraft.........



Hello parsifal,

Well for the Hs129 it was actually designed and used sucessfully in exactly this role; off course it also took its share in strafing or general ground attack missions.

Since the tread title is best tank killer, and not best ground attack or strafer a/c I guess we have to admit to the Hs129 being the best at this specific role.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## renrich (May 30, 2008)

Overclaiming by aviators was a universal trait. It is not difficult to understand why. Poor visibility, excitement, wishful thinking and short view times led all of the participants in the war to overclaim. In rereading Lundstrom's "The First Team," the US Navy pilots consistently in the first 6 months of the war overclaimed by at least 100 %. However, the Japanese pilots were even more enthusiastic in their overclaiming. When you think about it, the time you have to see the damage inflicted on a tank is even less than you have when engaging a ship or airplane, plus you have to be concerned about making your own hole in the ground.


----------



## JoeB (May 30, 2008)

As always with overclaiming, the point is to go beyond 'everybody did it' to try to figure *how much* of it there was in given cases. This is my point about tank killing a/c. The overclaims of Allied fb's in Normandy especially are better quantified than those of the Soviets and Germans. The post about about Kursk is interesting and informative. It seems to cast at least potential doubt on whether those gun-type tank killers in that circumstance really *were* much more effective, as opposed to *should have been*.

Also, thinking of wreck surveys and tests in Korea, it's not 100% clear to me napalm was a lot less effective than big guns in knocking out tanks. Napalm cannisters didn't have to hit as close as bombs, because the blob of viscous liquid could roll along the ground, IOW a sizeable variable range error ('short') was acceptable as long as azimuth error was fairly small, and it's easier to get a small azimuth error.

Finally, air combat survivability of the tank-killer aircraft can really matter, and that's a potentially big advantage of the non-specialized fighter bomber when it does matter. Ironically in Korea perhaps the UN air force might have been better off with a specialized tank killer, like an up gunned Il-10 perhaps, because there was little to fear from enemy fighters over the front lines (there no MiG-15's in the period when there was any serious Communist armored ops and they hardly ever appeared over the front anyway; just a marginal NK prop fighter threat early in the war when there any NK tanks to speak of). Whereas at the other extreme as already mentioned Il-10's were almost completely useless to the North Koreans because they couldn't survive against US fighters at all.

Joe


----------



## Tony Williams (May 30, 2008)

The Hurricane IID had some supporting data concerning its accuracy and effectiveness. Some more quotes from *Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45*:

The Hurricane IID saw most of its use with No.6 Squadron in North Africa between May 1942 and May 1943, although it was also used by Nos. 5, 20 and 184 and by No.7 Squadron South African Air Force, and about three hundred were built. It proved both accurate and effective, attacking with devastating effect whenever tanks were caught in the open, away from FlaK cover. To give one example, on March 10th 1943, 19 aircraft were used to attack a strong German column of tanks, armoured cars and supply vehicles advancing on General Leclerc's position near Lake Chad. The column was effectively destroyed by the Hurricanes. Their effectiveness was also acknowledged by the Germans, who became demoralised by the sight of the planes. One prisoner reported the loss of six out of twelve tanks to 40 mm cannon fire in one attack, although it should be noted that the other six were also hit and penetrated but survived the experience (the crews had taken cover away from the tanks so were not injured by the steel fragments flying around inside).

and:

This is not the end of the S gun story as some Hurricane IIDs were transferred to Burma, where they entered the fray in December 1943 with No.20 Squadron. At first no Japanese armour was encountered so they were mainly used for attacking road and river transport, for which HE shells were used. A detachment was sent to operate from the besieged Imphal area and in June 1944 a few Japanese tanks were encountered. All twelve tanks seen were put out of action for the loss of one Hurricane. By the end of the month No.20 had accounted for many other targets, including 501 sampans and 348 dugouts. By February 1945 the squadron was also operating a flight of Hurricane IVs equipped with rocket rails, but the RPs were in short supply so some were fitted with the Class S gun. On February 19th thirteen Japanese tanks were attacked and all destroyed, primarily by the 40 mm guns (confirmed by subsequent examination of the wrecks). When operations ceased in June 1945, No. 20 Squadron was the last RAF Hurricane unit operational in the world.

and:

After the raising of the Imphal siege, firing tests were carried out against captured Japanese tanks, using both Hurricane IIDs and IICs equipped with four 20 mm Hispanos. The IICs had been in Burma since 1942 and following the arrival of Spitfires in the theatre had been tasked with ground-attack duties. The tanks consisted of three medium Type 97 improved (Shinhoto Chi-Ha), and two light tanks, either Light Tank Type 95 (Ha-Go) or Tankette Type 97 (Te-Ke). The test consisted of the IIDs firing both AP and HE ammunition and the IICs firing the usual equal mix of SAP/I and HE/I in a 2x2 sequence. Firing took place against the front, side and rear of the tanks, with attacks launched at angles varying from level flight to a 45º dive.

The IIDs fired 64 rounds of AP scoring 11 hits (17%) and the same number of HE scoring 22 hits (34%), all of them at the medium tanks. Five of the 11 AP hits and seven or eight of the 22 HE hits were assessed as probably putting the tanks out of action. A total of 340 rounds of 20 mm were fired against the medium tanks for 10 hits (2.9%) and a similar number against the light tanks for 9 hits (2.6%). However, most of the HE/I hits were not counted as they were ineffective, so the percentage strike rate was about double that stated. The SAP/I rounds were effective against both medium and light tanks, penetrating the turrets several times. 

The trial concluded that diving attacks were more effective, but there was little to choose between the 40 mm AP and HE projectiles as their effect depended on where they hit rather than the type of projectile (this of course would not necessarily be true against more heavily armoured tanks – the medium tanks had a maximum armour thickness of only 25 mm). It seems possible that the higher hit percentage with the HE shells may have been due to the use of the .303" sighting guns; the HE shell muzzle velocity and trajectory were more similar to the .303"'s. The relatively poor hit rate for the 20 mm might have been due to the practice of "walking" the shell strikes up to the target to ensure that hits were scored.


----------



## parsifal (May 30, 2008)

There were no Japanese Tanks operating in the imphal area. Even the tankettes that might occaionally be attached to a Japanese Infantry Division were left at the jump off points. The reason I am so sure of this is because the Japanese had to negotiate over 100 kms of trackless jungle to get to Imphal. Also, by June 1944, the Japanese were no longer in or near to imphal, The tanks may have been encountered inside of Burma, but it is almost unbelievable that this could be achieved in the thick jungles of Burma, where the Japanese, proven masters of camourflage, were rarely seen, unless already incapacitated.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 30, 2008)

It would have been interesting if the Typhoon had been fitted with the Vickers S cannon. ANd considering the rocket rails the Typhoon carried, performance may have actually improved.

Hoever I still think rail-less rockets (HVAR, or panzerblitz II) are the optimum armament for a fighter bomber type a/c for this role, due to both the performance benefits and since it doesn't require special modifications or ilimination of the main armament that cannon pods require.


However the P-63 with M9 cannon is an interesting thought, though it never saw production or service.



> A single P-63D was armed with an M9 cannon, a very different weapon, far more powerful but also far heavier. Its 37x223SR cartridge gave the same HE round as the M4 a considerably higher muzzle velocity. One of the types of ammunition available was a 752 g armour-piercing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s, and at a distance of 460 m this penetrated 60 mm of armour plate. At the same distance the M4 could penetrate only 20 mm of armour. It is obvious that the M9 was much better suited for ground attack, but apparently it was too heavy for fighters. It was also experimentally used on a number of attack aircraft, but its only service use was at sea.


----------



## Mitya (May 31, 2008)

Want to know why the best штурмовик Il-2 and Il-10? I explain.
What is "штуромвик" ? "Штурмовик" is such plane which works directly above a battlefield. At strong counteraction of fighters of the opponent and means of air defence. On it all shoots: starting from automatic devices and finishing heavy antiaircraft guns.
Whether it is adapted Ju-87G1 (the protected engine of water cooling having rather poorly, a unit of fire on 12 shells if not I am mistaken, on a trunk), Хе-129 (at which very weak motors, bad review back, absence of defensive arms), P-47 (which carries rather solid loading, but, whether he is capable to operate in conditions of counteraction of fighters of the opponent and air defence?). I think, that was not present.
"Штурмовик" it is based in immediate proximity from a front line. And differently what for he is necessary? And so. P-47 for rise it is necessary 800 m of the concreted strip (but I do not know it with what it is loading). Where you at the front will take the concreted strips in such quantities? It is possible, certainly, folding metal to use... Only our shelfs have P-39 them did not use that was a lot of trouble with them, and the front moved to the West quickly... For rise Il-2 was required 600 m of a ground. 
P-47 with bombing loading in ton he will have speed for 600 km/h at the ground (sea level ? ) and range of 1700 m? I doubt. He will turn in slow and very not manevr the purpose.
P-47, Il-2 and Il-10 are good only for the certain conditions. The best "штурмовик", certainly Il-10 (Il-2 not so, and the best would began Su-6 but whereas he has been initially designed under M-71 which have not been finished, he has not gone to a series...). From P-38, P-47, P-51, Tempest, Typhoon, etc. would not be special advantage in conditions of active and adequate counteraction fighter aircraft of Germans, including for the lack of protection of a back hemisphere. The basic lack Il-2 and Il-10 at comparison with P-47, P-38, F4U, etc. - small bombing loading. 
The basic worthy competitor at Il-2 and Il-10 is assault variant FW-FW-190F. The powerful, strong, high-speed, strongly armed machine, but - it was not capable to hang above a battlefield to render the greatest possible loss. For the lack of back fire points small groups (on 4, 6, 8 machines) the Soviet fighters dispersed the whole squadrons in which was on 30, 40, 60 and more machines. To you and efficiency... I yet did not meet in memoirs that 4 FW-190, for example, has dispersed Soviet assault shelfs (ШАП)...
Such planes as: P-47, É-38, F4У, Ф6Ф, FW-190, the Typhoon, Tempest are fighters - bombers. Their task unexpectedly to strike and also quickly to escape. They are not intended for work not mediocrely above a front line.
I already wrote above, that in 1943 in the Soviet Air Forces max the allowable level of losses from fire of fighters was 2 of 12 Il- 2. And at Allies 6 from 12 Typhoons. And why? Because ihe not "штурмовик", and a fighter - bomber.
I do not know it the truth whether or not, but after war it was found out, that the American reservation was better only Japanese, conceding on characteristics to other countries.
P.S.: On pictures the 20-mm and 37-mm of fascist shells are submitted to a photo (recently has found only) Soviet Il-2 after hit in them


----------



## Tony Williams (May 31, 2008)

parsifal said:


> There were no Japanese Tanks operating in the imphal area.



A quick google revealed:

history 2

"The 14th Tank Regiment fought with the Biritsh in the south of Imphal. In this battle, Japanese tanks first encountered M3 Medium Tanks. In the early fight, a Japanese captured M3 Light Tank destroyed one M3 Medium Tank. That tank shot at the rear of M3 Medium Tank at close range.

The regiment lost almost all tanks during the fights and the retreat. After the battle of Imphal, the regiment was rebuilt near Mandalay and its strenght was about one third of the previous strenght. The regiment fought with the British around Meiktila and was annihirated in April, 1945."​
and: Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yamamoto Force attacked the Shenam Saddle on the main road from Tamu into Imphal. The Shenam Saddle was ideal defensive terrain. Despite using heavy artillery and tanks, Yamamoto could not break through Indian 20th Division's well-sited defences."​
and: Japanese Tanks 1939-45 - Google Book Search

This Japanese unit was committed to the disastrous March 1944 Imphal campaign, by the end of which it had been reduced to only four tanks.​
and:Ganju Lama, VC | Times Online Obituary

On May 17, 1st/7th Gurkha Rifles of 48th Indian Brigade pushed forward to milestone 33 on the Tiddim road, running northeast towards Imphal. The battalion's task was to clear the Japanese from a complex of bunkers and road blocks impeding the advance of the 17th Indian Division to relieve Imphal. The enemy was known to be wellentrenched, but B Company of 1st/7th Gurkhas, in the lead on the left of the road, was suddenly held down by fire from the 37mm guns of Japanese light tanks, which had apparently appeared from nowhere. ​


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 31, 2008)

Mitya, don't forget about the F4U as a cantidate in the comparison. More maneuverable and much shorter takeoff than the P-47D, and with better max bombload (on the F4U-1D and later) and better range with bombs. (F4U-1D/-4/-5 could carry 2x 1,000 lb bombs and a 178 gal drop tank and take-off from an aircraft carrier, and more if land based)

But that comparison you made seemed to be about ground attack aircraft in general, and not about tank killers.


And I don't know what that statement of the P-47 not coming up aganst enemy fighters durring ground attack missions was about...


----------



## tpikdave (Jun 1, 2008)

Mitya

Sure looks like it was an easy target, counting holes....low and slow is good for crop dusting...............but when there are guns around..not so good.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

tpikdave said:


> Mitya
> 
> Sure looks like it was an easy target, counting holes....low and slow is good for crop dusting...............but when there are guns around..not so good.



Hello tpikdave,

what Mitya is trying to show, is that a IL2 could take that kind of punishment, whilst a P-47, or any other fighter a/c would't live to talk about that. The Il2 or a Ha129 were "hovering" the battle field, whilst a P-47 or F-4U swooped in and flew home.

Since there are no reliable battlefield reports (at least not known to me) it will be almost impossible to determine which kind of a/c acctually caused more damage to ground troops or formations. But IMO besides the Hs129/75mm, or the Me410/40mm? there were no a/c that could acctually be termed Tank destroyers from 1943 onward.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 1, 2008)

Hi Tony
There are indeed quite a few references that suggest the presence of Japanese tanks at the Imphal-Kohima battles, however, this is not supported by the Japanese reference materiel

"*The 14th Tank Regiment fought with the Biritsh in the south of Imphal. In this battle, Japanese tanks first encountered M3 Medium Tanks. In the early fight, a Japanese captured M3 Light Tank destroyed one M3 Medium Tank. That tank shot at the rear of M3 Medium Tank at close range.

The regiment lost almost all tanks during the fights and the retreat. After the battle of Imphal, the regiment was rebuilt near Mandalay and its strenght was about one third of the previous strenght. The regiment fought with the British around Meiktila and was annihirated in April, 1945."[/*COLOR]​


My reference in this case is [I]"The Japanese Army Order Of Battle (Vols I II) Edited translated by Victor Medej Ready Printing Co, 1981, 558 pages[/I]. this is THE publication in English to refer to when trying to pinpoint Japanese Ground Formations.

This refereence works states that the 14th Independant Tank Regt arrived in the Mandalay area from Lower Burma in late March 1944, and had partly equippe with captured Stuarts. 

Mandalay is NOT the Imphal-Kohima front. Beside it appearing to be physically impossible for any wheeled or tracked japanese vehicles being in the Imphal sector, (it being separated from the nearest roads under Japanese control by more than 200 miles of trackless jungle and a mountain range, which even today is only accessible on foot, or by mule, (at best), the facts are that the 14th Regiment was nowhere near the Imphal front during the course of the battle (according to Japanese source material). What may have happened is that vehicles may have been captured by the Japanese in the Imphal area. If that is the case, there was just one small section of road where the Japanese could have used them. 

The Japanese tanks that were deployed around the Mandalay area may well have fallen victim to gun armed Hurricanes, although the time over the target for the Hurris would have been limited. The area around Mandalay is not Jungle, it is a plateau region known as the central Burma plain. It is entirely conceivable that that Japanese tanks and vehicles were destroyed in this limited area of Burma, 

The Japanese do record the 14th Regt as having been destroyed by January 1945


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 1, 2008)

> what Mitya is trying to show, is that a IL2 could take that kind of punishment, whilst a P-47, or any other fighter a/c would't live to talk about that.



I wouldn't be too sure about that. (for the P-47 a least) I'll try and dig up some pictures.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 1, 2008)

I checked out Tony's website, finding the 'Brit WWII Multi' interesting, but not esp convincing...

The less than stellar achievments of the WWII cannon-armed 'tankbusters' is not surprising, given the wildly conflicting demands faced by the a/c designers.

Any cannon capable of reliably piercing the armor of the better tanks is inevitably going to be large and heavy, demanding a powerful twin-engine a/c for best effect. As cannon fire must directly impact the tank to be effective, accuracy demands a close-range attack at very low-altitude, the slower the speed the better. This in turn demands heavy armor to withstand the the inevitable ground-fire, which in turn demands yet more power if sufficient performance and agility to defend against fighter attack is going to be sustained. Barring that, then allowance must be made for a rear-gunner and weapons of sufficient firepower to repel fighters.Yet more weight... More weight> more power needed >larger airframe> more vulnerable> rear-gunners, more armor > more weight...a vicious circle that the technology of the day simply could not break. Neither the armament, the armor, or the engines existed to make the cannon-armed tankbuster a viable weapon on a hotly-contested battlefield. Not 'til thirty years later did a truly effective armored, big-gun tank-killer become a reality

The qualities required to make an a/c a viable combat weapon include more than imposing firepower and armor. First and foremost, it must be survivable and reliable. The Hs 129 was neither. The Ju-87 and the Il-2/10 were reliable but in the absence of local air superiority, were not survivable. That some pilots ran up impressive scores (scores that are likely excessive to an order of magnitude...) is more a reflection of the exceptionable abilities of the individual men than it is of their weapons. (It reminds me of the Finnish success with the Buffalo. Maybe it was one of the 'best' too...) The Jug (and even moreso, the F4U*), OTOH was both, and had specialized anti-tank units been armed and trained for the task as was done by the Germans, they would have been much more effective than they were. The P-47 is simply a much better a/c than the others. And napalm is a terrifyingly effective weapon against both tanks, and the morale of the men inside them. Just ask the N.Korean and Chinese tankers...

Where were those esteemed German big-gun 'panzerknackers' in the last desperate year of the war? Other than Rudel's elite little group, the so-called 'best' were no more, blown out of the skies, their few surviving pilots flying the very able, if less-specialized Fw-190 fighter-bombers against the ever-encroaching hordes of enemy armor. Curious indeed...

JL

* I prefer the F4U as a fighter-bomber, but as it only fought against the very inferior Japanese tanks, I went with the P-47.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 1, 2008)

Picks form this forum: Structural integrity of the P-47 why Oleg is wrong! - Topic Powered by eve community



> The plane shown above was flown by Lt. Karl Hallberg of my fighter group, the 366th. He had one hung bomb and tried to land at our base at Asch, Belgium, in January 1945. As you can see, the bomb fell off and exploded, but, amazingly, Lt. Hallberg survived. He suffered a head injury, but made a full recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 2, 2008)

buzzard said:


> I checked out Tony's website, finding the 'Brit WWII Multi' interesting, but not esp convincing...


In what respects? I've received a comment from an aeronautical engineer who likes examining old designs that the proposal is entirely feasible.



> As cannon fire must directly impact the tank to be effective, accuracy demands a close-range attack at very low-altitude, the slower the speed the better.


I don't think so - from what I recall of the Hurri IID accounts they were going flat-out when they attacked. 

Besides, exactly the same could be said of planes firing rockets or dropping bombs, if they wanted to hit a small target.



> Neither the armament, the armor, or the engines existed to make the cannon-armed tankbuster a viable weapon on a hotly-contested battlefield. Not 'til thirty years later did a truly effective armored, big-gun tank-killer become a reality.


It depends what you mean by "viable weapon". It was certainly possible to make a good ground-attack plane which was well-protected and armed with a gun powerful enough to be effective against tanks - but no-one quite managed to put the combination together. 

If you mean something which can dice with fighters on equal terms as well as survive hits from ground fire and knock out tanks, you're right - but the same applies to the A-10: that would get eaten alive by a contemporary air combat fighters. 



> The qualities required to make an a/c a viable combat weapon include more than imposing firepower and armor. First and foremost, it must be survivable and reliable. The Hs 129 was neither.


? I know the engines had reliability problems, but the Hs 129 was heavily armoured against ground fire. It was the closest WW2 equivalent to the A-10.



> Where were those esteemed German big-gun 'panzerknackers' in the last desperate year of the war? Other than Rudel's elite little group, the so-called 'best' were no more, blown out of the skies, their few surviving pilots flying the very able, if less-specialized Fw-190 fighter-bombers against the ever-encroaching hordes of enemy armor. Curious indeed...



Not curious at all, but entirely understandable. The Luftwaffe was no longer able to provide air cover against the massive air supremacy of the Allies, so any specialised ground-attack plane was a dead duck. They were forced to use ground-attack versions of fighter-bombers, but in doing so they lost a lot of effectiveness, specifically in attacking point targets like tanks (I should add that the fighter-bombers were also considerably less accurate in bombing than the specialised dive-bombers like the Ju 87).

Basically, with the planes which actually saw service in WW2, you had a choice between versatile fighter-bombers which had little ability to kill tanks, or accurate tank-killers which couldn't survive against air opposition.

Of course, if my proposed multi-role plane had been built, it would have had a fighter-like performance, good armour protection and a tank-killing gun.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 2, 2008)

As renrich pointed out, the F4U was nearly as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD (and about the same as the SB2C), so there's at least one big exception to the fighter-bombers being less accurate bombers. (although in this context, bombing a tank with anything other than napalm would be very difficult, even for a dedicated dive bomber)


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 2, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> As renrich pointed out, the F4U was nearly as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD (and about the same as the SB2C), so there's at least one big exception to the fighter-bombers being less accurate bombers. (although in this context, bombing a tank with anything other than napalm would be very difficult, even for a dedicated dive bomber)



I don't know what actual accuracy figures these planes achieved. The figures for average miss distances I have read are c.30m for a good Ju 87 crew and 120-140m for a Typhoon. Of course, even 30m isn't good enough to reliably knock out a tank (although it would give the crew one hell of a battering).


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2008)

Or possibly knock a track off...

Tony, in ur opinion, where do u rate the 190F-8 Panzerblitzer II??? There are a few of us purists who think that arrangement with those R4M powered bastards was the best multiroller tank buster.... 

The thought of comparing a suped up, fire snortin 190F-8 at treetop level to a big hunkering beast like the 47 is almost appalling...

And as far as Im concerned, the only dedicated tank buster created in WW2 was the Hs 129B...


----------



## buzzard (Jun 2, 2008)

Tony,

My comment on your 'British Multi' was not derogatory. I do find it interesting and well-thought out (I like the rest of your site, too) but I'm not convinced that it would work as well on the battlefield as it does on paper. But who knows...On the same topic, what do you think of the Beech XA-28 Grizzly? It seems awfully big to me...

My comment about the need for gun attacks to be carried out at lower speeds concerns accuracy. A gun cannot accomplish anything without a direct hit. Even a glancing blow is generally ineffective. I'm not sure what speed the heavily-laden Hurricane IID could achieve on the deck, but I suspect it was not much more than 250mph. And the German and Soviet gunships were even slower. A napalm strike is effective from 50-60 feet away in azimuth, and as JoeB mentioned, short hits can also be very effective. Complete accuracy is not required. Nor will heavier armor stop the insidious burning ooze from finding its way into the cracks and crevices of the big tanks.

I'm not so dogmatic as to insist that a dedicated tank-buster must be able to tackle fighters on an even basis, per se. I just believe that it should be more than a sitting duck. The comparison of the Hs 129 to the A-10 is IMO, unjustified. That both are armored, and have big guns is merely superficial. What matters are the a/c themselves. Their qualities are very different. The A-10 is very manoueverable and gives the pilot excellent all-round visibility. The Hs 129 was the polar opposite. The A-10 is very damage-resistant, and reliable The Hs 129 was extremely vulnerable to even small-arms fire, and had a woeful serviceability record ( of the 12 a/c of the squadron ordered to Tunis, only 8 arrived...of which only 4 were considered serviceable) The gun of the A-10 is effective against Soviet armor. The Hs 129 was largely ineffective against the better Soviet tanks. And in defending against fighter attack, the agility, excellent visibility, rapid-fire gun, and optional Sidewinder armament gives the A-10 pilot a very sporting chance to escape. Not so the blinkered, sluggish, and vulnerable Hs 129. The Hs-129 and Il-2/10 are fundamentally different from the A-10, even allowing for the technological gap.

While the less-specialized fighter-bombers may seem less effective than the dedicated big-gun tankbusters, an argument can be made that the opposite is true.

While the WWII B-G TB was more effective on a per-pass basis, the inherent vulnerability of the a/c, and their absolute requirement for constant fighter support probably made them a less efficient use of resources (both men and materiel) than the more versatile FBs such as the P-47 and F-4U. The FBs may need to make more passes than the B-G TBs, but their ability to defend themselves meant that more a/c could be actually attacking the enemy. Nor do they need to waste time escorting slow-moving a/c back and forth. Add in their higher survivability and reliability, and their superiority over the B-G TBs is undeniable. 

Making a flight of P-47s or the Corsairs into better tank-busters would not have demanded bigger engines, bigger and heavier guns (and the systems to handle those guns) or other difficult-to-achieve requirements. All that was needed was better training and more napalm...napalm, that even if it had missed, would have terrorized the enemy tankers and, unless they were made of very stern stuff indeed, sent them scurrying from the battlefield. 

Of course, if your idealized 'big-gun tank-buster' would actually work as well as you imagine, I retract my support for the lowly Jug 

JL


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 2, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Hi Tony
> There are indeed quite a few references that suggest the presence of Japanese tanks at the Imphal-Kohima battles, however, this is not supported by the Japanese reference materiel



Interesting Parsifal, I just had a quick flick through "The air battle of Imphal" by Norman Franks and he states that 20 sqn RAF (Hurricane IID) knocked out 12 tanks in June 44. Franks states that the squadron was operating inside the valley, finding the tanks in the Southern end. Apparently 20 sqn weren't flying outside the valley because it was too dangerous to fly over the mountains due to the monsoonal clouds which were obscuring the tops.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 2, 2008)

Wildcat said:


> Interesting Parsifal, I just had a quick flick through "The air battle of Imphal" by Norman Franks and he states that 20 sqn RAF (Hurricane IID) knocked out 12 tanks in June 44. Franks states that the squadron was operating inside the valley, finding the tanks in the Southern end. Apparently 20 sqn weren't flying outside the valley because it was too dangerous to fly over the mountains due to the monsoonal clouds which were obscuring the tops.



I was sure about my facts when I started this, but now I am starting to get confused......I cant seem to make much sense of it all, the dates, the activities, the locations are just not adding up for me....

Its quite feasible for the allies to be knocking out tanks in June '44, because by that time the Japanese had retreated. They were back on the eastern side of the ranges by then, retreating towards their supply heads, with the Allies hot on their heels. What doesnt gel in this case is the statement about the a/c not wanting to cross the mountains. In order for the allies to be attacking Japanese in that "Imphal-Mandalay" axis, they would have had to be overflying numerous mountains by that time.

My reading of the basic history is this....the Imphal-Kohima battles were fought March-April, and early May 1944. The Japanese then finally retreated, believing that the Monsoons would cover their retreat. The allies did not react as expected, and instead broke into a hot pursuit that enable them to capture suitable jump off points inside of Burma once the wet had stopped in mid-october. At the same time this was all happening, the Allies, being basically a mix of Chinese, US (under Merrill) and CW forces managed to capture Mytikina, thereby making it possible to start the Ledo Road to China.

Im not as good a student as you guys about the aircraft histories, but I am not too bad with the general operational history stuff. I cant seem to reconcile what is being said here (your post, and Tony's) with the general history stuff. I dont doubt the veracity of what you and Tony are saying, but neither can I work it out. Its just the details that are wrong....


----------



## tpikdave (Jun 3, 2008)

buzzard.....

Since you mentioned this aircraft, I thought why not give my "firsthand" account as to what I perceive its capabilities to be. 

In 1989(not too sure about the date) I was lucky enough to be able to participate in the "Gathering Of Eagles" USAF Capabilities Exercise at Nellis AFB as a communications tech. There, I was able to witness up close and personal, the destructive power of the A10. I had been working at Nellis, and the Indian Springs AAFB gunnery and bombing range. I was on "hot" ranges many times and was able to see all kinds of aircraft scoring hits and misses on the various ranges. I have to say, the A10 was unmistakably the best weapons delivery system in the USAF inventory. 

At the "Gathering Of Eagles" VIP capabilities demo three A10's came in on a convoy of 4 M60A1 tanks, two tanker trucks, 4 APC's and a couple of trucks. There was one pass using the GAU-8 gun of each of the three aircraft. Thats all it took. There was not one target left that was viable or not on fire. I will never forget the sound. At the time I looked at my buddy and said, it sounds like "God's zipper"!!


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 3, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Tony, in ur opinion, where do u rate the 190F-8 Panzerblitzer II??? There are a few of us purists who think that arrangement with those R4M powered bastards was the best multiroller tank buster....


I have no specific information on the combat record of the 190F series. However, it was an interesting and logial approach to producing a reasonably well-protected ground attack aircraft which still maintained some self-defence capability against fighters. 

The main problem with switching to the 190F from the Ju 87 is that they gave up the ability to deploy the cluster bombs which were among the more effective anti-tank weapons. And while they tried hanging a pair of 30mm MK 103 under the wings, excessive recoil meant that these were too inaccurate.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 3, 2008)

buzzard said:


> On the same topic, what do you think of the Beech XA-28 Grizzly? It seems awfully big to me...


I agree - size is not a benefit for a close-support plane, it just makes it a bigger target.



> My comment about the need for gun attacks to be carried out at lower speeds concerns accuracy.


I'm not so sure that speed affects accuracy very much, but it will affect the number of shots the pilot has time to fire. Even so, the Tsetse (which was probably travelling fast when it attacked, although I have no specific info on that) had time to fire four 57mm rounds per pass. And with a 33% hit rate against a tank-sized target, that meant one tank per pass.



> The Hs 129 was extremely vulnerable to even small-arms fire,


I am surprised to read that, since the Hs 129 carried more armour than any WW2 plane except for the Il-2. if it was indeed vulnerable (compared with a P-47 say) that means the designers must have made some fairly major errors.



> The Hs-129 and Il-2/10 are fundamentally different from the A-10, even allowing for the technological gap.


The design purpose is the same, and the concept of substantial armour plating also, plus the ability to carry a big gun (for the Hs 129 anyway - the Il-2 was less successful at that). Of course, the execution of the design was very different, but I stand by my statement that the Hs 129 and A-10 were conceptually closely related.

An A-10 would be picked off by a radar-equipped fighter firing radar-homing missiles long before it could get within Sidewinder range. In aerial combat, speed and weapon range are what matter.



> While the less-specialized fighter-bombers may seem less effective than the dedicated big-gun tankbusters, an argument can be made that the opposite is true.


The USAAF/USAF has always made that argument. They regard fighter-bombers as far more versatile than CAS planes because they can be switched to other priorities when required. They also, I suspect, are doctrinally opposed to CAS because it subordinates the USAF to the needs of the army. They have on at least two occasions tried to scrap the A-10 fleet (in the early 1990s they produced a few "A-16" planes with a 30mm gunpod, but this proved a failure). Conversely, the army loves CAS planes like the A-10 for exactly the same reasons that the USAF hates them!



> Of course, if your idealized 'big-gun tank-buster' would actually work as well as you imagine, I retract my support for the lowly Jug


I should perhaps clarify that the ground attack version of my "multi-purpose compact twin" concept for the WW2 RAF was not really a dedicated tankbuster, but was more a fighter-bomber in the 190F mould: take one fighter and add armour to enhance protection against ground fire. It would have been comparable in size, weight and performance to the P-47, only with the safety benefit of two engines and with the ability to carry a big gun on the fuselage centreline - as well as a couple of 20mm cannon and all the RPs and bombs you could ask for  

The problem with napalm (and, probably to a lesser extent, the cluster bombs like the Russian PTAB) was the huge safety distance from friendly troops. Even when dropping ordinary bombs, the P-47 was limited to attacking no less than 250 yards from friendly troops. I don't know the distance for napalm but I suspect it would have been even greater. With a big gun firing solid ammo you can open fire extremely close to friendly troops.


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 3, 2008)

tpikdave said:


> At the "Gathering Of Eagles" VIP capabilities demo three A10's came in on a convoy of 4 M60A1 tanks, two tanker trucks, 4 APC's and a couple of trucks. There was one pass using the GAU-8 gun of each of the three aircraft. Thats all it took. There was not one target left that was viable or not on fire.



Effectiveness against modern tanks isn't necessarily that devastating. This is an extract from *Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945*

"The 30 mm GAU 8/A in the A 10 "tankbuster" can get 80% of its shots within 5 mil, equal to 9 m dispersion at the 1,800 m maximum range. On test, the A-10 managed to hit a tank with about 10% of the shots fired at ranges varying between 500 and 1,340 m; a performance which has almost certainly improved since the LASTE package (low altitude safety and target enhancement), including a radio altimeter, autopilot and ballistic computer, was fitted in the 1990s. Incidentally, of the hits scored (against Russian T-62 tanks) just under 20% penetrated the armour (i.e. 2% of shots fired), although many others extensively damaged the track and suspension."​
I should point out that the ballistics of the GAU 8/A's ammo are very similar to those of the Luftwaffe's MK 103 firing Hartkernmunition; the main differences being the DU rather than tungsten core, and of course the ten-times-higher rate of fire.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

Wasn't the muzel velocity of the Mk 103 (for AP round) ~760 m/s for a ~500g AP round? (much slower than the GAU-8's ammo)

For the much lighter ~330g HE(M) round MV was ~940 m/s iirc (same ammo as the MK 101) Although, due to the lighter structure of the gun, acording to some sourses it was reduced to 860 m/s for HE ammo. (full propellant load was used on AP ammo though as it was deemed worth the risk)


----------



## Tony Williams (Jun 3, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Wasn't the muzel velocity of the Mk 103 (for AP round) ~760 m/s? (much slower than the GAU-8's ammo)
> 
> For the much lighter ~330g HE(M) round MV was ~940 m/s iirc (same ammo as the MK 101) Although, due to the lighter structure of the gun, it was usually reduced to 860 m/s for HE ammo. (full propellant load was used on AP ammo though)



The M-Geschoss loading was derated to 860 m/s as you say, because of concerns over the longevity of the gun compared with the MK 101.

However, the Hartkern loading was kept at 940 m/s for 355g (compared with the GAU-8/A's 988 m/s for 425g). The GAU-8 is clearly more powerful than the MK 103 (with the DU providing a further improvement of 10-15% in effectiveness) but it doesn't outclass it.


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> I was sure about my facts when I started this, but now I am starting to get confused......I cant seem to make much sense of it all, the dates, the activities, the locations are just not adding up for me....
> 
> Its quite feasible for the allies to be knocking out tanks in June '44, because by that time the Japanese had retreated. They were back on the eastern side of the ranges by then, retreating towards their supply heads, with the Allies hot on their heels. What doesnt gel in this case is the statement about the a/c not wanting to cross the mountains. In order for the allies to be attacking Japanese in that "Imphal-Mandalay" axis, they would have had to be overflying numerous mountains by that time.
> 
> ...



G'day parsifal, I'm no expert on the Imphal-Kohima battles myself, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the book I mentioned. I only mentioned it because I recalled the use of the Hurricane IID's against Japanese tanks and when you said they weren't there, it struck me as being odd. Maybe the author got his dates and /or places confused, i don't know, however looking further along he contradicts himself by stating that only 3 tanks were destroyed and 18 damaged (by the whole of 221 group). Anyway, I'm confused and as you seem to be more knowledable on this theatre than I, I'm inclined to take your word.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2008)

On the Japanese tanks issue;

I've been going through my books again and it's quite confusing. I've read that as the Japanese forces built up for their offensive on Imphal they had to abandon all heavy material because the railroad could not support them as the Allied airforces had taken a heavy toll (reducing movements to less than 400 tons per day).

This led to the 54th Division to arrive by sea, while others marched along the unfinished railway line. The Japanese had to abandon motor transport, anti-tank guns and artillery pieces while marching to the jump-off point for the Imphal offensive. 

Then later I'm told that 221 Group and USAAF aircraft were attacking massive motor transport columns with great success (no tanks are mentioned). 

Further in, there's the meeting between 14/13th Frontier Force Rifles and a "strong Japanese force supported by tanks." on March 4th. On March 14th in Witok the 3rd Carabiniers with six M3 Lee tanks had to come to the aid of 100th Indian brigade who were facing 215th regiment supported by tanks.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

Maybe this can help you guy's: Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Imphal: The 14th Tank Regiment was assigned to support the offensive. The regiment was equipped with 66 tanks (Type 95 Light Tanks, Type 97-Improved Medium Tanks, some captured M3 Light Tanks, Type 97 Tankettes, and Type 1 75mm SPH).

The 100th Indian Brigade had an attached tank unit, known as Claudecol.

The Japanese assumed that the British would be unable to use tanks on the steep jungle-covered hills around Imphal. For the sake of ease of movement and supply, the Japanese were leaving behind most of their field artillery, their chief anti-tank weapon. As a result, the Japanese troops would have very little protection against tanks if these were in fact used against them.

On 13 April the Indian 5th Division counter-attacked, supported by massed artillery and the M3 Lee tanks of the 3rd Carabiniers. The Japanese regiment had no anti-tank weapons, and their troops were driven from the ridge with heavy casualties. 


So to my understanding both sides had tanks and these could also be moved in the respective terrain.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2008)

Ive read those articles as well, but there are other articles that seem to contrdict it, and then there is the geography...if the Japs had tanks at imphal, how did they get there?????? i will concede the point if anyone can provide the answer to that.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Ive read those articles as well, but there are other articles that seem to contrdict it, and then there is the geography...if the Japs had tanks at imphal, how did they get there?????? i will concede the point if anyone can provide the answer to that.



They were airdroped by Ar234's  Just joking okay

If the British got their tanks there, then why shouldn't the Japs have?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (Jun 3, 2008)

tpikdave said:


> buzzard.....
> 
> Since you mentioned this aircraft, I thought why not give my "firsthand" account as to what I perceive its capabilities to be.
> 
> ...



I just finished watching a firepower demo at Gila bend at end of April. The Euro Fighter was going through joint command paces, the F-16 and F-15E was there but most impressively, the A-10 was there.

As you noted, the close range stuff was simply devastating - but they also made a relatively high angle long slant range pass at some T72/80s and the 30mm intert puched through the entire aft deck from at least 1200-1500 meters. The close stuf f was a mix of HEI and AP and it looked like the long range stuff was same mix.

Awesome weapon. I'm still waiting on the pics from the range tower on the short range passes.

I was told we have not lost an A-10, and they are in high threat environments on the Pakistani border as well as (less frequently) the Iraqi airspace.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 3, 2008)

There were also the 500 g HE/AP MK-103 round with a mch lower velocity. But that doesn't seem to have been the standard loading.

An introduction to collecting 30 mm cannon ammunition

According to the chart the 355g AP round also has the highest Muzzel energy of the MK-101/103 30x184B rounds.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jun 4, 2008)

Something interesting to note in that previous quote I posted with the P-47 pics. (from an Il-2 gaming forum). I didn't know about Robert S. Johnson's P-47C being repaired and issued to the 9th AF. And after being shot up with 21x 20mm HE cannon shells and hundreds of 7.92mm rounds. 



> Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint". Detail shot of damage to canopy area
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tpikdave (Jun 6, 2008)

I have a 30 mike-mike shell from an A10 magazine sitting on my shelf in my computer room. It was given to me by a tech at Nellis AFB. Of course it has a blue (for practice/inert) projectile, but its still a prized possesion along with three "hand signed" TBird photos.


----------



## JugBR (Jun 26, 2008)

i dont know if it is nazi propaganda or true, but i´ve heard about stukas being a very psicologycal weapon also. by its engine´s noise when diving. 

there´s an extensive services record of these planes in easter front and many german aces flew the stuka.

but i believe the "black death" besides of being a miserable plane, must have some credit, because it killed panzers and people says panzers was hard to kill. also they had faced some flaks, wich also was a real terror of allied planes like the jugs when designated for ground attacks


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 26, 2008)

Oh for Christsakes sakes dude, atleast get something right in ur post...

The screaming sound of the Stuka in a dive was from these small propellers mounted on the landing gear strut, not from the engine....

And last time I checked, the Stuka was a German plane, and Panzers were German as well, so............ Go read some old posts here and get urself edumacated........


----------



## JugBR (Jun 27, 2008)

JugBR said:


> but i believe the "black death" besides of being a miserable plane, must have some credit, because it killed panzers and people says panzers was hard to kill. also they had faced some flaks, wich also was a real terror of allied planes like the jugs when designated for ground attacks






lesofprimus said:


> Oh for Christsakes sakes dude, atleast get something right in ur post...
> 
> The screaming sound of the Stuka in a dive was from these small propellers mounted on the landing gear strut, not from the engine....
> 
> And last time I checked, the Stuka was a German plane, and Panzers were German as well, so............ Go read some old posts here and get urself edumacated........



ok ! lollll


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 17, 2008)

Hello.
I don´t know if the small props on the landing-gear on the JU-87 Stuka produce the screaming sound if the plane dives, but i know the german name for this system: "Jericho-Sirenen" (roughly translated "Trumpets of Jericho").
In the first years of the war, these planes have a high psychologic effect on the enemy. My grandfather fought in Poland, France and Russia and told my grandma that he was sometimes a eyewitness when Stuka´s dived, after they drop there bombs on enemy fortifications, again with screaming "Jericho-Sirenen" down on the enemy which run away because the sound of the "Jericho-Sirenen" makes them insane.

Sorry for my bad english.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 17, 2008)

Ki-43-I Hayabusa said:


> Hello.
> I don´t know if the small props on the landing-gear on the JU-87 Stuka produce the screaming sound if the plane dives, but i know the german name for this system: "Jericho-Sirenen" (roughly translated "Trumpets of Jericho").
> In the first years of the war, these planes have a high psychologic effect on the enemy. My grandfather fought in Poland, France and Russia and told my grandma that he was sometimes a eyewitness when Stuka´s dived, after they drop there bombs on enemy fortifications, again with screaming "Jericho-Sirenen" down on the enemy which run away because the sound of the "Jericho-Sirenen" makes them insane.
> 
> Sorry for my bad english.



stuka was a very tactical weapon and also psycological used by luftwaffe, i wish see some image of that trumpets of jericoh, the noise is really impressive, i can figure how does people in the ground should be scared when listen that sound


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2008)

And this has ZERO bearing on the conversation of Tank Busting, as the Ju 87G models had these small propleers removed....


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 17, 2008)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/jericho-device-11598.html

Anyway It's different from the Stuka's siren.


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 19, 2008)

@ Lesofprimus.
Recently, I see on a photo in a german A/C-Magazine that these props are even removed on the JU-87-D STUKA. Maybe there aren´t the "Trumpets of Jericho"? I think my dad tell´s me one time when i was a boy those system was sometimes described as "Motorsirene" (enginesirene)!


----------



## JugBR (Jul 20, 2008)

Ki-43-I Hayabusa said:


> @ Lesofprimus.
> Recently, I see on a photo in a german A/C-Magazine that these props are even removed on the JU-87-D STUKA. Maybe there aren´t the "Trumpets of Jericho"? I think my dad tell´s me one time when i was a boy those system was sometimes described as "Motorsirene" (enginesirene)!



but these props makes noise by its movement against the stream or did they converts some power for an eletrical motorsirene ?


----------



## Ki-43-I Hayabusa (Jul 20, 2008)

@ JugBR
I don´t know. I ask this question in another, german forum, maybe i get an answer.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Sep 1, 2008)

The il-2 destroyed more tanks than any other plane, tank, anti tank, tank destroyer ect. I think thats grounds for the best tank destroyer of world war two.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 1, 2008)

It was also produced in greater numbers than any other combat aircraft in history -36,000+ built. (though the Bf 109 is a close second at ~35,000)


----------



## ratdog (Sep 25, 2008)

actually the jericho sirenen was not located on the landing strut, rather it was on the bottom of the engine cowling. ;]


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

nevermind it was on the landing gear OOPS!


----------



## kool kitty89 (Sep 27, 2008)

You sure, that small "propeller" on the gear leg isn't the siren.


----------



## ratdog (Sep 27, 2008)

nope im sure i thought they were then i was looking at some ww2 reading material while on the pot and kind of stumbled upon it


----------



## Airframes (Oct 4, 2008)

Seem to recall that the small 'propellor' on the gear strut is a generator? Also, although a siren was apparently attached to the JU87, and I don't doubt this, I have been told that the 'screaming' noise in the dive was mainly the result of airflow over the dive brakes/ trailing edge slats, which makes sense.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 4, 2008)

Airframes said:


> Seem to recall that the small 'propellor' on the gear strut is a generator? .



Hi Terry. According to this cutaway, it's a siren.

151..."Siren fairing"
153..."Wind-driven siren"


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 4, 2008)

Well that clears that up. Now bact to actual on-topic discussions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Well that clears that up. Now bact to actual on-topic discussions.



How is that not ontopic? They were discussing an aircraft that was used as a tank killer as well...


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 5, 2008)

But we (note I was part of that particular discussion too) were discussing a feature (the siren) not used on the Ju 87G. (as les pointed out on the previous page)

But I guess my comment about it being off topic was a bit unnecessary since that tangent really wasn't interupting any ongoing discussion in this thread.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But I guess my comment about it being off topic was a bit unnecessary since that tangent really wasn't interupting any ongoing discussion in this thread.



Thanks


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 26, 2008)

To save three days of reading have any conclusions been drawn on this topic or is it still based around the Il-2 vrs the Ju 87G. Are we only taking into consideration number of kills or actuall aircraft capabilities. The Typhoon has no doubt been nominated. Has any consideration been given to the Mosquitoes that flew were given over to ground attack role?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2008)

No Mossies were not included in the discussion....

It has revolved around 4 aircraft, the 87G, the IL2, the Typhoon and the 190F-8 Panzerblitz..... Most with an educated opinion rank the 190F-8 above the rest...

Most.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

Hey, don't forget the Hs 129. (not to mention the US Fighter-Bombers) 

I think a P-47D with armed with 10x 5" HVAR would be comperable with the Fw-190. (the Corsair was in there too, but didn't do much in this area -though quite capable-, Japanese tanks not being a major air target. And then there's the Corsair's oil cooler vulnerability -but the same for the Il-2)


----------



## P-Popsie (Oct 26, 2008)

Cool cheers for that, i of course realize that there are few instances of direct action by mosquitoes against tanks though i would imagine there would be some interesting stories to come out of the Ops. logs of the 2TAF. {Feel free if anyone knows of these Stories} That aside taken on face value the Stability and Firepower of the "Tetse Fly" 57mm armed variant would i immagine pop open a Tiger Tank Quite nicely as a hypothetical


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 26, 2008)

Yes, but how well would the Mossie stand up against ground fire; fairly light wooden construction and liquid cooled engines.


----------



## Waynos (Oct 26, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> ...Most with an educated opinion rank the 190F-8 above the rest...
> 
> Most.




Oooooooooh, get her! 


How would you guys rank the Hurricane in this discussion. IIRC it was very successful in the desert campaign?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Oct 27, 2008)

I think it was thrown out of the competition due to the liquid cooled engine. (with vulnerable radiator, Il-2's radiator was an exception, though the oil cooler was still somewhat vulnerable, like with the Corsair)

It was a pretty sturdy aircraft though and would probably fair better against fighters than an Il-2 or Hs 129. (but much less capable than the higher performance fighter bombers, especially those without bulky rocket rails or tubes)


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Nov 21, 2008)

Ju-87 with the cannons on the wings. How Hans Ulrich Udel's record with 2,000 ground targets. 519 of them tanks


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 22, 2008)

Rudels numbers are Propaganda numbers.... Divide those numbers by 2 or possibly 3 to get the true numbers...

Take a look into the Fw 190F-8 Panzerblitz if u want to see the all around champion in this catagory....


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Hmmm....while it's true that Rudel was a true believer Nazi Sheet - even after the war was over ...unlike, say, Hartmann, who was a fighter pilot first and foremost...

I suspect Rudel's numbers were substantially true. Remember, because he was a Luftwaffe and Nazi star, he had quite a lot of cover on his ass, so the greatest danger to him was ground fire.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 5, 2008)

Rudels numbers were and are definatly compromised... How much so only Rudel knows... To say that they were "substantially" true just shows ur ignorance...

Propoganda is propoganda, whether its Russian, German, British or American... Rudel was a great Nazi and a great pilot, but he was Goebbels greatest propoganda tool...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

My statement on Rudel's 500 plus tanks is based on research, and also on this logic:

Let's say that Goebbel's propaganda machine DID want to provide hope to the home front and the German Army on the Eastern Front by providing a myth of the Aryan Flyboy superman who killed three (Russian) divisions of tanks all by his lonesome. 

If so, why the disparity between Rudel and the next highest scorer, who killed a mere 100 + tanks? We don't see this disparity in the GAF where Erich Hartman with 350+ was closely followed by Barkhorn and others...

Or in the U-boat war where the tonnage claims of the top 5 aces were fairly close, too. 

So why only the tank killers? Doesn't add up. Nah, I think Rudel's claims are substantially true.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

Propaganda aside, in pretty much all cases, on all sides, claims (and "confirmed kills") tend to be greatly exaggerated (to varying degrees) when compared to official enemy losses.

And in aircraft tank "kills" in particular, a tank may apear to be hit when the round failed to penetrate the armour. (and even when a tank is hit, by cannon, RP, or bomb, they were often just temporarily disabled)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

Yeah, that's true. I believe the system used by the USAF today is mobility Kill, and Total K-kill....right? I think there are more categories than the two I just remembered...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2008)

We have some experts on this site that confirm what Im saying... Rudels real numbers are far below his 500+... I love what he did with his 87G, the guy was unsurpassed, hellova leader, and most of all a survivor...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 28, 2008)

I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter. 

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2008)

I will have to go with the Fw 190F-8 for the same reasons you said. Besides it was a proven tank killer.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 28, 2008)

The P-47 compared to several other tank busters listed here is a poor choice...


----------



## Venganza (Dec 28, 2008)

Clay_Allison said:


> I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.
> 
> This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.



However, while you're lining up for your free kill, ignoring the 12.7mm tracers streaking past you from the IL-2's rear gunner, the Yak or Lavochkin escorting the Ilyusha blast your tail off. I'm talking post mid-1943, not 1941 or 1942 when the escort was poor or non-existent.

Venganza


----------



## comiso90 (Dec 28, 2008)

Clay_Allison said:


> I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.
> 
> This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.



What is your P-47 armed with?

Rockets weren't as effective as a lot of people think and they're far less practical then a cannon.

As a convoy buster and interdiction machine, yes the Thunderbolt was a God along with the Tempest but it wasnt much of a "tank buster" compared to the rest.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> What is your P-47 armed with?
> 
> Rockets weren't as effective as a lot of people think and they're far less practical then a cannon.
> 
> As a convoy buster and interdiction machine, yes the Thunderbolt was a God along with the Tempest but it wasnt much of a "tank buster" compared to the rest.



Agreed

Looking at a realistic point of view, I think the best tank busters are:

Focke Wulf Fw 190F-8

Henschel Hs 129

Junkers Ju 87G-1/G-2 (obviously not great against other aircraft, but as a tank buster very effective).

Hawker Hurricane Mk. IID or Mk. IV

Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 28, 2008)

Venganza said:


> However, while you're lining up for your free kill, ignoring the 12.7mm tracers streaking past you from the IL-2's rear gunner, the Yak or Lavochkin escorting the Ilyusha blast your tail off. I'm talking post mid-1943, not 1941 or 1942 when the escort was poor or non-existent.
> 
> Venganza


That rear gunner had no protection on the Il-2, my first burst would probably kill the poor bastard. 

If he had escorts, that's different, with escorts the best was probably the Ju-87.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 28, 2008)

If ur an Experten, u attack a Sturmovik from below and aim for his oil reservoir, thus ignoring the little pop gun....


----------



## Venganza (Dec 28, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> If ur an Experten, u attack a Sturmovik from below and aim for his oil reservoir, thus ignoring the little pop gun....



That little pop gun was a 12.7mm Berezin heavy machine gun with HE shells. However, Clay_Allison is right about the vulnerability of the rear gunner position and Les, the technique you mention would work at a reasonable altitude (say, above 1500 feet or so?), but obviously is impossible at low altitudes (hard to come from below if the IL-2 is at 300 feet - at this altitude, the IL-2 is vulnerable to ground fire, but that's another matter). At more reasonable altitudes, even an experten would have to deal with escorts (again, I'm talking from 1943 on). To be effective, most ground attack planes, tankbusters or not, are going to need effective escorts in any well-defended aerial environment. The list Adler provides is a good list, and all those planes would need escorts, with the possible exception of the 190.

Venganza


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 29, 2008)

Venganza said:


> That little pop gun was a 12.7mm Berezin heavy machine gun with HE shells. However, Clay_Allison is right about the vulnerability of the rear gunner position and Les, the technique you mention would work at a reasonable altitude (say, above 1500 feet or so?), but obviously is impossible at low altitudes (hard to come from below if the IL-2 is at 300 feet - at this altitude, the IL-2 is vulnerable to ground fire, but that's another matter). At more reasonable altitudes, even an experten would have to deal with escorts (again, I'm talking from 1943 on). To be effective, most ground attack planes, tankbusters or not, are going to need effective escorts in any well-defended aerial environment. The list Adler provides is a good list, and all those planes would need escorts, with the possible exception of the 190.
> 
> Venganza


The 190 was a very good fighter plane, it would not have needed an escort. Fw 190s deserved a ton of respect.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 29, 2008)

Clay_Allison said:


> The 190 was a very good fighter plane, it would not have needed an escort. Fw 190s deserved a ton of respect.



Not entirely true on the no escort part. If you're talking F-8s, they were much heavier armoured, and they generally were carrying large payloads, and had some of their guns deleted. While they would be able to put up a much better fight than a Stuka or an Il-2, they were not really a match for any pure fighter that was sent up to shoot it down. If you're talking As on the other hand, then no, it would not have needed an escort.


----------



## Venganza (Dec 29, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> Not entirely true on the no escort part. If you're talking F-8s, they were much heavier armoured, and they generally were carrying large payloads, and had some of their guns deleted. While they would be able to put up a much better fight than a Stuka or an Il-2, they were not really a match for any pure fighter that was sent up to shoot it down. If you're talking As on the other hand, then no, it would not have needed an escort.



I agree, Catch22. Clay_Allison is certainly correct about a fighter Fw-190, but the Fw-190F-8 was optimized for the ground attack role, which meant it wasn't optimized for the air-to-air role and might have had a hard time against a P-51D or an La-7, even after dropping its ordnance. As you say, it certainly would have handled itself better in air-to-air than the true bombers like the Ju-87 or IL-2. Adequate escort is still key to maximum efficiency for any optimized attack aircraft in a well-defended environment. Even if it's a capable fighter after expending its ordnance, it would need protection before and during its attack run.

Venganza


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 29, 2008)

Venganza said:


> I agree, Catch22. Clay_Allison is certainly correct about a fighter Fw-190, but the Fw-190F-8 was optimized for the ground attack role, which meant it wasn't optimized for the air-to-air role and might have had a hard time against a P-51D or an La-7, even after dropping its ordnance. As you say, it certainly would have handled itself better in air-to-air than the true bombers like the Ju-87 or IL-2. Adequate escort is still key to maximum efficiency for any optimized attack aircraft in a well-defended environment. Even if it's a capable fighter after expending its ordnance, it would need protection before and during its attack run.
> 
> Venganza


I'd put my money on the 190 (assuming it has already discharged its ordnance) against the La-7 on the calculated guess that the German pilot is competent and the Soviet pilot is likely to be a 16 year old farm boy who doesn't know his way around a woman, much less a fighter plane.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 29, 2008)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'd put my money on the 190 (assuming it has already discharged its ordnance) against the La-7 on the calculated guess that the German pilot is competent and the Soviet pilot is likely to be a 16 year old farm boy who doesn't know his way around a woman, much less a fighter plane.



That is entirely false. The La-7 was an excellent aircraft at low levels, and by the time it entered service the roles (though still exaggerated), would have been reversed. The quality of the Russian pilots got better as the war went on, while late in the war the German quality went down due to attrition. Stating that a Soviet pilot is incompetent is just simply wrong. I could understand if we were talking early war, but we're not, as both the La-7 and Fw 190F-8 were late war aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2008)

There were many MANY incompetent Russian pilots in 1945 Catch... The numbers that died totally oblivious to what was goin on around them is astounding....

I will agree that the overall quality of VVS pilots towards late44-45 had improved significantly


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 29, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> There were many MANY incompetent Russian pilots in 1945 Catch... The numbers that died totally oblivious to what was goin on around them is astounding....
> 
> I will agree that the overall quality of VVS pilots towards late44-45 had improved significantly



Yes, I suppose, but the quality of the German pilots was pretty bad in those days as well, save for the experten of course.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 30, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> That is entirely false. The La-7 was an excellent aircraft at low levels, and by the time it entered service the roles (though still exaggerated), would have been reversed. The quality of the Russian pilots got better as the war went on, while late in the war the German quality went down due to attrition. Stating that a Soviet pilot is incompetent is just simply wrong. I could understand if we were talking early war, but we're not, as both the La-7 and Fw 190F-8 were late war aircraft.


Just look at the late war kill ratios for the Finns flying Brewster Buffalos against front line Soviet Aircraft, look at the list of German aces, almost 90% of those kills in the East. Tell me the Soviets didn't routinely put untrained pilots into fighters. 

If a Soviet pilot was good, it was because he learned to be good on the job. The only reason the Soviet pilots got better is they formed a core group of survivors who learned the tricks of the trade and made it while their buddies made little painted marks on the sides of Me 109s. Once they had some seasoned pilots to take their young comrades under their wing, it got better, but the Red Army was no better about throwing young men into the fire in airplanes than they were with their infantry.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2008)

Agree with both of u guys....


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 30, 2008)

Clay_Allison said:


> Just look at the late war kill ratios for the Finns flying Brewster Buffalos against front line Soviet Aircraft, look at the list of German aces, almost 90% of those kills in the East. Tell me the Soviets didn't routinely put untrained pilots into fighters.
> 
> If a Soviet pilot was good, it was because he learned to be good on the job. The only reason the Soviet pilots got better is they formed a core group of survivors who learned the tricks of the trade and made it while their buddies made little painted marks on the sides of Me 109s. Once they had some seasoned pilots to take their young comrades under their wing, it got better, but the Red Army was no better about throwing young men into the fire in airplanes than they were with their infantry.



I guess my point was that the quality of the Soviet pilots had improved dramatically by the end of the war, and that the Germans by that point were just as likely to have a 16 year old farmboy in the cockpit. I wasn't saying that the Soviets had suddenly mass amounts of great pilots, just that they may not have been as bad as some people think.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 2, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> I guess my point was that the quality of the Soviet pilots had improved dramatically by the end of the war, and that the Germans by that point were just as likely to have a 16 year old farmboy in the cockpit. I wasn't saying that the Soviets had suddenly mass amounts of great pilots, just that they may not have been as bad as some people think.


Things did get rough for Germany, and the situation being reversed is certainly a possibility. I'd still put my money on the German because of how many top German aces survived the war.



> Johannes Steinhoff, an ace with 176 victories (152 on the Eastern Front) described the standard of Soviet pilots in combat:
> 
> In fighting the Soviets, we fought an apparatus, not a human being--that was the difference. There was no flexibility in their tactical orientation, no individual freedom of action, and in that way they were a little stupid. If we shot down the leader in a Soviet fighter group, the rest were simply sitting ducks, waiting to be taken out.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 2, 2009)

And all this talk about pilot proficiency brings us right back to the same conclusion:

The Fw 190F-8 was the best tank buster of the War.... (back on topic)


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 5, 2009)

Any good ground-attack aircraft needs a radial engine, decent (not incredible...just decent to neutralize any light armor in a tank column) armament, and the ability to carry a good array of ordnance.

Therefore, my vote for the best tank-killer goes to...the Jug.  

It certainly didn't kill the most, but the survivability and fantastic loadout options put it in contention at least IMO.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 5, 2009)

No surprise there....


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 5, 2009)

Consistency RULES! 8) 

p.s. Cool sig vid


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2009)

I will take a Fw 190F-8 over a Jug any day.

It meets all of your requirements for a good tank killer, but was built for the purpose of ground attack and tank killing.

1. Radial engine
2. Built rugged
3. Specially armored for the job of ground attack/tank killing.
4. Carried armament specifically for the job.


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 5, 2009)

The F8 is a great ground attack aircraft indeed. But for heavily armored tanks, it has limited effectiveness, IMO, due to such a limited ordnance loadout option. Even the F8's strong guns had difficulty penetrating the heavy tanks and it only had 1 drop IIRC. The jug could carry a decent bomb load, had 2 drops and could even carry 8 HVARS.

Personally, from a pure aircraft standpoint, I like the FW F8 better (believe it or not). It's a better cockpit layout and more of a true "pilot's" aircraft, but if I were actually flying one in battle, it'd be hard for me to not take the Jug.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> The F8 is a great ground attack aircraft indeed. But for heavily armored tanks, it has limited effectiveness, IMO, due to such a limited ordnance loadout option. Even the F8's strong guns had difficulty penetrating the heavy tanks and it only had 1 drop IIRC. The jug could carry a decent bomb load, had 2 drops and could even carry 8 HVARS.
> 
> Personally, from a pure aircraft standpoint, I like the FW F8 better (believe it or not). It's a better cockpit layout and more of a true "pilot's" aircraft, but if I were actually flying one in battle, it'd be hard for me to not take the Jug.



The F-8 was no less effective than the Jug was.

Also...

The F-8 also had provisions for:

2 drop tanks
3 SC 250
88mm Panzerschreck
Panzerblitz 
R4M


----------



## Thunderbolt56 (Jan 6, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The F-8 also had provisions for:
> 
> 2 drop tanks
> 3 SC 250
> ...





I'll admit, I'm a bit ignorant of the loadout options the F8 could deploy. That list is as impressive as it is interesting (88mm Panzerschreck?!  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2009)

Thunderbolt56 said:


> I'll admit, I'm a bit ignorant of the loadout options the F8 could deploy. That list is as impressive as it is interesting (88mm Panzerschreck?!  )



I believe that it was only tested. Erich might actually have more information on this.

The F-8 was a purpose built up-armored variant of the Fw 190 for ground attack and anti-tank operations.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2009)

The Germans were painfully impressed by the lethality of rocket-firing Allied fighter-bombers, such as USAAF Thunderbolts firing HVAR rockets and RAF Typhoons firing 60-pounder rockets. In response, they developed a series of their own unguided air-to-ground rockets. 
Early experiments involved firing the "Panzerschreck" infantry anti-tank rocket, a scaled-up copy of the American "Bazooka" rocket, from triple tubes mounted under each wing. As the Panzerschreck had inadequate range, it was followed by the "Panzerblitz I", which took the hollow-charge warhead from the Panzerschreck and fitted it with an improved rocket motor. They were mounted in fours under each wing in a wooden launch rack. 

Since Panzerblitz I couldn't be fired while flying at top speed, it led in turn to "Panzerblitz II", which used a similar warhead but the even larger rocket motor of the "R4M" folding-fin unguided air-to-air rocket. These rockets were mounted on racks under each wing, with six or seven rockets per rack.


----------



## projob66 (Jan 15, 2009)

Best ground attack....in what environment? Air Superiority, Inferiority, escorted, non-escorted. I would say the IL-2 prior to the P-47 receiving the 5 inch underwing rocket capability. Then the P-47. Those 5 inch rockets are hard to beat. They hit what you aim at. Not too much drop... Short dive run and exposure. will penetrate top armor... all good stuff....


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2009)

> Those 5 inch rockets are hard to beat. They hit what you aim at. Not too much drop...


U been smokin crack or just huffin the paint fumes???

Those rockets were so unreliable, u'd be lucky to hit a Destroyer with them let alone a small tank with em... Recent research on the Normandie Campaign has shown that the actual number of tanks destroyed by them were miniscule...

The P-47 was more vulnerable to ground fire than the Fw 190F-8 was BTW...

And this thread isnt about ground attack, its about TANK BUSTING....


----------



## projob66 (Jan 15, 2009)

5 inch rockets are very very good. They drop little. Decent range. You can use the rudder in a last minute correction and it will for the most part work. Above all your time straight and predictable in the run is much less than with free fall weapons or 2.75. all good things... survivability is a key ingredient from the perspective of the cockpit.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2009)

Did u even read my post or are u just spouting sh!t outta ur mouth for the sake of hearing it???


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 15, 2009)

Someone has been playing too many computer games...

The average hit ratio for the rockets (both 5" and 60lb) was less than 0.5% so they were neither accurate nor had a good range. Watch any gun camera of them in action and you will see the drop. In fact here are some for you:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iffnw_rbB1Q_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN3ZvIe6Yc_

Survivability is a key component and the FW190F8 was better at it than the P47 + it had better armour and better guns and also mounted rockets...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 15, 2009)

Again and again and again and again and again I will say:

for those who want to know the actual accuracy of rockets against tanks right up to the 1970s....before the microchip revolution....I have this to say:

There's a reason why the A-10 warthog was designed with a 30 mm gun firing DU ammo with a humongous cartridge case!


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 15, 2009)

Amen..


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2009)

Im not going to get into this rocket argument, because i dont know. But in relation to the tank killing argument, it is indeed true that very few tanks were lost to air attack. However, in the case of the allied ground attack effort, whilst they were inneffectual against tanks, they were highly successful against soft skinned vehicles, trains, and personnel. The losses suffered by Lehr attest to that. 

Since the Allied FBs were mostly equipped with bombs and rockets, and i know they were effective against soft targets, they cannot have been all bad. maybe it was the firepower that made them deadly????

One more thing....airpower generally was relatively inneffective in killing things. perhaps 5% of all battlefield caualties can be attributed to air attack. By far the most lethal weapon systems were artillery , follwed by mortars, followed by tanks, then small arms. Aircraft were a distant last in the overall lethality. What airpower exceolled at was the suppression mission. you didnt get killed unless you tried to move. If you were forced to move, the Jabos would swoop on you


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Again and again and again and again and again I will say:
> 
> for those who want to know the actual accuracy of rockets against tanks right up to the 1970s....before the microchip revolution....I have this to say:
> 
> There's a reason why the A-10 warthog was designed with a 30 mm gun firing DU ammo with a humongous cartridge case!


Yeah, because it's AWESOME.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Again and again and again and again and again I will say:
> 
> for those who want to know the actual accuracy of rockets against tanks right up to the 1970s....before the microchip revolution....I have this to say:
> 
> There's a reason why the A-10 warthog was designed with a 30 mm gun firing DU ammo with a humongous cartridge case!



You are right.. one slight modification. 

The gun came first - THEN the A-10 was designed around it..


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2009)

projob66 said:


> 5 inch rockets are very very good. They drop little. Decent range. You can use the rudder in a last minute correction and it will for the most part work. Above all your time straight and predictable in the run is much less than with free fall weapons or 2.75. all good things... survivability is a key ingredient from the perspective of the cockpit.



By the time you get a 'read' on rocket impact point you are way past the original launch position and probably pulling out. Rudder no use at all for rockets, especially 2.75's. Even 5 inch, as more destructive, compared to 2.75s is still not a thing of beauty if 'perfectly straight' meets that standard.

The Zuni is a lot better than the WWII rockets but even it needs the forthcoming laser kit to be truly effective.

Cannon or heavy machine gun you can make some flight control alterations in time - maybe.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 16, 2009)

Rockets are definitely more of an area-suppression weapon, not something you plan on actually hitting something with.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2009)

projob66 said:


> 5 inch rockets are very very good. They drop little. Decent range. You can use the rudder in a last minute correction and it will for the most part work. Above all your time straight and predictable in the run is much less than with free fall weapons or 2.75. all good things... survivability is a key ingredient from the perspective of the cockpit.



In what video game?

This is about real life, and as most people have pointed out they were not accurate at the time.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In what video game?


  *LOL!*


----------



## imalko (Mar 15, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Again and again and again and again and again I will say:
> 
> for those who want to know the actual accuracy of rockets against tanks right up to the 1970s....before the microchip revolution....I have this to say:
> 
> There's a reason why the A-10 warthog was designed with a 30 mm gun firing DU ammo with a humongous cartridge case!



And I would have to agree on your oppinion about gun armament. Becouse of that I think that best tank killer in WW2 was Junkers Ju-87G Kannonewogell.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 18, 2009)

imalko said:


> And I would have to agree on your oppinion about gun armament. Becouse of that I think that best tank killer in WW2 was Junkers Ju-87G Kannonewogell.


Was the Ju-87 accurate enough to divebomb a tank with the swinging bomb?


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Was the Ju-87 accurate enough to divebomb a tank with the swinging bomb?



Junkers Ju 87 Stukas accuracy as a dive bomber was such that it was capable to hit target in radius of about 30 meters. (For comparison B-17s accuracy was about 150 meters off target.) 

But Ju 87G was specially designed tank killer armed with two underwing 37 mm cannons and not with bombs, so it didn't performed its attacks as a clasical divebomber and even its underwing dive breaks were removed. (Besides in German language "kannonewogell" means "gun bird".)

The best of German Stuka aces - Oberst Hans-Urlich Rudel - destroyed over 500 Soviet tanks and large number of other vehicles operating this type of aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 18, 2009)

Propaganda at its finest.... Half that number and its probably still too high....

I would rank the Ju87G-2 second behind the Fw190F-8 because of the survivability aspect... The Panzerblitz II set up was more accurate and devastating than the standard Allied 60lb, using the R4M motor...

Rudel himself was shot down many many times, too many times for me to appreciate the 37mm cannons lethality on the Stuka airframe compared to what the F-8 could do at ground level....

And it could carry bombs as well....


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

And Hans-Joachim Marseilles was himself shot down 17 times. Does that make him less of an ace or does it change the fact that he shot down over 150 Alied aircrafts?

I assume you are reffering on number of tanks destroyed by Rudel. I can only state the numbers I have found in literature (and that is around 500 tanks), but even if there was only a half of that number it still would be very impressive. Wouldn't be?

Ju 87G also could carry bombs if cannons were removed. And it could be easily done so if neccesary. Fw 190F had greater survivability becouse it was different category of aircraft derived from a fighter and not to mention that it was designed five years after Stuka. 

For me it is incredible that even towards the end of war, when Stuka was already 10 years old design and outclassed by more modern aircraft, it was still able to hold its own and get the job done.


----------



## davebender (Mar 18, 2009)

Not nearly as cool as a Tempest or Fw-190F. But this is the real tank killer of WWII. 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 18, 2009)

It was able to hold its ow when there were no Soviet fighters in the immediate airspace.... Through some Laggs or Yaks into the mix and the 87G was dead meat...

And I was not referring to Rudels ability as a pilot, but the slow moving, easy target tug that he was flying... Yes, 200+ enemy tanks destroyed makes him the greatest tank busting pilot the world has ever seen... His number is more likely in the 150-200 range tho....

U assume correctly, Rudel was the Reichs ultimate propaganda tool, a tool that Goebbels used with precision...

And where are u getting the info that 87G's were using bombs on enemy tanks??? Thats horsesh*t.... Show me a pic of an 87G carrying bombs on the Eastern Front and I'll eat my signed Bobby Nystrom autographed hockey puck....


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

davebender said:


> Not nearly as cool as a Tempest or Fw-190F. But this is the real tank killer of WWII. 8)


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Show me a pic of an 87G carrying bombs on the Eastern Front and I'll eat my signed Bobby Nystrom autographed hockey puck....



 Please don't do that theres no need.  

If I showed you picture of Ju 87G carrying bombs, then it would be without cannons and you couldn't tell if that is really "G" or "D". I just said *it was capable of carrying bombs* if neccesary and *if cannons were remowed* that is all.

In fact "G" was only a "D" version with dive breaks remowed and cannons installed. It was essentially the same aircraft. So there is many, many pictures of this version Stukas with bombs. But what were they bombing - tanks or something else I really don't know. 

Add to Stuka a fighter escort of Hartmmanns Karaya Staffel and in that case Yaks would be dead meet.8) 

Cheers!


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

Just wondering... What is your opinion on Henshel Hs 129?

Twin engines, heavy armour, fixed armament of 2xMG 151/20 20mm cannons and 2xMG 17 7,92mm machine guns, optional armament: rockets, bombs, 37mm anti-tank gun or 75mm(!) anti-tank gun.

It is said that it was efficient in combat but only small number was build (around 700 in total).

It probably had poor performance when armed with 75mm gun though.

Comments and opinions?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Was the Ju-87 accurate enough to divebomb a tank with the swinging bomb?



The Ju 87G was not a dive bomber. It was a dedicated anti tank aircraft. It was armed with two 37 mm cannon. That is why it was known as the "Kanonenvogel" or "Cannon Bird".

Granted it could probably be used as a Dive Bomber, but that was not its mission.

DMP-D580 STUKA on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2009)

> Add to Stuka a fighter escort of Hartmmanns Karaya Staffel and in that case Yaks would be dead meet.


And I suppose those fighters stopped all the incoming VVS fighters??? The loss listings for Stukas in Russia is staggering to say the least.... They didnt all go down from AAA....

As far as the 129B goes, it is one of my very favorite aircraft, although the problems it had with the underpowered engines takes it off the Best Of List... Why they decided to use those damn French pieces of sh!t engines still baffles my mind..... I know they wanted to keep the DB engines for the 109 line, but comon.....

They had in their possession the best tank buster of the War and ruined it by underpowering it.... 

The 75mm gun was just too much for it to fly effectively... Many pilots died in it, even though u could jettison it in emergencies...


----------



## imalko (Mar 19, 2009)

Is it true that Hs 129Bs cockpit was so small that some flight instruments were located outside on the engine nescelle?

I heard that somewhere but it just sounds strange.


----------



## davebender (Mar 19, 2009)

> As far as the 129B goes, it is one of my very favorite aircraft, although the problems it had with the underpowered engines takes it off the Best Of List... Why they decided to use those damn French pieces of sh!t engines still baffles my mind


Because the Luftwaffe never procured a compact and lightweight air cooled twin radial similiar to the R-1830. You are stuck with either the BMW132 single radial or the monster size and weight BMW801 twin radial. Why didn't the Luftwaffe order the R-1830 to be produced under license from the mid 1930s onward?


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 19, 2009)

Yes Malko, its true.... Also, the gunsight was outside the cockpit as well....


----------



## imalko (Mar 20, 2009)

I thought so. And the gunsight too. Actually I have read about it in several books but never found any pictures to see it and it allways seemed to me strange. (I mean pictures of flight instruments on the engine nescelle, becouse gunsight is visible in front of windscreen on many pictures.)

Not that Germans were not known by making airplanes with small cockpits. Take Bf 109 as example.

As for engines, I think that prototype and Hs 129A were powered with Argus engines same as Arado trainers or Fw 189. Talk about underpowered ground attack airplane in that case.


----------



## davebender (Mar 20, 2009)

Perhaps the original prototype didn't have armor and weapons installed. That would make quite a weight difference.


----------



## fly boy (Mar 20, 2009)

i think its the M18 hellcat tank killer tank thing


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2009)

U retard....


----------



## Elvis (Mar 22, 2009)

davebender said:


> Because the Luftwaffe never procured a compact and lightweight air cooled twin radial similiar to the R-1830. You are stuck with either the BMW132 single radial or the monster size and weight BMW801 twin radial. Why didn't the Luftwaffe order the R-1830 to be produced under license from the mid 1930s onward?


Dave,

You know, that's a good question.
I was going to state that the Hindenburg died before engine production started, but I found that just the opposite is true.
Even during The Great War, Germany never seemed too interested "round" engines.
Except for the Eindecker and the Tridecker, everything's an in-line with them.
I know part of the reason for WWII is that Hitler felt agitated at the way Germany was treated after The Great War, so maybe his propensity was _not_ to use designs from one of _those_ countries.

I don't know. Just speculation. That is an interesting observation, though.



Elvis


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 22, 2009)

Bramo 323 was not bad


----------



## davebender (Mar 23, 2009)

*Bramo 323 Engine*
Bramo 323 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Length. 1,420mm
Diameter. 1,388mm
Weight. 550 kg.
1,000 hp
5,500 engines produced.

*P&W R-1830 Engine*
Pratt Whitney R-1830 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Length. 1,500mm
Diameter. 1,220mm
Weight. 567 kg
1,200 hp.
173,618 engins produced.

The P&W R-1830 produces 20% more HP yet is significantly smaller in diameter. Compact size is important for a small aircraft like the Hs-129.

Most German aircraft manufacturers preferred the obsolecent BMW132 over the Bramo 323. That says a lot about mechanical reliability, ease of maintenance and other such things that aren't apparent in the statistics.


----------



## Ibuki (Mar 24, 2009)

Not WWII, but definitely tank busting:
http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/t..._in_korea_vol_1_operations_research_study.pdf
Page 36. Against North Korea tanks napalm was most effective weapon. It killed more than artillery and UN tank fire. First war when air power dominated tanks.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 25, 2009)

Ibuki said:


> Not WWII, but definitely tank busting:
> http://www.koreanwar-educator.org/t..._in_korea_vol_1_operations_research_study.pdf
> Page 36. Against North Korea tanks napalm was most effective weapon. It killed more than artillery and UN tank fire. First war when air power dominated tanks.


We should have made up some napalm bombs for the P-47.


----------



## davebender (Mar 25, 2009)

When did anti tank cluster bombs enter service?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 26, 2009)

In 1943, from here:

PTAB - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, PTABs were dropped from dispensers, but methinks that´s it.


----------



## davebender (Mar 26, 2009)

Close enough to a cluster bomb for my purposes. I suspect this weapon worked great for killing both armor and soft targets. Just like the modern day Rockeye.
CBU-100 Cluster Bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Mar 26, 2009)

www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bomb Annex
Apparently the Luftwaffe had a whole family of cluster munitions. The SD4 HL anti armor bomblet was one of the options. This allows any aircraft capable of carrying an AB250 munition container to kill armor.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 29, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> We should have made up some napalm bombs for the P-47.


Wait a minute....isn't Napalm an invention of WWII?
I think we used it, to some degree, during the Pacific Island hopping campaigns.



Elvis


----------



## davebender (Mar 29, 2009)

Dropping canisters filled with thickened gasoline (i.e. napalm) is a WWII innovation. However thickened gasoline was invented during WWI for use in flamethrowers. It's also used in Molotov cocktails and various improvised flame devices. Very simple stuff to make.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 30, 2009)

Ah, I see.
I didn't realize the concept went back that far.
Thanks for the info.


Elvis


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2009)

I believe the first real use of "thickened" gasoline as you call it was by the Germans in WWI. As you stated though the US was the first to use Napalm Bombs dropped from aircraft.


----------



## BombTaxi (Mar 30, 2009)

Ibuki said:


> First war when air power dominated tanks.



I would beg to differ. The actions in Normandy (particularly the neutralization of the Falaise pocket, and the Battle of the Bulge showed the devastating potential of airpower as a tool against armour. I would go so far as to argue it was the beginning of the end for the tank as the dominant ground-based weapon system. The Typhoon and P-47 were the primary tankbusters of these campaigns, but the RAF also demonstrated that medium to low altitude bombing by heavy bomers (specifically Lancasters), was also devastating against armour. The idea was discontinued due to tragic Allied losses caused by the lack of precision bombsights and the inexperience of Bomber Command crews in the CAS role. Had this not been the case, the tactic could have proved truly devastating.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 30, 2009)

Any info about the numbers of tanks destroyed by the P-47 and Typhoon during those battles, BombTaxi? And if it's not too much of trouble, how many sorties were flown for those acomplisments?


----------



## davebender (Mar 30, 2009)

That's exactly what it is. I made some of the stuff when in army training. Pour fuel thickener or powdered laundry soap into a container of gasoline and stir it up. In a couple minutes it's ready for use. Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 30, 2009)

davebender said:


> That's exactly what it is. I made some of the stuff when in army training. Pour fuel thickener or powdered laundry soap into a container of gasoline and stir it up. In a couple minutes it's ready for use. Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.



Yes I know what it is. I just have never called it thickened gas or heard it called that way. That is why I said "as you call i".


----------



## Elvis (Apr 3, 2009)

davebender said:


> Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.


I thought flame throwers used diesel fuel as the accelerant?
Was there a change at some point, or is that erroneous information?



Elvis


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 3, 2009)

The number of actual German tanks that were destroyed by single engine ground attack during the Normandy Campaign has been totally blown out of proportion... Just a small portion of those actually claimed were confirmed....


----------



## davebender (Apr 3, 2009)

Flame weapons aren't picky. You can use any flammable liquid. Thickened gasoline would have been the most common during WWI and WWII.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 5, 2009)

Ah, I see.
Ok Dave, thanks for answering my question.


Elvis


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 6, 2009)

From reading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that tank killing was just not all that good in WWII from the air.


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2009)

That's my impression also. Some good tank busting technology existed. However napalm, AT cluster bombs and the R4/M rocket were deployed too late and / or in too small a quantity to make a significant difference.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 7, 2009)

I'm sure the poor buggers on the receiving end would beg to differ  

I am sure that total kills were overclaimed (as were kills of many things in WWII), but the morale effect on the Germans in Normandy of flights of Typhoons circling overhead waiting to pick them off must have been dreadful, especially when the LW was becoming less and less capable of stopping it from happening. I don't have specific numbers of tanks claimed to hand (although I will certainly look for them), but I am confident in saying that the effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed...


----------



## davebender (Apr 7, 2009)

> Effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed


That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 9, 2009)

davebender said:


> That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.


Don't forget how much fuel the german armor needed. Kinda hard to run your tank when the fuel truck gets its butt chewed off by a P-47.


----------



## Fireaxe888 (Apr 18, 2009)

The Il-2 had PTAB-2.5-1.5 HEAT bomblets-it carried 198 and any one of them can penetrate the armour of a heavy tank.That really must have hurt


----------



## parsifal (Apr 18, 2009)

The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly. Vehicles of all kinds were generally safe unless forced to move in daylight. Once that happened, the position of the vehicle was exposed, and its ability to survive greatly reduced. 

However not being able to move meant that it could be more easily targetted by ground formations. It could be flanked, bombarded sniped,,,,etc. In other words, its risk from ground forces was much increased because it could not move, but if it did move, its risk from the air was greatly increased. This gave air power a force multiplier many times that achieved by its actual kill rates 

During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes


----------



## looney (Jun 7, 2010)

one thing 1st isn't Napalm similar to Greek fire if that is the case than it's even much older 

Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?

Also the bad point of the IL-2 are these plane related or pilot related? I would say any big gun aircraft is probably a better anti armour platform than the rocket armed ones. With an OK training every plane can take out 1 tank a sortie maybe more. The rocket armed planes with their 0.5% hit rate need about 20 sorties per tank (assuming they cary 10 rockets each). 

If I'm correct then the German Ju-87 and Hs-129, and IL-2 type 3M suddenly look much better.

Also the fighter bombers en route are very clumsy fighters, so when they encounter opposition they will need to drop their ordinance making them suddenly incapable of killing a tank. I don't know how rocket armed fighter bombers get rid of their rockets, but if they do not get rid of them they are hampered by their weight and drag during self-defence.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 23, 2010)

looney said:


> one thing 1st isn't Napalm similar to Greek fire if that is the case than it's even much older
> 
> Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?
> 
> ...


For sure the rocket armed Fw 190F was an inferior tank buster. Tests showed that the Panzerblitz was very inaccurate. However, they were more accurate than their allied counterparts due to the extending fins and the high velocity. Yet, the main problem with the Panzerblitz was that it used hollow charged warheads which were too unreliable as they would not impact at a steep angle. 

I do think however that rocket armed fighter bombers were still capable fighter aircraft. Their ordance gave some drag which would hinder their manoeuvres and top speed but they would still be able to attack enemy attack aircraft for instance.

Kris


----------



## cimmee (Dec 31, 2010)

MikeMan said:


> Best tank killer of WW2 would probably be the IL-2.
> 
> Honourable mention to the following:
> JU-87 (Twin 37mm version)
> ...



Best tank killer? 

T-34...


----------



## Wurger (Dec 31, 2010)

cimmee said:


> Best tank killer?
> 
> T-34...



I'm afraid, you misunderstood the main topic, Cimmee .


----------



## Zeke_Freak (Jan 4, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly...
> 
> During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes



I agree. The other effects of close support air attacks should also be considered. But the overall effectiveness of close support in general isn't really at issue. I think this thread's topic would better be interpretted as 'which aircraft best served the role of tank killer', and that theme should be considered from two perspectives, the raw ability of the aircraft 1 vs 1 against a tank, and then extenuating factors that affect its abilities. As example of what I mean... if someone considered the Stuka as best tank killer, the Stukas weakness against enemy fighters is a factor to consider, since it limits its ability to serve its purpose, but with no enemy air support around the Stuka was quite effective in its role, relative to the overall effectiveness of tactical close support aircraft in general. The Stukas siren alone was very effective in its purpose. 

Leif


----------



## parsifal (Jan 4, 2011)

good points, and with regard to the vulnrtability issue, its why I think aircraft like the Stuka are not the best tank killing aircraft....even though they were very good at killing tanks, they sucked at surviving.....

Another issue is multi-role flexibility.....and ease of production....lesser a/c like the Allied F/Bs, the German Fw 190 F-8 or the IL-2 get good points in these various other considerations, even though as tank killing platforms they are not the best


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

Wurger said:


> I'm afraid, you misunderstood the main topic, Cimmee .



I understand the topic quite well. The best tank killers are other tanks...



parsifal said:


> The main effect of close support generally was not its kill rate, it was the interdiction effect mostly. Vehicles of all kinds were generally safe unless forced to move in daylight. Once that happened, the position of the vehicle was exposed, and its ability to survive greatly reduced.
> 
> However not being able to move meant that it could be more easily targetted by ground formations. It could be flanked, bombarded sniped,,,,etc. In other words, its risk from ground forces was much increased because it could not move, but if it did move, its risk from the air was greatly increased. This gave air power a force multiplier many times that achieved by its actual kill rates
> 
> During the war, the germans found the lesser of two evils was to remain stationary during daylight. Anyway, the impact of airpower on direct kills was very limited....only about 5% of vehicle losses were the results of airstrikes



5%?

It's gotta be higher. During the last two years of the war they used animals to move around on....


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

If you have some information to back your ideas up, that would be helpful.

I base those figures on several sources, principally Colonel Dupuys postwar studies on the causes of defeat. Dunnigan in his SPI book "East Front" also gives a pretty good breakdown on losses by cause.

But if we look at France in 1944, the effects of airpower as a direct means of inflicting casualties are brought inhto focus. The tactical airforces claimed to have destroyed 6200 vehicles and 391 tanks by direct action. They claimed for example, to have destroyed over 90 AFVs (ie tanks) attached to the panzer Lehr Division, in its advance to normandy. In fact only two tanks were actually destroyed by airpower, though approximately 100 soft skinned vehecles were damaged or destroyed. 

Like I said, if you have better figures, please go ahead and and post your figures. These are the best i can do at short notice.

391 tanks claimed destroyed is almost certainoly an overclaim. Exactly how much is anybodies guess, but lets be generaous and assume that it is only out by 50%....lets assume that in reality 200 armoured vehicles were destroyed by direct air attack (close air support. What percentage of the total German losses in Normandy do you think that might represent?

Jarymowycz's work also includes a table of causes for German tank losses (time period not specified but probably relates to NW Europe 1944-45):

Gunfire.........................43.8%
Abandonment.....................18.3%
Mechanical.......................4.0%
Self destruction................20.7%
Air Attack.......................7.5%
Hollow-charge Rounds.............4.4%
Mines/Miscellaneous..............0.9%

However, this figure may still be too high. Making various adjustments and alowances gives a figure of around 2% for hard targets, and around 5-7% for all categories of vehicles.

Yet another study (WO 291/1186) gives the comparative performance of anti-tank weapons systems during WWII

This report is British in origin, dated 24 May 1950.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given as follows:
Theatre (tanks)..Mines.ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe 
Mines.22.1% 
ATk guns 22.7%
Tanks 14.5% 
SP guns 24.4%
Bazooka 14.2%
Other 2.1%
Total100%


losses due to airpower arent even listed separately in this report,...I believe they are lumped into the "other" column

In fairness, tanks are also not the biggest killers of other tanks....the biggest anti-armour weapons are Tracked and towed ATgs, and Infantry weapons...Bazookas and mines

As to the comment about animals being used only in the last two years....well, again, a misconception. 80% of the german armoy was classified as unmotorized in 1939.....a frontline German Infantry Div in 1939 had over 1000 soft skinned vehicles when at full strength, and 6200 draft animals. By 1944, the size of the division had dropped from 17000 to around 11000 (on average), the number of soft skinned vehicles had dropped to about 750, on average, but the number of draft animals had sunk to less than 2000....there were simply not enough horses....thats why it was impossible on the eastern front for the germans to undertake any mobile warfare of any description....they had lost their mobility...any rapid movements invariable large losses of heavy equipment, and reduced re-supply capability...this had all happened mostly as a result of the animal and vehicle losses on the eastern front up tpo 1944


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> I understand the topic quite well. The best tank killers are other tanks...



And the topic was about which *AIRCRAFT* was the best best tank killer. We have other topics about best tank and best tank on tank and all that stuff...


----------



## johnbr (Jan 6, 2011)

What about the Typhoon it took out a few tanks.


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And the topic was about which *AIRCRAFT* was the best best tank killer. We have other topics about best tank and best tank on tank and all that stuff...



The best tank killer is, was, and always will be another AFV. 

That or an A-bomb... Ultimately that was a fine AFV killer. It stopped the war...


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> If you have some information to back your ideas up, that would be helpful.
> 
> I base those figures on several sources, principally Colonel Dupuys postwar studies on the causes of defeat. Dunnigan in his SPI book "East Front" also gives a pretty good breakdown on losses by cause.
> 
> ...



Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal. 

You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.

As it's common knowledge that most of the mongoloid Nazis moved via animal transport, I am not proffering a link. 

Fulda was filled with dead tanks, animals, rotting Nazi soldiers, trains, etc..


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

johnbr said:


> What about the Typhoon it took out a few tanks.



More than a few. I am not sure how accurate the rockets were, but the 20mm worked well. 

Use the original claims. Do not ever fall for revisionist history...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal.
> 
> You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.
> 
> ...




Why is it banal? Ive given you some pretty good refernces to start you off, which you could go and research at your own leisure. Instead, i get an unsupported rebuttal, which adds up to no rebuttal, because it is a response with no substance

Petrol was in short supply, for most of the war, as you say, but the Germans also suffered from a shortage of all types of transport, mostly motor transport, but also horses as well. By the late war, they did not have enough of any transport, horsed or MT. I fail to see how one problem, ie the shortage of fuel, has any relevance or connection to other problems faced by the Germans, such as their chronic shortages of MT or their shortagesw of horses.

I am no friend of the Nazis, but I also dont appreciate your tone of language....the Germans, including the nazis, were not mongoloid, so please stop trying to either impress with such language. Its actually offensive, because those so-called "mongoloids" took 6 years to defeat, and 10s of millions of lives. And they fought ferociously, heroically and effectively in that process

With regard to your last comment about Fulda, what has that got to do with anything....are you perhaps referring to Falaise, in which case you should undertake some serious research. Airpower was at its most efficient in these sorts of constricted situations, but even so, it was not as effective as other weapons, particualrly artillery. Airpower was crucial for victory, but not as a direct means of killing thins. 

Unless you have some information to back your claims up, or which refute the information I have already provided to you, I dont see this discussion going too far.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2011)

cimmee said:


> The best tank killer is, was, and always will be another AFV.
> 
> That or an A-bomb... Ultimately that was a fine AFV killer. It stopped the war...



Even though you are banned at this point, I think it worthwhile to respond to this drivel. Tanks are an effective defence against tanks, but they were not the most effective weapon. The most effective weapons were Infantry, and their weapons they carried. ATGs and mines mostly. On the Eastern Front, in 1944, the Soviets lost 19000 AFVs, but 13000 of these were to German Infantry formations. The Soviet Infantry formations had the same impact in reverse.

If they let you come back, try and do at least some research befaore opening your mouth in future


----------



## Zeke_Freak (Jan 7, 2011)

It's always a shame to see someone trip over their own ego. You hope they'll learn, and act as intelligently as they think they are... but usually its a lost cause.

I appreciated your stats parsifal. I think it gives some interesting food for thought on the subject at hand. I wonder how many times the reality of the situation spills over several of the categories. A tank encounters some weapons fire/ mine, etc, suffers some mechanical issues, is abandoned, and perhaps later hit by an air attack. 

The Russian Winter was pretty hard on German tanks. Weather doesn't seem to be considered directly in the stats, but I imagine many of those casualites would fall into the 'abandoned' category.

Back to the subject at hand, does anyone know what sort of air attack was most effective against most armor? Dive bombing, flak canons, rockets, etc? I imagine the rocket attacks were delivered at less of an angle than say the flak or bombs. 

I'm also curious about the types of bombs generally used, and the nature of the flight missions for tank killers. I'm somewhat familiar with the Pacific theater options. But in the European theater, were tank killing missions with AP bomb specifically called in when targets were identified, or did tank killers patrol around with APs ready to go, and just use them as they saw an opportunity?

Leif


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2011)

cimmee said:


> Your attempt to bury me in paper is banal.
> 
> You know as well as I do that petrol was in short supply for most of the war.
> 
> ...



I bet you wonder why you were banned? Asshat...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 8, 2011)

Thankyou Leif


I dont have an answer, but the general wisdom is that cannohn armed divebombers were the most effective weapons system.....


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 26, 2011)

How about this puppy?
Henschel Hs 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

