# Best tank killer aircraft of WW2



## corpcasselbury (Dec 20, 2003)

Which of the planes whose business it was to kill tanks was the best? Many will claim it was the Russian Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik. My personal favorite has always been the Hawker Hurricane Mark IID, which featured a pair of Bofors 40mm guns slung under the wings. It cut quite a swathe through Rommel's armor in North Africa.


----------



## trackend (Dec 21, 2003)

Although im not very clued up on these type of aircraft, one that comes up in conversations time and again that I have with ex-service men who saw them in action is the Tiffy ( rocket firing Typhoon). As one gentlemen said to me "a hit from one of these on a Tiger Tank would peel it open like a bleeding bean tin. and when you only have pea shooters to defend yourself it made a really nice sight" so i'll go with these guys but i would like to hear some info on the other aircraft used in this role.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 21, 2003)

interesting views, but can i put in a word for the german stuka (junkers ju 87), proberly not best known for this role, and not often used in this role, but it still made a great anti-tank weapon when armed with a pair of 37mm cannon.

my second entry would have to be the american p-51D mustang, also known as the "jet buster" or more appropriatly in this case the "tank buster". Built and designed in the record time of 17 days the p-51 performed well in all fields, as a long range bomber escort, all round fighter, ground attack aircraft, and under the latter, comes the role of tank buster, for which it required it's considerable speed and exelent manouverability, by the time you'd seen one of these coming out of the sun storming down on you with underwing cannon pods, you were as good as dead. 8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 21, 2003)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> interesting views, but can i put in a word for the german stuka (junkers ju 87), proberly not best known for this role, and not often used in this role, but it still made a great anti-tank weapon when armed with a pair of 37mm cannon.
> 
> my second entry would have to be the american p-51D mustang, also known as the "jet buster" or more appropriatly in this case the "tank buster". Built and designed in the record time of 17 days the p-51 performed well in all fields, as a long range bomber escort, all round fighter, ground attack aircraft, and under the latter, comes the role of tank buster, for which it required it's considerable speed and exelent manouverability, by the time you'd seen one of these coming out of the sun storming down on you with underwing cannon pods, you were as good as dead. 8)



I was unaware that the Mustang ever carried underwing cannon pods. What is your source for this information? If true, the combination would have been devastating to any tank.


----------



## Crazy (Dec 22, 2003)

corpcasselbury said:


> Which of the planes whose business it was to kill tanks was the best? Many will claim it was the Russian Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik.



hear hear! I'm going to represent corpcasselbury's statement on this one. The Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik and it's many varients were devastating to German tanks. It capacity for a multitude of different bombs plus it's sheer ruggedness make it my favorite for that role. I've seen pics (don't remember where) of an Il-2 with one wing shreeded like swiss cheese, but it was still flying, and I think the caption stated that it made it home.

I'm in the process of re-locating a set of journal entrys by an Il-2 pilot that tell of his experience with it. Will post them here



S!

Crazee


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2003)

In return to "corpcasselbury"'s comment regarding the mustang having underwing cannon pods, i saw arcive footage of a mustang with cannon pods on a documentary about ww2 fighters on channel 4, but perhaps they weren't as common as i thaught?


----------



## corpcasselbury (Dec 24, 2003)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> In return to "corpcasselbury"'s comment regarding the mustang having underwing cannon pods, i saw arcive footage of a mustang with cannon pods on a documentary about ww2 fighters on channel 4, but perhaps they weren't as common as i thaught?



That may have been an experimental plane they showed in the documentary, or even a postwar model; a lot of such TV programs aren't exactly careful about the footage they used. 

As far as the USAAF goes, its best tank killer was probably the P-47 Thunderbolt. The ordnance carrying capabilities of this aircraft are simply astounding: rockets, bombs, napalm, you name it. Plus those eight .50 caliber machine guns, just to make life interesting for trucks, troops and trains.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2004)

*cough* P-51 MUSTANG *cough*


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2004)

P-47 Thunderbolt


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2004)

IL-2 achieved the best result for WWII, from the start it was designed as ground attack, not classical bomber, nor fighter or dive bomber. It was rather fast and maneuverable and could dogfight for its life. Last but not least, it was damn sturdy.

Late Stukas with 37mm killed many tanks too, but it was an old design 
and therefore lacked performance (esp. speed and payload)

Hurris MkIID were quite good I think but I don't know much about

P47 was good but lacked maneuverability at low alt, which is normal bcs it was designed as an high alt energy fighter


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2004)

Early in the war the Stuka was definitly the best ground attack plane. But as the war went on the Il-2 came and it blew away the Stuka. But also the P-51 and Typhoon variations took a prime role in bombarding Germany's armour into submission


----------



## I./JG53_lud13 (Jan 15, 2004)

The best German plane for sure Hs-129...But I think that Il-2 was the best in allied inventory.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 16, 2004)

well, it's the mustang as a tank killer, but for general ground attack, the tornado runs away with the title


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2004)

What about the B-25 or B-26 as used in the pacific for close ground support? They were very good at what they did and the B-26 could move like a fighter?


----------



## Erich Hartmann (Jan 16, 2004)

I still think ol' Sturmovik was the best.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2004)

I think it would either be the Rocket Firing Typhoon as mentioned before or the Hudson with the 75mm cannon.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2004)

sorry, i ment to say the typhoon as the best ground attack aircraft, not the tornado


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 19, 2004)

yea typhoon and tornado were mostly the same plane except typhoon had a napier sabre which was more powerfuk and reliable


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 19, 2004)

yea typhoon and tornado were mostly the same plane except typhoon had a napier sabre engine which was more powerful and reliable


----------



## paulyb102 (Jan 20, 2004)

the typhoon was the best in terms of achievements, however the tempest was the improved version, with more speed, but was,nt made in the same numbers as the typhoon.


----------



## MP-Willow (Jan 20, 2004)

I would say that we are all on the same track. The Russians made a plane that could survive all weather and be all shot up, Il-2, the Americans would try to make it a little to pritty and nice, the P-51 a good example, but the b-26 was an over all good plane. Why must we limit tank killers to fighters? The Il-2 was not a pure fighter, we could make the case for the Pe-2 and its veriants. 

Aircraft of the WW2 theatures were for the mostpart able to adapt to different operations and missions.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

ju-87


----------



## Hot Space (Jan 25, 2004)

All of them were good at their jobs, but let's be honest here, feller's. The IL-2 was a flying tank  

Although like a few here I would pick the Typhoon 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 25, 2004)

yea, suppose your right with the IL-2


----------



## nutter (Feb 5, 2004)

i'd go for the typhhon or the ju-87G


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

Shame the Avro Antelope isn't on the List  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 5, 2004)

hey, what about the lancaster with a tallboy as a anti tank weapon? could knock out every tank in the area


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 5, 2004)




----------



## Hot Space (Feb 5, 2004)

I think it would knock out everything in the area    

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

yeah you see, what an idea


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Now where can me buy one  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

well, you could pick up a plasic model kit?


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Too old   

Me want big one 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 6, 2004)

hehe


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Ebay.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Bless you  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 6, 2004)

IN my opinion the P-51 was the best Tank buster along with the Hawker with the underwing cannons,i could go on more but im 2 lazy


----------



## Crazy (Feb 6, 2004)

Viper said:


> IN my opinion the P-51 was the best Tank buster along with the Hawker with the underwing cannons,i could go on more but im 2 lazy



A man after me own work ethic!


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 6, 2004)

Viper said:


> IN my opinion the P-51 was the best Tank buster along with the Hawker with the underwing cannons,i could go on more but im 2 lazy



But even if you looked at a P-51 near the ground it would break up.

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 6, 2004)

Not knowing anything about the Eastern Front and only enough about Western Europe, I'd say the P-47, IL-2, or Tempest/Typhoon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

what, not the corsair? na, it was the IL-2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

yeah gotta be the il-2, i mean come on, its russian


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 7, 2004)

only you DT, only you.....................


----------



## Archer (Feb 7, 2004)

Well, AFAIK the Corsair never did much tank busting. The Japanese medium tanks were easy prey for Shermans and combined with jungle growth hiding vehicles from the air, I don't think aircraft in the Pacific did much tank busting. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).

The best close air support aircraft is obviously the Corsair, but I think another plane sadly must receive the tank-buster award


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 7, 2004)

well, for a guy thats intrigued with dictatorship and communosm what do you expect


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2004)

what does "AFAIK" mean?


----------



## Archer (Feb 8, 2004)

As far as I know


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 9, 2004)

ok, thanks, there's so many posts that have just made sence because of that


----------



## Viper (Feb 9, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> *cough* P-51 MUSTANG *cough*


I would have to agree that the mustang was the best ground attack aircraft along with the Il-2 and the hurricane.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 10, 2004)

cool pic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 10, 2004)

how do you know its a ramjet? it may a windsock that got ripped off during take off


----------



## Viper (Feb 10, 2004)

maybe


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

you see, i have many theories, most of them hopeless but hey


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 11, 2004)

i gave you that theory


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 11, 2004)

can you prove that


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

that is the most ugliest plane i have ever seen in my whole life,that italian thing in your signature,lol


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

It's not that bad  

Hot Space


----------



## Viper (Feb 11, 2004)

I know im jus kiddin around.....the ugliest plane would have to be the german storch


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

I dunno, the Me 323 Giant was pretty bad as well  

Hot Space


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

...................and the Fairy Battle come to that   

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 11, 2004)

The storch may look bad, but you gotta admit its damn useful. Take off in 213 feet, land in 61 feet, and if the wind is 25mph it can "hover." Don't you just love desktop calendars


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 11, 2004)

I do, but my wife makes me takes it down  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 12, 2004)




----------



## Anonymous (Feb 12, 2004)

Sure many planes could damaged Tanks as well as the Il-2, but few could have withstood AA enemy fighter attacks as well the Sturmovik.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 12, 2004)

I think maybe only the P-47 could come close to it, but the IL-2 would alway's be way ahead.

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 13, 2004)

this is just me, but I always thaught the P-47 looked a wee bit stupid


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

I wouldn't say stupid as such, but it did look strange for a Fighter  

Hot Space


----------



## Archer (Feb 13, 2004)

IMO the P-47 doesn't look too bad, it has a massive radial engine so it can't be too sleek. IMO the P-47 is the best ETO fighter/ground attack, don't worry, the Spitfire ain't far behind.


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 13, 2004)

For what it did later on in it's life, I would say the P-47 was the best Fighter/Bomber in Europe 8) The Typhoon wasn't as strong  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

Archer said:


> IMO the P-47 doesn't look too bad, it has a massive radial engine so it can't be too sleek. IMO the P-47 is the best ETO fighter/ground attack, don't worry, the Spitfire ain't far behind.


i wouldn't have even put the spitfire in for the catagory of fighter bomber, but for me, it still has to be the mosquito


----------



## Archer (Feb 14, 2004)

Well, I was actually placing it in the best aircraft in Europe but I originally typed fighter and was too lazy to delete it LOL.
I meant:
The P-47 is the best aircraft used in the ETO IMO. The Spitfire is only slightly behind the P-47 (probably because it wasn't such a good ground attack plane  )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 14, 2004)

i would put the spit. ahead as a fighter


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 14, 2004)

w/e spit is weaksauce 2x cannon and 2x mg=bullshit 8x brownings is what its about and spits had very little range for use as fighter bombers (cuz occasionally u need to reach the target u know cant just get there and not come back) and besides 2.5k of bombs and such is better than 1000lb cuz we all know 2 3x rocket tubes and 3 500lb boms and 8x .50 is better than 2x brownings and 2x 20mm and 2x 500lb bombs so spit is shit in ground attack and sure griffon engine spits are faster than p-47s but less guns and less bombs so spit loses


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 15, 2004)

yeah, but the spit wasn't designed as a fighetr bomber, so you can't really say that. later versoins were armed with more that two cannon and two machine guns, and the spit held on throughtout the war, so it can't be that bad.

BTW. what does "w/e" mean?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 15, 2004)

w/e=whatever and i got those spit specs from griffon engine examples so what about british pride now? yea i know not all griffon examples sucked that much ass but still...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 16, 2004)

yea, well what about the mosqito, now there's a fighter to be proud off


----------



## Hot Space (Feb 16, 2004)

Seems I'm missing all the fun here, feller's  

Hot Space


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 16, 2004)

Best tank killer of the war eh? I think the Shturmovik had the best combination of assets to make it a serious tank threat. Three 37mm cannon, underwing rockets and the ability to take tremendous punishment. Not to mention more of them were built than ANY other combat plane in history. In second place I think I'd put the Hs129 whether it had the 75mm or "just" the 30mm cannon, its twin engines give it better resilience than single engine types (assuming it can maintain Altitude on 'one'...any takers?). I don't think the Americans had any 'truly' great tank busters, although Mustangs and Tbolts can carry rockets so can Typhoons, Spitfires, Tempests etc etc etc. Apparantly the only way to make a tank kill with the .50 Brownings was to richochet the shells off the ground into the soft underbelly of the tank...a 1 ft high target at 300mph flying 50 feet off the ground!

-- Chris


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2004)

still gotta be the IL-2 for me


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

The IL2 Sturmovik without a doubt


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2004)

STuka no doubt


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Feb 23, 2004)

The Stuka was only armed with a few cannons (unless i'm mistaken  ) - the Russian IL2 had bombs, rockets AND cannons, plus as stated earlier, they could take an amazing amount of flak...as i recall Stukas are notoriously easy to shoot down. 8) 

Plus as a footnote, not many Stukas were used for this role - surely if they were the best tankbusters this would not be the case?


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 23, 2004)

Il 2 with 2 37mm was not the norm, only a few were built.
They had 50 rpg and a reduced bombload.
Most had 2 23mm and up to 600 kg bombs and rockets.

Il10 was an improved version that entered service in 1945 I think.

The pony was never equipped as a tank buster as far as I know.
Strafing could send fragments that could damage the radiator.
Clearly not a good choice.

Hs129 could barely fly on 2 engines. It was clearly underpowered.

Th 37mm on the Ju87G was an amazing AT weapon.
But it was more vulnerable then the Il2.


----------



## Crazy (Feb 23, 2004)

Brings an old argument back to mind. Apparently to attack German tanks on the ground, 'Stang pilots would aim at the ground beneath them, and bounce the bullets up into the unprotected bellies. Like you said, not a very good choice....


It seems to me that early Ju-87 models were equipped with only light guns. Several later versions, however, had big-ass mounted cannon (not sure what caliber?) under the wings. Very effective AT weapon


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 23, 2004)

37mm cannon to be exact


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 24, 2004)

HS-129 with the 70mm cannon.

Gotta be good for you!







Kiwimac[/img]


----------



## AVRO (Feb 24, 2004)

The chance that a bouncing bullet will go through the underside of a tank at the angle it will hit is ridiculously small.
Especially after it as lost energy from the bounce.
You probably have more chance of winning the lottery.


Hs129 used 1 75mm or 2 37mm Flak 18 like the Ju87G I think.
But that plane was really hard to maneuver because of it's lack of power.
2 engines was more a necessity then an advantage for this plane.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 24, 2004)

Not forgetting the Mosquito Tsetse , with it's 6 Pounder 57mm Field Gun under the nose , plus 4 X .303 Brownings for aiming said field gun , and capable of carrying 8 Rockets or Long Range fuel tanks , although it was mostly used for U Boat busting .







Andrew


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

the mosquito was used for almost everything m8!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

did it help in the construction of the transcontinental railway?


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 24, 2004)

LOL


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 24, 2004)

why do you laugh at me!? im being serious 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

you, serious, na!


----------



## Anonymous (Feb 24, 2004)

Hi guys!
Sure IL-2 was the best. The more so mass produced.
I could send couple of pics of it but don't know how...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 24, 2004)

well, that plane's close enough


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

Always liked Eric Hartmann's description of how to shoot down an IL-2

"Fly beneath it, even if it is at 0 feet or so, see that small square under the wings, shoot the hell out of it and then run away before his friends get annoyed." (Or words to that effect )

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 25, 2004)

More on the Henschel HS 129








> Type: Close Support and ground attack aircraft
> Origin: Henschel Flugwerke AG
> Crew: One
> Models: A B
> ...



Source: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hs129.html

SIX 75mm Guns, OMG!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2004)

> you, serious, na



im always serious, not a dishonest bone in me 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2004)

now what have i told you about using that look with me.... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2004)

absolutely nothing.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2004)

oh, getting cocky are we? well 2 can play at that game...... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

fine, let play commence


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

ok, you may start 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

ah, no, you go first, you lost the last game of top trumps


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

says he who was saved from losing a game by the b17 8)

(i am aware that you later did lose the game but its not the point)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

that is the point.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

sure it is......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)

yeah it is


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2004)

wow, really?


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 28, 2004)

You know a chap could get really very worried by these 2 persons conversations you chaps hold a lot!!!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 29, 2004)

yup, ill try not to be on at the same time as the lac in future 8) we got a bit carried away


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 29, 2004)




----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Feb 29, 2004)

> SIX 75mm Guns, OMG!


those arent really guns theyre recoilless rifles a.k.a bazookas


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 1, 2004)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> > SIX 75mm Guns, OMG!
> 
> 
> those arent really guns theyre recoilless rifles a.k.a bazookas



Friend,

I don't care what they were. 6x75mm whether gun or bazooka = a sod of a lot of firepower that _I personally_ would NOT want to be on the receiving end of.  

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 1, 2004)

does it look like he wrote "dersonally" to anyone else (i know he didn't, but it looks like he did)


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

that hs 129's gun is pretty awsome,how much amour could a shell from that gun go through??


----------



## Viper (Mar 1, 2004)

A B-25 H had a 30mm cannon mounted in the nose with 6 or 8 50.cal machine guns,that thing is a very good attack plane


----------



## Archer (Mar 1, 2004)

You coudl've at least found a B-25 that actually had the cannon in the nose


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 1, 2004)

Hans Ulrich Rudel, the *Stuka * pilot who was
Nazi Germany's most-decorated soldier.
In 2,530 combat missions flying dive-bombers,
mainly on the Russian front, Rudel was credited with
destroying 519 tanks, 150 gun emplacements and 800
combat vehicles of various types.
According to Luftwaffe records, he also damaged
or destroyed three large warships and 70 smaller
craft. For this he was awarded the "Golden Oakleaf
with Sword and Diamonds to the Knight's cross of the
Iron Cross." He was the only German soldier to
receive that award in World War II.

Stuka gets my vote ..IL2 was a good plane but is overated -do a search on the tank battle at Kursk and see how many tanks were destroyed by Stukas vs IL2s  ..funny how you only hear lots about the IL2 since the game came out a few years ago  p51 is definitely not up there as a tankbuster...Typhoon /Tempest and the Hurri in the desert are all good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

wow thats pretty impressive  ive always been put off of the stuka for some reason though


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 2, 2004)

Some pictures about Rudel are here attached.







His record






His Aircraft































Interestingly he also flew the FW 190 D9











His medals






His records



> 519 russische Panzer
> 519 russian tanks
> 
> 1 Schlachtschiff
> ...



Source: http://www.pilotenbunker.de/Stuka/Rudel/rudel.htm

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

wow  thanks for icludthe german too, i love shouting it, it sounds great when you shout it 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 2, 2004)

wow  thanks for including the german too, i love shouting it, it sounds great when you shout it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 2, 2004)

ah! doing a double to get your spam up hey........................


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 2, 2004)

Thanks for the pics Kiwi  ..i have actually been skinning Rudels D9 for EAW over the last two weeks and i havent been able to find that black and white pic ..apparently its pretty rare ..so cheers 8) 

This is about halfway through(heaps of work to go yet) and its with the 98 default terrain so it looks pretty crappy


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 2, 2004)

DAMN THAT GAME HAS BAD GRAPHICS!!! SERIOUSLY!!! I dont think i could stand looking at something that ugly for an extended period of time like i do in fb =P


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

nope, my puter was on a spaz that day 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

I think the reason Stukas always put you off C.C is that they're ugly and very very very easy to shoot down - Hurricanes and Spitfires made mincemeat of them during the Battle of Britain


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)

you know i think you could be right 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 3, 2004)

Stukas had a few advantages but speed was not one of them

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 3, 2004)

i wouldn't call the stuka ugly....................


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 3, 2004)

Not speed, armour or manourvarability...i must say its hard to think of much it did have to its advantage...apart from a really scary sound when it dive-bombed hapless civilians maybe?

anyway lanc i would expect you to think the stuka wasn't bad looking - you think the lancaster is a piece of art...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 3, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (Mar 3, 2004)

Well, actually

The Stuka was, surprise, surprise, a damn fine DIVE-BOMBER. The German's mistake was to believe that ANY dive-bomber could protect itself against fighters without some kind of cover. 

Interestingly the Japanese made the same discovery with the Aichi 'Val'

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 4, 2004)

Yes the Stuka was a fine dive-bomber....as long as there wasn't any of the following in the immediate vacinity...

A) An enemy fighter 
B) Anti-aircraft guns
C) A soldier with a rifle
D) A soldier with a pistol
E) A child with a peashooter
F) An OAP with a really dirty look on their face

because any one of the above could have crippled a Stuka with one fell swoop because lets face it....a plane thats easy to shoot down during wartime...is not much good at all - even if it can cause alot of damage given the oppurtunity....like clear skies for 100miles!   

Sad but very very true


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

And yet, Whaler, there is Rudel whose 'score' seems to give the lie to your statement. Could it be that in the hands of a superior pilot even a very ordinary machine can become more than its makers concieved?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 4, 2004)




----------



## aussie jim (Mar 4, 2004)

> And yet, Whaler, there is Rudel whose 'score' seems to give the lie to your statement. Could it be that in the hands of a superior pilot even a very ordinary machine can become more than its makers concieved?



 indeed...but if you guys are looking for the *best* tank killer of the war ... and not a fighter- i really think the Stuka is it. A tank killer would normally operate under a fighter escort cover anyway as its role is ground attack and not fighter to fighter engagement. As i said before the IL2 was ok as was the p47 and Typhoons in ground attack BUT the stuka was conceived way before any of these as primarily a ground attack weapon and performed perfectly in this role...and lasted the whole war still getting kills in the hands of novices as late as April 1945.


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

I agree Aussie. The Stuka the Val FTM were designed, pre-war, for a role that quickly disappeared when WW2 got underway. 

I think, as well, that it is important to remember that when the Typhoon was used in the Ground-attack role, it required fighter cover to protect its butt, it wasn't just a "Stuka" thing.

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

u know what germans needed? ROCKETS! like mini v2's or something...


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 4, 2004)

Didn't the Germans pioneer the use of air to ground missiles?

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 4, 2004)

if so they didnt use them much as far as i know...


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

> u know what germans needed? ROCKETS! like mini v2's or something...


 what they needed was good leadership...and lucky for us they didnt get it


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 5, 2004)

what they needed was tanks for rommel after normandy


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 5, 2004)

Did a spot of research, found the following



> Fritz X was a German air-launched anti-ship missile, deployed during World War II. Fritz X was an allied code-name; alternate names include Ruhrstahl SD 1400 X .
> 
> History
> 
> ...














===============================



> The Henschel Hs 293 was a German guided glide bomb used against ships during World War II.
> 
> History
> 
> ...













Kiwimac


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 5, 2004)

Thanks for taking the time for that info Kiwi  The He111s that used the Fritz were hunted by a group formed by the RAF that were equipped with Mosquitoes which did very well and shot down 80 percent of the planes they intercepted...many of these at night and low on the water heading for the England coast so they werent an easy target .

Lucky the allies were so advanced in Radar and the Germans were far far behind us in that area. 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 5, 2004)

what the germans needed was a miracle


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 5, 2004)

they were behind but they also saw radar as more of a naval technology, hot really a land one

and the germans did fit a few 262's with air-to-air rockets, there were 6 under each wind fired in quick succession


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 5, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Didn't the Germans pioneer the use of air to ground missiles?
> 
> Kiwimac



If it wasn't for the German's, the American's wouldn't of had a Head Start in the Late 40's 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 6, 2004)

i knew about hs293 and fritz x but i mean like normal 60 pounders or 8 inchers (heheheheh...) not really complicated bombs only a twin engine bomber could use altough they did first test a certain anti-ship missle onto a Fw-190 F-8 during tests (cant remember which missle now but will post later) but a Butcher Bird with rockets would be great against allied armor and shipping


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2004)

well, i suppose aslong as the 87's were doing there bit, they didn't need any rockets


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 6, 2004)

..yes the Germans already made enough silly decisions with turning fighters into bombers or laying out orders for planes to be a fighter and a dive bomber as well as ground attack etc.. Although the FW190s did have some good dedicated ground attack SG squadrons..although guys like Rudel stayed with the JU series ..says something about the plane when their best ground pounder ace stays with the 87 over an fw190  although he did get the D9.

I still say the 87 was the best tank killer of the war


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 6, 2004)

By the end of WW2, the Stuka was having a bit of a renaissance because it was now so much slower than the opposing fighters that they were having significant difficulty shooting the damn thing down!

Still, all in all, it was an efficient machine and damn good at what it was designed to do.

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 7, 2004)

> I still say the 87 was the best tank killer of the war


 *cough* typhoon *cough*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 7, 2004)

you only really like ritish planes, dont you lanc? 8)


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 7, 2004)

It seems Lanc may need some medicine for that cough


----------



## SINKA (Mar 8, 2004)




----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

Typhoons were certainly good tank busters but then again, a *microlight* would be a good tank-buster with 8-16 rockets!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 8, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> Typhoons were certainly good tank busters but then again, a *microlight* would be a good tank-buster with 8-16 rockets!
> 
> Kiwimac




The Germans DID use a microlight to shoot up tanks....i'm trying to remember what it was called....oh yeah a Ju87 Stuka! thats it!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 8, 2004)

> you only really like ritish planes, dont you lanc?



na, not really a big fan of ritish planes


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 8, 2004)

Raspberries blown to all and sundry!!! 

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2004)

stop taking the urine out of my typos, just cos my keybords buggered


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

lol buggered... u crazy brits and ur strange slang


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

I always liked "extracting the michael" as a euphemism for taking the .... urine out!!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

the brits slang is hilarious, you should hear some of it 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

yup, if you've know any cockney rhyming slang, you'll soon understand.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

the lanc is a right ol' tea leaf


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

go away C.C, you've got all night on here, i've now got half an hour, i havn't got time to spam with you.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 9, 2004)

well dont reply to my pots then, ill be gone when get to 500 posts anyway 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 9, 2004)

fine, be like that.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

right ol' tea leaf  im gonna start saying that now

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 9, 2004)

I would say "Merchant Banker" but that would be rude  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

wtf does merchant banker mean?

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 9, 2004)

Umm.....    it means "Wanker"   

Rude Brit Slang   

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 9, 2004)

Just like Berk! means "berkshire hunt" and I imagine all you can GUESS that one, eh?

Fuhrer Von Spam Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 9, 2004)

no i cant...

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

Nope, I'm lost on this one, give a clue  

He He

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2004)

what a 'lil two bob bit....................


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 10, 2004)

It means a portion of human female anatomy!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 10, 2004)

i take it you know what mine means?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 10, 2004)

Yup!

So what was this thread about anyway???

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 10, 2004)

two bob bit = it 8) not tit


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> It means a portion of human female anatomy!
> 
> FVS Kiwimac



Is it her Purse   

Hot Space


----------



## aussie jim (Mar 10, 2004)

Lol..i havent heard purse for years Hot Space


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 10, 2004)

It's because I'm very, very old  

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

i think its the pituitary gland  8) 

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 10, 2004)

No, no you fools!~ Its her ..... LEFT NOSTRIL!!

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 10, 2004)

(lanc u do not, repeat DO NOT have to inform me that this is spam because i already know that and that is why i am including this disclaimer in my post)

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 11, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 12, 2004)

well i don't find that funny in the least....................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 12, 2004)

you wouldnt 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

*cough* cheap shot *cough*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

well, if that was cheap then it was a bloody bargain! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 13, 2004)

cheap as chips................................


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

The Stuka of cource! Rockets or not rockets, it had two cannons like the Shturmovik (even same caliber. Who`s the copycat??) and could with great precision drop bombs at any targets. Tanks were flipped over, cracked open like tincans, and the whistling terror!! Ha ha!
Here`s a nice vid:
http://home.t-online.de/home/maus690/ju87.zip


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 13, 2004)

Hmm. I noticed recently that the Me 210 was also fitted with a heavy gun for tank killing. I think it was an 88mm.

I'll try and find some photos

FVS Kiwimac


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 13, 2004)

Not antitank exactly, more like anti-bomber, anti-submarine and anti-flak installations. 

*Pauke! Pauke!*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2004)

oh god, were on topic  schnell, organise a party


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 13, 2004)

Thanks ... except thats the Henschel HS-129!

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 13, 2004)

Whereas This is what I meant. Although apologies are in order as its the ME 410.











Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

8)


----------



## Sudden_strike (Mar 14, 2004)

I know its not a Messerschmitt, but its still pretty cool, and there were more mods of that plane than the Me. Oh and please stop posting messages that contain just one smiley or a pair of words. Write something imteresting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

sorry, i dont do interesting 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

Sudden_strike said:


> I know its not a Messerschmitt, but its still pretty cool, and there were more mods of that plane than the Me. Oh and please stop posting messages that contain just one smiley or a pair of words. Write something imteresting.



Its a free thread mate - apart from post extreme abuse you can type what you like - and C.C you have plenty of interesting stuff to write - can you tell me a bit about the operational history of the P-108 please? i'm interested in it but i'm too lazy to look myself 8) 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2004)

lmao, i know bugger all about it  8) the most i know is that is was developed near the end of the war, it was crap though so they only made 35 and 12 were converted in to transporters, and most of them got captured 8) ill find out more if you want 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)

well that won't take long with a plane like the 108


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 14, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> lmao, i know bugger all about it  8) the most i know is that is was developed near the end of the war, it was crap though so they only made 35 and 12 were converted in to transporters, and most of them got captured 8) ill find out more if you want 8)



sure mate - thats the idea - people might say "i want to know more about this plane" and you say "Oh yeah sure i know loads about that plane! I'm practically an expert on the P-108! anything you want to know i will find out!" then you just visit websites etc and find out more about the P-108 and share your info with us! don't just say "I don't know!" thats just you being lazy!   (just kidding mate 8) )


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 14, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 20, 2004)

i also learnt that had more defensive armement than ANY allied plane, until the b-29 some 4 years later 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2004)

not that it ever got the chance to use it, hey C.C......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 21, 2004)

only cos mussolinis son was killed in one, it slowed production  if it hadnt done i reckon it might have had more success


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 21, 2004)

IL-2.... A.k.a "Shwarzetod" 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

yup il2 for me too 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> 8)



Its a computer Game


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

oh now i know!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

no he was talking about the best tank killer, cos hes a new member he doesnt spam yet 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

Oh, i didn't know it was an IL2 i just thought it was an IL Sturmovik....didn't know there was a '2' in there


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 22, 2004)

8)


----------



## corpcasselbury (Mar 22, 2004)

All I have to say on the subject is that if I had a choice between going into combat in either an IL-2 or a Ju 87, I'd pick the Sturmovik over the Stuka any day!

An interesting note about Rudel is that he aborted a mission only once, when jumped by an American fighter unit operating in Russia in 1945.


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 22, 2004)

That guy Rudel was one very lucky Kraut i tell you - to fly all those missions in a shit-heap like a Ju87 and come out alive...  the mind boggles


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 22, 2004)

yep!


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 23, 2004)

Rudel was not lucky, he was very, very good!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 23, 2004)

You can't fly a plane like a Stuka into combat unless you're lucky!!! 8)


----------



## Huckebein (Mar 23, 2004)

On-topic again:

Best tank-buster _has_ to be (unfortunately) the Il-2. Best _close-support_ plane is easily the Typhoon/ Tempest. whereas they could kill fewer tanks with their munitions than a fully-laden Sturmovik, if enemy ground-attack planes turned up, Sturmoviks had to scarper, whereas a Tiffy or a Tempest would make mincemeat of _any_ aircraft at low level except the La-7 and Yak-3.


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 23, 2004)

> You can't fly a plane like a Stuka into combat unless you're lucky!!!
> _________________


perhaps the quality of the piliot may have something to do with this???


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

The pilot would have to be lucky - as i have said before - if you put the best pilot the world has ever seen in a Tigermoth at 4000ft and then set a rookie on him in a Focke Wulf 190...its goodbye Mr Ace 8)


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

hmmm one thinks not!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

what are you on about, to FLY a stuka, it first has to taxi and take off, we all know that was an impossibility....................


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

:BIG:


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> hmmm one thinks not!



You think a Tigermoth has a chance against a Focke Wulf 190??


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

I am just saying that just because it is a better plane doesnt mean that its gonna win.....Its like putitng you in a F1 car and Micheal fecking schumacer in a vauxuall astra....he is gonna win cos your gonna fuck up and crash because you havent the skill to control the much faster motor! My theory simplified!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

jj1982 said:


> I am just saying that just because it is a better plane doesnt mean that its gonna win.....Its like putitng you in a F1 car and Micheal fecking schumacer in a vauxuall astra....he is gonna win cos your gonna f**k up and crash because you havent the skill to control the much faster motor! My theory simplified!


Yes and as usual...your theory makes little or no sense at all! we are talking about in the air here mate - not a bloody F1 track full of twists and turns!


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)

i know what excatly we are talking about.....cant you see that i was merely using it as an example...the same could be applied...if you got a super piliot in the tigermoth he could potentially out manouvere thus out fly the crappier piliot in the focke wulf!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

he wouldn't get a chance...i think if you look up a page on the Tiger Moth with a picture...you may be surprised...and possibly forced to eat your silly words


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 24, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 24, 2004)

The Best Tank killer was undoubtably the IL2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

yup, i agree wholeheartedly 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 24, 2004)

me to, much better than, dare i say it, the Ju-87!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

Plus, I make Skins for the above Planes for the IL2 Flight Sim 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 24, 2004)

i had il2 fb, didnt work though so now its gone


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

Why didn't it work, M8?

Hot Space


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Mar 24, 2004)

ah yes hotspace i have one of your skins! its the Dora-9 Black 9 i use it because since i dont have aces, i need some form of a Ta-152!
btw, how does the Go229/HoIX fly?

Reichsmarschall Batista


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 24, 2004)

Cool 8) 

But the Go229 is the best Plane in it. You Dogfight with that and you'll never lose 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 24, 2004)

I much prefer the HS 129 and the JU 87

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

Although this post isn't about aircraft its still on topic: 

How good where anti-tank rifles during WW2? 
How effective where they? 

I've seen plenty in museaums and they look a bit shoddy and far-fetched to me but they obviously had SOME effect otherwise they wouldn't have built and designed as many as they did


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 25, 2004)

anti-tank rifles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> anti-tank rifles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 25, 2004)

i admit, they do sound a bit queer


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 26, 2004)

Maybe THIS is the best anti tank weapon    

http://www.dertiger.com/isenhoursig.gif


you guys have never heard of Anti-tank rifles?? good god! hope this link helps...

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons3.html


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 26, 2004)

Any Links with some very loose woman on it    

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 26, 2004)

good thing your wife doesn't look at this site isn't it.....................


----------



## Hot Space (Mar 26, 2004)

Yes   

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 26, 2004)

8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 26, 2004)

Hey,

When did Whaler become a moderator??

I think I feel deeply hurt! 

Kiwimac


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 26, 2004)

Why's that kiwi???? We're not going to have a mass fall out over who became the new moderator are we...because it would rather amusing if bronze would have to step in and interfere with an argument about himself!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 27, 2004)

i always tought C.C. was gona be the new moderator?


----------



## jj1982 (Mar 27, 2004)

oh well......  i'm sure they have thier reasons!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 27, 2004)

8)


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 27, 2004)

No, No! just, I was using Whaler as a marker for my posts, you know, he'd do one then me, but now how can I compete?

I am but toe-jam beneath his [email protected]!

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 27, 2004)

Hey! what happened to my posts?

I had 240 odd now I only have 209????

Kiwimac the confused


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2004)

they're deleting our spam


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 28, 2004)

kiwimac said:


> No, No! just, I was using Whaler as a marker for my posts, you know, he'd do one then me, but now how can I compete?
> 
> I am but toe-jam beneath his [email protected]!
> 
> Kiwimac



No you aren't - no-one is - I'm not sure why they picked me but its no big deal - its not like i get paid to do this or something 8) 

As for your arguments - argue away - I always enjoyed our little discussions  

As for posts being deleted although as i've stated before it is not me thats doing it, i'm afriad that could be a common thing now - the Mods and Admin are keen to cut down on Spam as it is clogging up the site - there is too much of it and they have resorted to removing it manually (I think  ) so i'm afraid if you guys want to keep your post levels up - cut the spam out and think of something useful to say - although i must stress SOME spam is acceptable


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

Listen matey, if I WANT to be toe-jam beneath your sandals, I'll bloody-well be such! 

Anyway, the best tank killer of WW2 was the JU87 swiftly followed by the HS 129 and THEN the IL2. Not just my opinion, the statistics show more tanks kills per aircraft by the JU87 than any other. I point you all gently in the direction of my posts on Rudel's scores and he was just one flyer in a Stuka.

Kiwimac


----------



## Gemhorse (Mar 28, 2004)

It's certainly possible the Ju87 and IL2 were top-scorers , but as far as the Desert Campaign went , the Hurricane IID with it's Vickers 'S' 40mm's contributed to Rommel's demise , punching holes thru all his panzers...


----------



## Vegafox (Mar 28, 2004)

Hurricane ??? Hurricane IID??? Hurricane IID - it`s.... NOT GOOD PLANE...
Soviet pilots called this plane "grave".


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 28, 2004)

The Hurricane was generally a nifty beast but putting two dirty great 40mm Cannons under her wings kinda made her a little unstable, especially at low level. Whereas the JU87 took to it like a duck to water !

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Vegafox said:


> Hurricane ??? Hurricane IID??? Hurricane IID - it`s.... NOT GOOD PLANE...
> Soviet pilots called this plane "grave".



Really? I'd HATE to think what they called their own planes then!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)

> Whereas the JU87 took to it like a duck to water !



the ju-87 is not a good plane


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 29, 2004)

Understatement! it was bloody awful! like a flying shite! (it looked like one too!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 29, 2004)




----------



## Hugh Janus (Mar 30, 2004)

the only ground attack that was any good AT ALL was the stuka, it was invincible


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 30, 2004)

You all have your opinions, I have mine. 

The JU87 was not an attractive airplane but it was a highly effective one. Especially in the hands of someone like Rudel.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 30, 2004)

no no, the stuka is not a good plane


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 30, 2004)

Hugh Janus said:


> the only ground attack that was any good AT ALL was the stuka, it was invincible





      

If it was invincible how come we shot it down in droves during the Battle of Britain?


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 31, 2004)

The Ju87 was "Double Plus Good"

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Mar 31, 2004)

Double Plus Shite


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 31, 2004)

wow, ive had a thought, a nasty one at that  what if the stuka was french


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

How did anyone come to the conclusion the Stuka was good?

It attacked France and Britain in mass numbers and with supporting 109s was effective but it was slow, under-gunned and under-armoured. They got ripped to pieces when the British fighters were there. As dive bombers they did their job, but they didn't do it well compared to others. 
As ground attack planes, they were out-classed by nearly everything, Henschel 129, Typhoon, Tempest, Sturmovik, Hurricane IV..the list could go on. 
The 37 mm cannons put under the Stuka were good at anti-tank role if there were nothing else in the sky or no AA on the ground. Which is always unlikely.


----------



## plan_D (Apr 1, 2004)

I meant the Hurricane IID, although I imagine the Hurricane IV would have been quite good against troops and softs, after all it did have twelve .303 guns. But this is tank killers, so, IID.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

> How did anyone come to the conclusion the Stuka was good



we didnt, we just like winding each other up


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

Well i think Kiwi is convinced its a good plane because of this 'Rudel' bloke he keeps going on about - but Kiwi is wrong most of the time so we don't pay any attention to him usually 8) 

(joke!)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)




----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 1, 2004)

I think the answer to this partiular threads question has to be: any plane that WASN'T a Ju87 Stuka!! 

 

(I LOVE these emoticons!)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 1, 2004)

it was easily the il-2 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 2, 2004)

Oh, how funny, it is to laugh!! 

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

nice use of unnecessary commas 8)


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 2, 2004)

I run a home for unwanted punctuation! Commas are never unnecessary!

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

they are, the comma is evil


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

I like the comma, it's nice being all curvey like that


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

i draw my commas straight 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 2, 2004)

You have violated the comma!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 2, 2004)

i wont have any bents in my schoolwork


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

you are all wrong, the best punctuation mark has to be the full stop without a doubt.................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 3, 2004)

ive always liked the colon : its a happy fellow and the basis for most smileys 8) anyway, getting back on topic, the il2 adthe tiffy were good ground attacks, unlike a certain german plane...... *cough* stuka *cough*


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 3, 2004)

i prefer the tiffy to the IL-2...............................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 4, 2004)

i dont


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 4, 2004)

And I prefer the Ju87 to the Il2

So there!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 4, 2004)

ok that's just not funny, that's wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (go tiffy)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 5, 2004)

> And I prefer the Ju87 to the Il2



ive arranged for you to see an online psychiatrist


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

LOL

Kiwimac


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 5, 2004)

The Story is told of a Russian Hurricane pilot who attacked a JU 87-D as it was pulling out of a tank-killing run. Unfortunately the Hurri pilot overshot the '87 and the surprised Stuka pilots reaction to seeing the Hurri pass in front of him was to squeeze the trigger on his 40 mm guns.

POOF! Hurricane Confetti!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

yeah, it would have to be a horrible 'accident' for a Ju87 to get a kill  Still at least it was a crappy russian pilot and not a British one! One of our highly-trained elite RAF pilots would never make a silly mistake like that... 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

> Still at least it was a crappy russian pilot



No such thing 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Beleive me...there were lots - most of their armed forces didn't have much of a clue - sheer weight of numbers - just about the only thing they will really be remembered for is the T-34 (best tank of the war  )


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

i know, it was a joke  the il2 was good though


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

Aha! I stand corrected! i had forgotten all about the IL2 - i appolagise...how silly of me to forget such a cool plane


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

yes, bad bronzewhaler 8) in fact im having a bit of an obsession with the il2 at the moment - expect to see one on a signature near you soon!


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 6, 2004)

careful C.C - you're almost as bad as me - changing your siggy pic ever day!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2004)

i cant find one im happy with


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 6, 2004)

Yeah, me too.

Hey is anyone on here knowledgeable about win Xp?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 8, 2004)

nope, i have 98 8)


----------



## plan_D (Apr 8, 2004)

I have XP...maybe I can help. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2004)

back on topic, i think the IL-2 has to be the best tankbuster....................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 9, 2004)

NO NO NO, WINXP is!

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 10, 2004)

XP is like the stuka, it keeps crashing.................................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2004)

no 98 is like the stuka, xp is like the manchester 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 11, 2004)

what, only remebered for it's extended family (i.e. the lancaster........)


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 12, 2004)

What if you have Win95   

You're well buggered  

Hot Space


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2004)

ah, now that leads nicely to Mrs. Bank's theory that everyplane in linked to the spitfire after all, it was "the best plane of the war" (to her, the ONLY plane of the war................)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 12, 2004)

Arguably the best fighter of WW2....certainly wasn't the ONLY one


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 13, 2004)

try telling her that...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 13, 2004)

i wouldnt call it the best fighter


----------



## HammerDown (Apr 13, 2004)

corpcasselbury said:


> As far as the USAAF goes, its best tank killer was probably the P-47 Thunderbolt. The ordnance carrying capabilities of this aircraft are simply astounding: rockets, bombs, napalm, you name it. Plus those eight .50 caliber machine guns, just to make life interesting for trucks, troops and trains.



There was no USAAF in WWII, it was the Army Air Corps... 

P.S. P-47 is my favorite tank buster....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 14, 2004)

na, the IL-2 is my fave.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

and mine  i think thats the only thing me and the lanc ever agree on


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2004)

don't foget stuka jokes, we both get them................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2004)

yeah but i like the stuka


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 16, 2004)

Why oh Why oh Why?   its still a complete mystery to me why you like that god-awful flying junk-heap


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 16, 2004)

i know how crap it is, but its so bad that it has character


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 16, 2004)

you never told me you liked the stuka, in fact i believe in another topic you were having a go at me for liking it and saying you hated it just the other day................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 17, 2004)

im a very indecisive person  well i thought i was, but now im not sure...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2004)

well do you or don't you....................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 18, 2004)

Well I like the Stuka!

Kiwimac


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 18, 2004)

You're in a TINY minority Kiwi.... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 18, 2004)

i like it to now, not my faveourite, but i lke it all the same................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 18, 2004)

yep 8) you should try liking the stuka bronze, its a "unique" experiance 8)


----------



## bronzewhaler82 (Apr 19, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i like it to now, not my faveourite, but i lke it all the same................



one min you hate it - the next you like it   

its like invasion of the body-snatchers


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

i hated it before i made the model of it.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

yeah i think i like it too now, sorry for not believing you kiwi 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 19, 2004)

did my model convert you too.......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 19, 2004)

no, it was more that game we was playing


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 20, 2004)

yeah, that is one hell of a game, but the stuka wasn't the best tank kiler, that still goes to the IL-2


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

yup, cant beat the il2 when it comes to busting tanks 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

the stuka comes in second though.................


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 27, 2004)

Be interested to see comparison statistics. Must have a search and see what i can find.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 27, 2004)

strange person 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 27, 2004)

once again, keep it on topic!!!! one think the stats won't mention is the fact that the IL-2 was better armoured, or that it was better as a fighter..........


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 28, 2004)

CC,

That means a lot coming from you! *I don't think!* as for it being on topic, I think that it is. You see the Stuka, unlike the IL2, was not designed to be anything other than a dive-bomber but the chances of war altered all of that. Though Stukas were considered for night ground-attack at one time.

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

hmmmmm, the stuka may have been better at night ground attack


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

how would it know when to pull up?.............


----------



## Hot Space (Apr 28, 2004)

When you see Cattle above your Cockpit  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 28, 2004)

> how would it know when to pull up?.............



it wouldnt, the stuka is an inanimate object, do you mean when would the PILOT know when to pull up, perhaps? 



> When you see Cattle above your Cockpit


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 28, 2004)

> Quote:
> 
> how would it know when to pull up?.............
> 
> ...



ah, you assume that by "it" i'm refering to the plane in question, i may be ferering to the pilot.......................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Apr 28, 2004)

> ferering


if youre gonna mess up, do it the funny way-Ferefing-and its REFERRING


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 29, 2004)

Actually the Stuka had an automatic pull-up system. The pilot would set the mission parameters into it and put the plane into the dive. It would be pulled out of the dive automatically. Kind of like a very specialised autopilot.

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Apr 29, 2004)

I imagine it took the reading off the altimeter as its direction in which case it wouldn't take buildings, tanks or trees into account. I mean, it'd pull up and fly straight into a building, if the pilot didn't know what was down there.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

> Actually the Stuka had an automatic pull-up system. The pilot would set the mission parameters into it and put the plane into the dive. It would be pulled out of the dive automatically. Kind of like a very specialised autopilot



wow, i didnt think a plane such as the stuka was have such advanced systems on board


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2004)

just aslong as they didn't fit it with RADAR and call it a nightfighter..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 29, 2004)

ha, that would be funny


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 29, 2004)

P-51 as a tank killer? Not with that liquid-cooled Merlin. "Stick a hat-pin in the belly of a P-51 and it will bleed to death in 30 secs." Not a good characteritic for shooting up ground targets.

Best of all? Il-2 hands down. Powerful cannon, rockets, read gun, and 1500lbs of armor. Yes it had a liquid-cooled engine as well, but it was armored extensively.

On the Western Front I would go with the Typhoon. It was very fast at low altitude and it's four cannons packed a whallop. I've heard that it could double-stack it's rockets and carry 16 rather than 8. Anyone have any more info on that?


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

Lightning have you ever heard of the A-36 Apache? It was a ground attack plane with an Allison engine, and it was in fact a Mustang before it was fitted with Merlins. 
The Mustang 1A had 4 20mm cannons.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

> P-51 as a tank killer? Not with that liquid-cooled Merlin. "Stick a hat-pin in the belly of a P-51 and it will bleed to death in 30 secs." Not a good characteritic for shooting up ground targets.



The P-51D was used extensivly as a tankbuster.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I'm not saying the P-51 never did it. I'm just saying that it wasn't the BEST in this particular catergory. As far as the P-51A is concerned, I'm not sure off the top of my head how many of them were built, but it wasn't many. 

The A-36 Apache/Invader/whatever you wanna call it was primarily a dive-bomber. If I am understanding what was said on the Stuka board, we are making a distinction between dive-bombers vs. general ground attack. The A-36's 4 .50cals couldn't match the 23mm or (even better) 37mm cannons on an Il-2 and the A-36 carried no rockets. An Il-2 (in theory) could probably knock out a dozen tanks in a sortie while the A-36 could possibly knock out 2-3. The Mustang would have been better off in that regard.

Has anybody else heard about Tiffie's double-stacking rockets? I've only seen that in one source and was curious if anyone could shed light on it. 16 rockets and 4 20mm would have been absolutely lethal.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 30, 2004)

i don't know about the rockets, but you're right, the P-51 wasn't the best tankbuster..............


----------



## plan_D (Apr 30, 2004)

The A-36 wasn't the best tankbuster, I agree but it didn't have 4 .50 cals, it had six. And it isn't the P-51A, it's the Mustang 1A, it was a British Mustang.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Apr 30, 2004)

I couldn't remember when North American shifted over to 6 .50s. I assumed since the P-51B had four that the A-36 had four was well. My mistake. As for the P-51A/Mustang IA bit, I'm not sure why I was thinking P-51A but good catch.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

best tankbuster has to be the IL-2, no comparision......................


----------



## plan_D (May 1, 2004)

The A-36 had 4 in the wings, and two under the nose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 1, 2004)

what was the A-36's performance like?.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 1, 2004)

should be similar to a normal mustangs i should think


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 1, 2004)

According to the USAF museum's website, the A-36 had a top speed of 365 mph, a range of 550 miles (seems kinda low, at least if it had the two 92 gallon wing tanks of early Mustangs), and a ceiling of 25,100 feet (but with an unsupercharged Allison it must have been pretty sluggish at that altitude. All in all it couldn't have been too bad since they flew escort missions with it in the MTO.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

it sounds pretty rubbish, although range wasn't really needed for a tank-buster..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 2, 2004)

or ceiling 8) and for a tank buster 365mph is pretty fast, compared to the 246mph of the stuka and 248mph of the IL-2 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

but both had bigger payloads, which IS waht you need for tank-busting...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

I agree with Lanc about the payloads which is why I picked the Il-2 as the best tank-buster of the war. Still, 365mph at LOW altitude is nothing to scoff at as most fighters would have been right around that.


----------



## kiwimac (May 2, 2004)

Doing a spot of research on this topic

Did you know some of the HE 177 that saw service were used as tank-busters!



> In total more than 1,000 of many versions were built. Armed with various combinations of 20mm cannon, 13mm heavy machine guns and rifle-caliber guns, the He 177 carried up to 6,011kg of bombs or missiles, and in some types even went into action at "nought feet" as tank-busters carrying huge 50 or 75mm caliber guns.



Source http://www.scalecraft.com/browseproducts/Heinkel-He-177-Greif-(Griffin).HTML







As well JU88s and FW 190s were also used. 











There were schemes to make use of the HE 162 as a tank-buster too.

Fascinating stuff


Kiwimac


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Is anyone familiar with the A-38 Grizzly? It never saw service but would have carried a 75mm gun and reportadly outran a Mustang chase plane at low altitude. It would have been a bear of a tank-killer, literally.

Also, the technicians at Wright field produced some design scetches to fit a 75mm gun to a P-38 derivative. If either of these American planes had made it to serice . . . WOW!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> Is anyone familiar with the A-38 Grizzly? It never saw service but would have carried a 75mm gun and reportadly outran a Mustang chase plane at low altitude. It would have been a bear of a tank-killer, literally.
> 
> Also, the technicians at Wright field produced some design scetches to fit a 75mm gun to a P-38 derivative. If either of these American planes had made it to serice . . . WOW!


 as far as i can tell, the A-38 WAS a P-38 variant (Attack-38, not sure what P stands for) and to me, it looks a bit like a black widow because it has a turret as well


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

P was for Pursuit which is what the USAAC/F called its fighter planes before 1947 or so. The A-38 Grizzly was a completely different design from the P-38. The A-38 was built by Beechcraft, the P-38 by Lockheed.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 2, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> P was for Pursuit which is what the USAAC/F called its fighter planes before 1947 or so. The A-38 Grizzly was a completely different design from the P-38. The A-38 was built by Beechcraft, the P-38 by Lockheed.


 oh. Thanks for the info though!


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

No problem. Happy to help.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

kiwimac, is the plane pic in your post a Ju-88?............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 2, 2004)

Sure looks like a Ju-88 to me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 2, 2004)

not allot else in can be really..................


----------



## plan_D (May 3, 2004)

What about the Henschel 129 that had a 75mm cannon? That was supposed to be a very effective tank buster, even if only 25 were made.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Didn't some of the Hs 129 have a gun designed to fire below and behind that was triggered by flying over a Soviet tank? I think I read that somewhere.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 3, 2004)

how would it know what was a soviet and what was a german tank?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 3, 2004)

Well it would be triggered by passing over a tank. I'm not sure exactly what triggered it. It would be up to the pilot to tell what was Soviet and what was German.


----------



## kiwimac (May 4, 2004)

They were recoil-less rifles (6x 75mm) triggered magnetically by flying over a large lump of metal, ie a tank! and only when armed!

Kiwimac


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 4, 2004)

(recoil-less rifles="Bazookas") the guns were triggered by a magnetic field produced when flying over a tank. Fw-190's were also so equipped. so long as we are on the topic of anti tank rockets, didja know that modified R4M's were used to tank bust? _Panzerblitz_ is what they were called.


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

I don't know about the Hs129 with the recoil-less rifle but I know one variant had a 75mm cannon with 12 rounds, and it was facing forward.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

C.C, how many rounds did the 102mm cannon on the P.108 have?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The Il-2 carried 32 rounds to each of it's 37mm cannons which is nearly 3 times the ammunition load of a Ju-87G. I had never heard about the R4M being used air-to-ground. I thought that the Me-262 was the only German plane equipped to use them. And wasn't the R4M pretty small, like pencil then?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

The Stuka was poor though..so don't bother comparing it unless you want to make a poor plane look good.


----------



## kiwimac (May 4, 2004)

Hey, Hey, Hey!

The Stuka rocks!

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Hey, hey, hey!

No it doesn't.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

yeah, it take a very specail weapon to have a cycolidgical effect on your enemy...............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

A what effect? A psychological, is that what you meant?

I think any weapon did. Do you think the Londoners enjoyed the Ju88, Do-17 or He111s flying over?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

they did enjoy it, but they got used to it after a while, but constant stuka attackes would be terrifying................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The sirens on those Stukas must have been absolutely terrifying. Of course, after about '41 or so that sound most likely meant a Stuka was going down in flames rather than on a bomb run.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

don't forget they were still used with success in africa and russia.............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Not really in Africa, but they did in Russia.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

yes in africa...............


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Not with success.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

The only reason they managed to enjoy success over Russia was that the Luftwaffe was totally superior to the VVS until late '43 early '44.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

true, i suppose even in the blitzkreig they had to have air superiority before they could be used..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 4, 2004)

Yeah, at during the early half of the war the Russians had nothing to hang with a Bf-109 or an Fw-190. And let's not even get into the difference in pilot quality . . .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

remeber the russains had allot of our planes, which could match a 109 or 190..................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Let's not because it wouldn't create a discussion just a mass agreement.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

aren't most of our discussions mass argumants anyway?


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

Well I don't know, you get a lot of flak (hah) for liking the Lancaster...and I have caused two mass arguments normally everyone against me with the T-34 and Belgium thing.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 4, 2004)

believe me, i've been here longer than most, and we've had some pretty strong arguments between the lanc and B-17, i think that's the "daddy" of all arguments................


----------



## plan_D (May 4, 2004)

So they aren't all mass agreements, thankfully.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 5, 2004)

back on topic, best tankbuster is the IL-2, i wonder if that'll satrt any arguments..............


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Not with me it won't.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

I've been saying that the Il-2 was the best tank-buster.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

I never said it wasn't.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 5, 2004)

So we've produced a mass agreement.


----------



## plan_D (May 5, 2004)

Well Kiwimac might argue the Stuka being better.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

but thats just silly  the il-2 WAS the best tank buster


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

atleast the stuka was a feared weapon up untill '40...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Woo-Hoo! A feared weapon for 3 months!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

atleast it was truely feared............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

"oh look, here come a group of those planes that fall apart easily, are crap at defending themselves and are really slow, whaddaya call 'em? oh yeah, stukas  "


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

that's not what they said at the time..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Lancaster is right on this one. The Stuka had a fearsome reputation during the Blitzkrieg and truly terrified those on the receiving end. But that all changed with the BoB.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

it was the first time they were really shot down, before then they had a reputation as being indestructible, far from the truth..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

i know they were feared, but they were so crap at defending themselves it was laughable


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

but no-one knew that at the time............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

The 109 and the skill of the Luftwaffe pilots probably had more to do with the reputation of the Stuka than the plane itself did.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

yeah, during the blitzkreig the stuke could only go in after air superiority had been achieved...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

yeah, i realise the stuka was good at what it was supposed to be good at, but nowt else


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2004)

well surely that's all it has to be good at, what it's desgned for, if it can do anything else, it's a bonus.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Lancaster's right. Frankly, the Stuka's tank-busting ability was a bonus. It was designed to do it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

but the il-2 could hold hold its own in the air, unlike the stuka 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

Isn't that an exact quote from an earlier post of yours? I'm not sure that either plane had much success in the shooting down other planes. The Il-2 had the better rear defense. But Hans-Ulrich Rudel did shoot down 11 Russian planes in a Stuka (very impressive).


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 6, 2004)

yes, rudel was a very good stuka pilot 8) i dont know, it might have been, dont expect me to remember what i have and havent said


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 6, 2004)

He was the best Stuka pilot. He destroyed fewl more than 2,000 combat missions, destroyed probably over 600 tanks (he didn't even really know), and sank a Soviet battleship. Not bad for one man.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

not bad at all


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 7, 2004)

hmmm, i didn't even think the russians had much of a navy?????


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2004)

have you been drinking lanc, they have at the moment a vast navy, but i dont know about back in WW2, im sure it must have been quite big


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

Well you would be the one that would be wrong then C.C. The Soviet Navy was exactly large in size, nor was it advanced in any way shape or form. 
The largest Navy throughout World War 2 was the Royal Navy which had 168 ships and submarines in September 1939, the next along was the Kriegsmarine with 96 ships and submarines, then the Japanese, then American. This order did change but the Royal Navy always remained top. The Soviet Navy was nothing worth a mention.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 7, 2004)

I'm not sure that the Royal Navy remained on top. The US built had 10 3rd generation battleships vs 6, I believe, for the Royal Navy (the Rodney's and KGVs). Plus the US built 20 something Essex class and 9 Independence class carriers and over a hundred CVE's. I know that the Royal Navy was larger at the start, but I am fairly sure that the US had eclipsed them by the end of the war.

But you are right, the Russian navy was never even in the running.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2004)

The Royal Navy didn't stop building, plus you have to remember sinkages.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I'm not saying that stopped building. But the industrial capacity of Great Britain was far below that of America (no offense, just stating fact). After Pearl Harbor (well even a little before that actually) American industry was 100% into the war effort and I think they were able to make up the ground.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

Why would that insult me? Of course America had a lot more powerful economy, probably because it hadn't been bombed, and it's a lot bigger with a higher population. 

You also have to remember the size of ships built, America was building many large ships while Britain was building large ships but smaller vessels in higher numbers. Also America had a long way to catch up to the Royal Navy.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

and even today i wouldn't say russia has a "vast" navy, they have only one class of carrier, which is better than ANY class of western carrier, but their ships don't carry many missile reloads.............


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

What do you mean better? On an aircraft carrier it's more the quality of planes, and how much it can carry. The British can carry quite a few of the Harriers, and they don't need to be big. 

Plus Exorcet missiles have the capability to sink ANY ship with one hit.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 8, 2004)

the are more heavily armed, they pack more guns than any wastern carrier, and it doesn't matter if the missie can sink any ship, it's how many you have, if you come up against half a navy, you're gonna want allot of missiles............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I can't believe this! If you people claim to have knowledge of WWII you should know that the offensive power of a carrier is in its aircraft and not its weapons. Look and the carriers built before the war (like Lexington and Akagi) that had 8in guns. They were completely worthless. By the end of the war, carriers carried weapons for air-defense only. Carry other weapons just infinges on room that could be used to carry planes, which is the carrier's purpose for exsiting anyway. Nothing in the world comes close to a Nimitz class with its ability to carry somewhere around 90 aircraft if need be. And the Exocet isn't as impressive as you think. It actually has one of the smallest warheads of any antiship missile today.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2004)

I it is as impressive, it served its purpose against the British in the Falklands war. And I'd like to point out I said nothing about Carriers having guns, I said the British can carry quite a few Harriers, you do know that is a plane, right? I was implying that's where a carrier gets its bite from...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 8, 2004)

I was refering to Lancasters comment about the Russian's carrier being superior to any Western carrier. Yes I know the Harrier was a plane and that it proved to be a very able air-to-air fighter during the Falklands war.


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

Yes, it did. The Skyhawks had a lot of nice surprises from the Harriers, and the Argentinians soon learned that you don't mess with Britain even if it is several thousand miles from their homeland.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 9, 2004)

not when we have the best navy and air force in the world (i'm not refering to numbers, i mean it terms of technology..............)


----------



## plan_D (May 9, 2004)

I'd say the Americans are superior in equipment in both. The British have the better trained people, plus they do get hold of a lot of American stuff and improve it. The Chinook and Hercules being two main examples. 
Might I add the F-117 and F-22 projects were largely contributed by an Englishman.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 9, 2004)

Nevertheless they remain American planes and the British won't have a truly stealth aircraft until the JSF comes along.


----------



## kiwimac (May 10, 2004)

How did we get from Tank-killers to Aircraft Carriers to the Malvenas war?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 10, 2004)

good point, if you wanna talk about carriers then please create a board somewhere else, this is for tankkillers 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

Look at that, he tries to take all the credit when quite clearly English and German designers remain the superior. 

Best tank killer ever A-10 thunderbolt, best tank killer of World War 2 - Il-2 Sturmovik.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

So if British and German designers are so good where are their stealth aircraft?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 10, 2004)

we don't have any, it's a bit wimpish to try and not get notised, atleast give the enemy a chance, why we would want to spend millions on a stelth plane, what's the point, we get on the blower to you guys, tell president bush that someone hijacked a shipment of stuffed toys, he'll send over the entire military might of america.........................


----------



## plan_D (May 10, 2004)

If it wasn't for German and British designers you Americans wouldn't have stealth, nor would you have any kind of decent air force. And that goes for the Russians as well. 
Plus your stealths aren't so good since the Russian radars can pick them up. And Kosovo, the Stealth wasn't so good then, was it? 

The only reason the Americans have all the 'goods' is because of funding, but if you ever look at design teams it will ALWAYS consist of Germans and British, normally at the top. 

Even the Saturn 5 was designed by Von Braun the Nazi Technology director, and a member of the SS. Without him you Americans would have never got to the moon.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 10, 2004)

I have never denied that other countries have contributed to American technology. But the fact remains, America has the technology, not Britain, not Germany. 

But anyway . . . the Il-2 was the best tank killer of WWII.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 11, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> I have never denied that other countries have contributed to American technology. But the fact remains, America has the technology, not Britain, not Germany.
> But anyway . . . the Il-2 was the best tank killer of WWII.



Deutschland doesn't want power and technology very much now, they're peaceful for the time being. Proof? Not a single (  ) German soldier has died in ANY conflict since World War II. (This is because they don't get involved, I'm not saying that they're some sort of invincible super-soldiers or anything) They do still have advances and great weapons (Leopard Tank), but war isn't on the horizon for them. Quoting the lanc, "If a ship full of stuffed animals is sunk, the terrorists get to experience the military might of the U.S.A" or something close to that.
It is, however, true. Since Deutschland and Amerika are allies now, any attack against Deutschland would be stopped by the U.S. for the most part.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

> But the fact remains, America has the technology, not Britain, not Germany.



because you can afford it..........



> . the Il-2 was the best tank killer of WWII.



damn right.......


----------



## kiwimac (May 11, 2004)

Lightning Guy said:


> So if British and German designers are so good where are their stealth aircraft?



And what good would be a stealth aircraft you could see?

Kiwimac


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

great...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Kiwimac makes a good point.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yes, we do actually have stealth planes that you dont know about, but i never told you...


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 11, 2004)

Ok, fine.


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Il-2 was the best tank killer..I think this thread died on topic. 

British and German designers are better...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 11, 2004)

hell yeah, we were, and still are the worlds leading desingers...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 11, 2004)

yup  as clarkson said "the 3 best cars in the world are all british!"


----------



## plan_D (May 11, 2004)

Too right, and that git was stood in front of them all...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 11, 2004)

Could I have a pic of the British Ferrari and E55 AMG?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 11, 2004)

Could I have a pic of the British Enzo and E55 AMG?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

here yo go 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

yes, pictures of what were obviously the two best tank kilers of the war..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

An excellent point by Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

yes, the top one would blind the driver with it's lights it would ceem..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Would the driver of the Ferrari fling Molitov cocktails at the tanks?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

i'm not sure what the second one would do, it's not doing much in the pic............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

So how is it supposed to knock out a tank?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

there's a huge gun under the bonnet................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

So THAT's how ya do it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 12, 2004)

oh yeah, it's all so simple really................


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

That's the best tank killer  







And that's the best tank killer of World War 2







And that's the second best car in the world, only surpassed by the GT40


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Well, I think we would all agree with you. At least on the tank killer parts.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Of course you would, but you couldn't argue with me on the last one either


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I probably could, but I'm not that much of a car person so I'm not going to try.


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

Ok, you could argue and fail then


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

Like ya'll do in the aircraft discussions?


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

HAHAHAHAHA....no.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 12, 2004)

I figured that comment would cause some excitement.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 12, 2004)

hey, plan_D, as much as i respect the GT40, it is NOT i repeat NOT better than a DB9, then again, nothing is better than the old mini  

anyway, time to get back on topic i think, ill make a topic in the misc forum for talking about cars


----------



## plan_D (May 12, 2004)

I like the GT40 more, and it was designed and built by the British. 

I think we've all agreed on the best tank killer though.


----------



## Raymond Bellamy (Feb 23, 2017)

How about and honorable mention to the twin engine de Havilland Mosquito (4) .303 mg and (4) 20mm cannon .


----------



## pbehn (Feb 23, 2017)

Raymond Bellamy said:


> How about and honorable mention to the twin engine de Havilland Mosquito (4) .303 mg and (4) 20mm cannon


Little doubt that the Mosquito was heavily armed however it was more valuable than a tank and 20mm cannon dont destroy tanks.


----------



## Robert Porter (Feb 23, 2017)

Mud. Mud was the best tank killer of WW2.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zyzygie (Oct 30, 2017)

For information
...While U.S. P-47s attacked enemy concentrations elsewhere in the area, the Battle of the Falaise Gap proved to be a field day for the Typhoons. Speeding from their cab ranks, they incessantly scourged the retreating Germans with rockets, bombs, and blazing machine guns. Flight Lieutenant H. Ambrose of No. 175 Squadron reported, “Some of the German Army did escape, of course, but the Typhoons and some Spitfires made mincemeat of the German Army at Falaise. They just blocked roads, stopped them moving, and just clobbered them. You could smell Falaise from 6,000 feet in the cockpit. The decomposing corpses of horses and flesh—burning flesh, the carnage was terrible. Falaise was the first heyday of the Typhoon...”

*“One of the Greatest Killing Grounds of Any of the War Areas”*
After the battle, the devastation in and around Falaise shocked all who witnessed it. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allied supreme commander, recorded, “The battlefield at Falaise was unquestionably one of the greatest killing grounds of any of the war areas. Roads, highways, and fields were so choked with destroyed equipment and with dead men and animals that passage through the area was extremely difficult. Forty-eight hours after the closing of the gap, I was conducted through it on foot, to encounter scenes that could be described only by Dante. It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh.”

I*t was during the Falaise action that Sir Sydney Camm’s Typhoon performed spectacularly as a close-support fighter-bomber second to none. The plane that had such a troubled development and almost never become operational proved itself as perhaps the deadliest fighter in the Allied arsenal. Typhoons were in action for the rest of the European war as the Allied armies crossed the River Rhine and pushed into Germany. *Soon, however, their season was over. Production was ended in 1944, with 3,205 Typhoons having been built. All but about 20 were produced by Gloster Aircraft Company.
Scourge of Falaise: The Hawker Typhoon​


----------



## Zyzygie (Oct 30, 2017)

...RAF forward air controllers traveled with the ground forces and were able to call in Typhoon air support from squadrons loitering in the area. Striking with bombs, rockets, and cannon fire, *Typhoon attacks had a debilitating effect on enemy morale. Playing a key role in the Normandy Campaign, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later singled out the contributions the Typhoon made to the Allied victory... *
World War II Fighters: Hawker Typhoon​
...The effect on the morale of German troops caught up in a Typhoon RP and cannon attack was decisive, with many tanks and vehicles being abandoned, in spite of superficial damage, such that a signal from the German Army's Chief of Staff stated that the attack had been brought to a standstill by 13:00 '...due to the employment of fighter-bombers by the enemy, and the absence of our own air-support.'[42] The 20 mm cannon also destroyed a large number of (unarmoured) support vehicles, laden with fuel and ammunition for the armoured vehicles.[43] On 10 July at Mortain, flying in support of the US 30th Infantry Division, Typhoons flew 294 sorties in the afternoon that day, firing 2,088 rockets and dropping 80 short tons (73 t) of bombs.[44] They engaged the German formations while the US 9th Air Force prevented German fighters from intervening. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, said of the Typhoons; *"The chief credit in smashing the enemy's spearhead, however, must go to the rocket-firing Typhoon aircraft of the Second Tactical Air Force... The result of the strafing was that the enemy attack was effectively brought to a halt, and a threat was turned into a great victory*."[45]


----------

