# Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I



## Lightning Guy (May 15, 2004)

Back to the point of this thread. I recently read than the Germans fitted 12 55mm rockets to the FW-190F and used in on the Eastern Front. I'm not sure of any service records but I imagine that provided a rather fearsome punch.


----------



## kiwimac (May 16, 2004)

Yeah, read somewhere they did that to the HS 129 as well. Man all you need was one of those HS 129 with the 6x75mm recoiless rifles PLUS the 55 mm rockets.

Like the a-10, not fast, but by God, the punch!

Kiwimac


----------



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

> Like the a-10, not fast, but by God, the punch!



I'll assume we're talking about the republic A-10 here...............

and i still be the HS 129 wouldn't have been as good as the Il-2................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 16, 2004)

I reckon the IL-2 was the best too. Though if I remember correctly, Lanc, you championed the P-51 and the TORNADO earlier on in this thread.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

The Il-2 was probably the best all around. But the modified versions of the 190 would have been very capable of busting up tanks AND defending themselves in the air.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

They could have defended themselves when they've got rid of their load. There are many tankbusters which were all good, but the Il-2 was the best. 
Looking at it though, it doesn't make a difference which was better if your plane could knock out a few tanks, you've got a good aircraft. The Typhoon, Il-2, A-36, FW-190, Hurricane and even the Stuka were all good at tankbusting because they could do it.

The Il-2 was the best though


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

Yup  Though i think the Stuka would have been the best had it been able to defend itself more effectively.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I don't think so, I think the Typhoon or the FW-190 would have been the best if the Il-2 never existed. The Stuka wasn't armoured, or fast enough to be an effective tank buster without getting destroyed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

the il-2 was only a little faster than the stuka, though it did have better armour, so i agree 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Of course you do, you're not dumb, or are you?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

have you payed attention to ANY of my posts?  i clearly state in many topics that i am dumb


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I must have been high on caffine every time you've said that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Oh boy, you should have seen me on Saturday night. I was too tired to be drinking, and I couldn't go home and leave my friend so I was drinking Red Bull, I was so high, it was like being on crack. Not that I'd know what that is like.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I couldn't get to sleep when I finally got home, but I was playing good pool


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

a good tactic to use when playing pool/snooker (i do this with my dad) is wait until about 10pm (or whatever time) and then ask em for a game, as they will have had a few drinks the game is yours


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Well we were in the pub from like 5pm and finally left at like 1am, we were playing pool all night. That was a lot of money...sheesh, needless spending, we love it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

we have our own pool/snooker table, trouble is though the othr day i knocked it and its totally wonky now, all the balls go to the top left pocket  makes for some strategic gaming though


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Is it a full size (12ft) snooker table?


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

nope, quarter size  its pretty rubbish cos if you try and pot a ball with pace it doesnt go down the pocket


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I want a full size 12ft one, but there's no where I could put it in my house.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

and me, im an avid snooker fan and player, have been since i was 9 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I've been a fan of snooker for a long time...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

you'd think after 6 years of playing id have got break higher than 35, ive been restricted by our table  i only played on a big table for the first time at easter


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I'm not much better I got a break of 43 and I've been playing for like 3 years.


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

O'Sullivan got his first 147 break at 15


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

i know  ive got a year and a half to catch up...


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I've already missed it


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

and i doubt ill get 1 147 within 18 months


----------



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

i would..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

sure....


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

I don't know how you play, but I know you won't.


----------



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

how do you know that, i could be the best...............


----------



## plan_D (May 17, 2004)

Go say that to O'Sullivan. w


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 17, 2004)

ive played the lanc, only at pool though. he almost beat me but as he potted the black he went in off too 

anyway, i think its time we got back on topic, im still searching for a worse plane than the roc... 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 17, 2004)

Search for a plane worse that the Roc on the "Best Tank-Buster" thread?


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2004)

What, he fouled when he potted the black?

The best tank killer is the A-10 Warthog, without a doubt. The best tank killer in World War 2 was the Il-2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

i agree on all counts 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 18, 2004)

I think pretty much everyone has agreed with that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 18, 2004)

yup, this topic seems rather dead now


----------



## plan_D (May 19, 2004)

It seems so.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

yes. 8)


----------



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

indeed............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 19, 2004)

i agree 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 20, 2004)

Sure is...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 20, 2004)

ill second that.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Motion passed.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

subject cleared.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2004)

Yes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

so it is.


----------



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

indoobidibly...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 21, 2004)

case closed.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 21, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> indoobidibly...........


don't steal my word....  anywho, yesh c.c., i DID indeed steal yesh, but still..... its undoobatibly by the way...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 22, 2004)

you spoiled the continuity  yup, yesh is a highly usable word


----------



## plan_D (May 22, 2004)

This is getting a bit silly, with all the agreeing and everything. So, I'm going to throw a spanner in the works.  
The Hurricane IIC was the best tank killer.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 22, 2004)

Hurricane II was useful, it's 40mm Vickers certainly packed a wallop. But I don't think the Hurricane could carry both the anti-tank gun and rockets. I'm also not a big fan of a liquid-cooled engine for a ground attack aircraft. I consider the Il-2 to be an exception because of its extensively armored engine and coolant system.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 22, 2004)

I'm also gonna throw something in. Tiffy. The four 20mm's could most likely pop PzKpfw. IV's if it hit in in the softer rear, and it could easily pop Tigers and Panthers with the rockets as shown during "The Falaise Trap".
In fact, those rockets when fired all at once, had the destructive power of a cruiser broadside. Pretty impressive in my opinion and most likely also able to kill or "pop", as I like to say, Königstigers (pronounced Koonigstiger).


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 22, 2004)

> don't steal my word.... anywho, yesh c.c., i DID indeed steal yesh, but still..... its undoobatibly by the way...



in that case, i didn't steal your word, if i'd have spelt it right, surly that would be stealing your word

and the tiffy and hurricane were good tankbusters, but nothing can compare to the IL-2.............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

I still don't think that the rockets of an aircraft would equal a crusiers broadside. A heavey cruiser would be armed with 8-10 8in guns with each shell weight around 300lbs depending on nationality, total broaside would thus average around 2,400lbs to 3,000lbs. A light cruiser would typical carry 12 6in guns with a shell weight of 150lbs or so. That would produce a broadside of roughly 1,200lbs (but a 6in gun fired considerably faster than an 8in making the 6in more attractive in a prolonged engagement). Anyway, a Tiffy's 8 rockets would only weigh 480lbs (unless the 60lb weight refers to only the warhead and not the entire rocket, I'm no sure). Anyway, a cruiser broadside seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

The weight of a rocket does only refer to the warhead. So they had 60lb warheads, even with a much lighter weight they still could have the same hitting power. Velocity is a big part of the rounds penertration power. 
The Pz.IV Ausf G could take several hits to the rear, and top from a 20mm cannon. However since the Typhoon had 4, the continuous impact and velocity from these would be more than enough to destroy it. And the IV Ausf G was the main battle tank of the Wehrmacht. 
The ability to take out Panthers, and Tigers is another great mark to its name, after all a good tank killer needs to be able kill tanks effectively, and the Tiffy could. 

The Konigstiger, or King Tiger for the majority. The ability to take this monster out is a great feat for another tank, let alone an aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

The Tiffy was good, but it still doesn't match the Il-2. The Il-2 carried heavier guns and much heavier armor.


----------



## plan_D (May 24, 2004)

The Tiffy was faster though.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 24, 2004)

Il-2s 37mm guns were more effective than the Tiffy's 4 20mm. Il-2s would do a better job of shooting up tanks.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 24, 2004)

I disagree. 4x 20=80 so 80mm for Tiffy. 2x 37=74 so 74mm for IL2.
Advantage? Tiffy. Tiffy also fired faster, allowing more rounds to get a chance to hit, had more ammo, giving it more of a chance to hit period, and it could more easily evade ack-ack and ground fire due to its speed. Also, thanks to its fair (for a ground-pounder) range, it could more than likely come around for other passes more than and safer than the Sturmovik.
Tiffy range:605mi. regular, 930mi. with underwing tanks
Il-2M3 Sturmovik range:375mi.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

Your mathematics are rather flawed there. It is a simple fact that 37mm was better for punching holes through armor than 20mm. A bigger shell is always almost better for that. The lower ammo count for the Sturmovik is not an issue as as few as 2 or 3 37mm hits can disable a tank. While 20mm can penetrate most medium tanks, few (if any, I'm not sure) tanks in WWII had the top or rear-decking armor to withstand 37mm ammo. I'll admit that the Il-2 would have beneffitted from more range, but it delivered more bang while it was there.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 25, 2004)

The thing about the Il2's range is that the Soviets thought it was so good and demand was so high, that they DELIBERATELY discouraged updates in order to keep production high.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

Wouldn't surprise me. The superb P-38K never went into production because the USAF was unwilling to allow the line to shut down for the two weeks (max) that would have been required for re-tooling.


----------



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

but they must have had a huge surplus at the end of the war, they made 36,163 of them.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

i doubt thats a correct figure


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

I think you both, LG and GrG have a slight misunderstanding in penertration of rounds. GrG is right in thinking the more rounds, at a higher velocity would cause more damage and, yes LG is right in thinking the heavier round causes more damage by looking at its size. But you have to look at how many, how fast, at what speed and where all together. 
A Pz.IV Ausf G (Medium Tank) could take a direct hit from a 20mm anywhere on the tank from any range (except from a certain German 20mm shell but why would they shoot their own tank?). Even with this several hits, at high speed, in the same general area would destroy the tank. Most 37mm could pierce its armour (Rear and Top) so the IL-2 could do it effectively, but would still take some doing. It's not one round, the tank is dead. 

Now, talking of Pz.V, Pz.VI and Tg II it's a completely different matter. Plus you're all missing out the German SPGs one of which (a great difficulty for the Soviets and Allies alike) the Pz. Jag Tiger (P) or Ferdinand for normal people. One 37mm would struggle taking out the Ferdinand from the top, let alone anywhere else. It was impossible, and I repeat impossible, to destroy these things from the front with 37mm or 20mm shells. Rockets would be needed for taking out Tg. IIs and Tiger (P)s. The Ferdinand had 200mm armour for Gods sake...the T-34s and Kv-1s of the SU didn't stand a chance, let alone the Sherman. Anyway, a little off course here. 
The Tiffy had about the same penertration with guns as the Il-2 because the Il-2 had heavier, but less guns, with slower speed of round, and slower rate of fire. Example of gun being smaller but a heavier hitter; The 75mm KwK 42 L/70 (Gun on the Panther) had a penertration of 194mm at 100m. The 88mm KwK 36 L/56 (Gun on Tiger) had penertration of 120mm at 100m. 

On the production, the Soviets were unwilling to break the production runs, that's why they loved the T-34, because things like new turrets, improvements or armour upgrades could be added into the production with little or no disruption.


----------



## Huckebein (May 25, 2004)

I thought it was getting on for 40,000 Sturmoviks produced, with the '109 next in line with about 33,000 (as far as we can tell).

Or am I mixed up and is it 33,000 Il-2s and 30,000 '109s?

I know neither of them ran under 30,000 produced.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

it was about 36,000 Il-2's and around 30,000 109's i think 8)


----------



## Huckebein (May 25, 2004)

Heh, yeah - p'raps we should just leave it at "a lot"!


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

It's 33,000 109s from the first Kestrel engined prototype to the last Hispano built HA-1112 Merlin engined one, with the last rolling off the line in 1958, 23 years after the first.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

my stats were based on numbers built during the war i think 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 25, 2004)

Then they are just wrong, it was 33,000 all together.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2004)

and i was only counting the Messerschmitt versions


----------



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

you didn't count them, i got you the figures, out of all my books on the subject no two can give the same figure......................


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 25, 2004)

The point I was trying to make is that repeated hits in a specific area is unlikely to happen, the plane is moving and the gun (even when mounted solidly) is jumping around. The result is a dispertion os shells. This, I believe, shifts the advantage back to the Il-2 as the Il-2 was not likely to need as many hits. 3-4 hits of 37mm are quite capable of taking out most tanks as Ulrich-Rudel proved in his Ju-87G.


----------



## Huckebein (May 26, 2004)

Sorry, I haven't read the entire 'gun argument' here, but I always try to think in terms of what anti-tank crews would use on the ground. Neither 20mm or 37mm are considered 'heavy' for use as ground-based anti-tank weapons, since they could not peirce the armour of most heavy tanks. The way Il-2s used to get kills with their 37mms (as far as I remember from accounts I've read) is through diving on the target (every little bit of K.E. helps), and hitting weak areas such as the tracks and cooling grill over the motor repeatedly. It was very difficult for them to _destroy_ a heavy tank with these guns, but quite possible to disable or immobilise one. The Typhoon had an even harder time with its 20mm, but four of them did help, on occasion, to disable tanks. Mostly, both aircraft relied on rockets to do the damage, and the guns to take out lighter tanks or 'soft' targets.

Just my two-penneth.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The 4*20mm would have been hitting around the same general area on the tank to cause enough damage. When people say destroyed, as in refering to tanks, it doesn't always mean obliterated (Like that pic I put of a T-34 in 'What is a tank?' thread), it simply means knocked out, disabled, unable to take part in the combat. 
Huckebein, I wouldn't advise looking at it that way since most likely aircraft are going to be hitting the top, or deflecting underneath, both very weak parts on a tank. Whereas ground AT guns will be hitting directly on the armour. 

I fail how to see Ulrich-Rudel proved it unless he was going around blowing up his own tanks. Allied and SU tanks were less armoured than German, and in most cases even less armoured on the top than normal because their wasn't a HUGE threat of air attack.


----------



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

> but I always try to think in terms of what anti-tank crews would use on the ground. Neither 20mm or 37mm are considered 'heavy' for use as ground-based anti-tank weapons, since they could not peirce the armour of most heavy tanks



but can you put something like a 88mm in a ground attack aircraft??

like Plan_D said, in an air attack you'd be hitting the weaker top of the tank.................


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

a 7.5cm was tested in the Hs 129 and Ju 88 on the Ost front. Too big, too slow and a hindrance to the overall effectiveness of the firing a/c........


----------



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

exactile, it's like putting the 102mm on the P.108, stupid, and there wouldn't be room for many rounds........................


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

not actually stupid as the guns were excellent ground pounder performers in their usal role. had the Germans perfected a hardier air-platform it would of worked and the firm mauser was working on a faster rate of fire ammo systems for the weapons involved. The heavier guns for the Hs 129 was not needed as the 3cm Mk 103 round was sufficient enough to blow a T-34 turret off without problem.


----------



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

but it wouldn't have been able to carry many rounds, whereas the IL-2 could take out many tanks in one "hop"................


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

you're positive about that ?

Consider the fact that only 1 Tungsten cored 3.7cm fired from a Ju 87G could take out a T-34 or JS II.

you guys play the IL -2 as the greatest tank buster there was in the war...........if anything it was the best Soviet a/c of the war as the rest was just plain junk......


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

The T-34 makes a good comparison with the Panther. And Rudel even had some success against the very heavily armed Stalin tank. He demonstrated that 37mm is quite capable of handling a tank.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

I read that the Hs-129s equipped with 75mm were very effective, and the 25 built were valuble in service.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

So why not build more of them? Was that another case of political in-fighting ruining a good thing?


----------



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

> if anything it was the best Soviet a/c of the war as the rest was just plain junk



i wouldn't say that, thay had some very good fighters late in the war.................


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

the 75mm jammed easily. the barrel was too long which made the Hs 129 unwielding in flight. The aerodynamics of flight were countered by the long barrel and the firing of the weapon even with an oversized muzzle-brake to dampen the vibration.

Rudel was not only the high scorer of SG 2 flying the Stuka and personally i doubt his high score of claims. some 250 seems reasonable to me. the second closest to him is a pilot with a mere 120 if we want to call it that


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

I have no reason to doubt Rudel's claims. He certainly was very good (you have to be the survive 2,000+ missions) and he certainly had the time and the targets to shoot at.


----------



## plan_D (May 26, 2004)

The T-34 doesn't make a comparison to the Panther. The T-34 had 80mm (front) armour, while the Panther Ausf G had 110mm. Top armour on the T-34 was 25mm while on the Panther Ausf G it was 40mm. 
The IS-2s were more comparable but even then you have to think of ammo differences. Two examples of different German 37mm ammo; 3.7cm Pzgr penertration 100m 41mm, 3.7cm Pzgr40 penertration 64mm and this is from the same gun. 
The Germans were the technological supreme when it came to ammo types. So the Soviet ammo was not comparable.


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

ah but who reported Rudels claims as he was out having a good time on supposed solo missions ? his gunner ? of course he would as he received the Ritterkreuz. Rudel was the ultimate propaganda tool of the Reich and has been chatted for years on end his claims at times were of his flying companions but Rudel was given the credit even for only damaged Soviet armor. His sinking of the Murat was bogus as the ship returned to action and was not destroyed................. I think you get what I am speaking of


----------



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

> The T-34 doesn't make a comparison to the Panther. The T-34 had 80mm (front) armour, while the Panther Ausf G had 110mm. Top armour on the T-34 was 25mm while on the Panther Ausf G it was 40mm.



but it was more sloped on the T-34 wasn't it??


----------



## Erich (May 26, 2004)

it really didn;t matter the slope when attacked from the air. It was found by both sides of the conflict if you come in low and hit the engines, fuel tanks if external you are bound to couase some major destruction. also of note is the top of the turret and fore over the radio operators head and driver.

dang PC is acting up. cyber-demons on the rage............


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 26, 2004)

That was the huge advatage planes had over tanks and AT guns. An airplane didn't need to be able to punch through the front armor of a tank as it could rather easily attack from above and behind.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

You'll probably see the majority of kills on tanks of the Wehrmacht were attacks from the behind or side. The Allies and Soviet Union struggled to destroy the German tanks from the front. 
If you noticed I did state the top armour value of the T-34 and Panther. Although sloping on top armour was very minimal, the T-34 had something of a 1 degree angle advantage on the Panther top side. Mostly the Panther was on equal terms, or more slanted than the T-34.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Interesting. I had always heard that the sloped armor on a T-34 gave it a considerable advantage. But tanks aren't not my strong suit.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

Gentlemen are you familiar with the destruction of a large amount of soviet armor at Kursk by Hs 129's ?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I have heard a little bit about the Hs 129. What I have seen suggests that it was very effective. I know that it was more heavily armored than even the Il-2 and that it used radial engines (which I prefer in a ground attack plane). If only those engines had produced a little more power . . .


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

No Erich, but I know of the large amouts of Soviet Armour loss at Kursk by everything together. 
LG, the T-34 did have an advantage over many tanks due to its slanting, but it only gives so much protection. If you've ever seen late make Panthers, they are very slanted especially at the front. The Tiger however is not, and the T-34 slanting gives it an edge but the Tigers armour is just too thick. 
There's only so much slanting can do. And with only 80mm on the T34/76 it was outclassed by 1943.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Which is why the Soviets went for a larger gun (a 90mm I believe) on the Stalin tank.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

122mm actually and it still bounced off the frontal armor and mantlet of the Königstiger.

Will have to share more on the Hs 129 soon. the biggest problem for the Hs 129 although quite well armored was it's weak engines and the dreaded Soviet tri-flak on flat bed trucks, in fact all the 10.(Pz.) staffeln of the SG's all reported the hate they had for the Soviet AA.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

The improved T-34/85 had a 85mm cannon on it. Which did prove quite effective, apart from it being just an upgunned T-34/76 Model 1943 it had extra space in the turret and a new improved Christie suspension system. 
The Stalin tanks, most likely you are refering to the IS-2 (Ioseph) or JS-2 (Joseph) tanks, they were based on the KV-1 tank chassis and with many improvments but the main being the 120mm cannon. Even though it had a higher calibre than the German Panther, Tiger and King Tiger tanks it only just matched the Tigers 88mm in penertration. And the King Tigers cannon was an improvement on the Tigers 88mm. 

The ultimate gun in my opinion was the 128mm cannon on the JagdTiger. With 250mm frontal armour, this monster was almost undestroyable but not a tank, a tank destroyer.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

but the Jagdtiger was in such few numbers to be effective. The moving pillbox actaully. personally a Pnather would suit my tastes with superior optiks and good enough firepower to blow anything away on the Ost front.

Optiks is one thing the soviet crews lacked in superiority and usally cramped crew quarters where the commander did work of the crew as well


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Yes, I know. The Jagdtiger was in even smaller numbers than the Ferdinand, which had production numbers I think (if remembering) of 260. The Panther could destroy anything in the war, just about. It was at a disadvantage to the IS-2 with its gun power, but within 500m (the average kill range of tank warfare in WW2) it could easily penertrate the frontal armour of the IS-2. The Panther did struggle with the ISU-152 however, and in some cases even the SU-152. 
I was simply making the statement of the ultimate cannon, as the 128 on the Jagdtiger was. Nothing had the same penertration as it. 

Yes, I know of the cramped crew quarters in the Soviet tanks. The T-34/76 Model 1942 had a two man turret, this was gunner and commander. This meant the commander had to load the gun, while trying to command the tank, both full time jobs. On top of lack of optics (Of which the German counterparts in Tigers and Panthers could see up to 5km), the Russian tanks lacked effective radio, sometimes they could be seen doing flag signals to one another on the battlefield. 

In Stalingrad the lack of effective optics was taken away, because THEY HAD NO OPTICS AT ALL. They had to guess the aim by looking down the barrel. The reason being, as the situation in Stalingrad was so dire, they needed tanks fast, so fast they weren't going to put extravagences on them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Back to the Hs 129. Why did the Germans use French engines on that thing? I think using the BMW 801 would have made considerably more sense.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

and because of no radio and being basically blind we get back to MT with triple A flak as the guardians of the Russian hordes, although this was enroute to an attack or at a land used base. Once Soviet armor was caught out in the open by German Luftwaffe ground attack a/c it was all ............. well you can get my point. Even during the last months of the war on the Ost front soviet a/c did not seem to come into play when it came to defense of it's ground vehicles. The soviet juggernaut of a/c seemed to play much different roles


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Well it wasn't just Soviet armor, whenever anybody's armor (or naval units for that matter) were caught in the open by airpower it usually got very ugly.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

LG good question, and as I said will have to open up martin Pegg's grandi-oso book on the a/c for the answers. good low altitude performance ? that cannot be it but..........and I agree a German built engine would be more appropriate


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

I make reference to the soviet attacks with a prelude of Soviet artillery. this was the common norm in 1945 through interviews of two good friends serving in the Heer and the other brother in a land based Kriegsmarine division. they both could not understand why there was never ever any softening up by Russian ground attacak or bombers. this basis was also seen in many books covering the Ost front


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

The Gnome-Rhones were just so low powered (something like 700bhp). The 1700bhp or so of the BMW 801 might have been too much for the airframe but certainly the Germans could have developed something in between that would have helped the Hs 129's dreary performance.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Of course German engineering surpassed the French, maybe the French one was cheaper to build, or in higher number. I don't know. 
Interesting thing here, 15% T-34s were destroyed by 37mm calibre in the whole war. 37mm cannon would have struggled greatly to destroy T-34s from the ground, so I imagine those kills would be from a 37mm armed Stuka. 
Then again it does say some were in Berlin 1945, but only 5% overall. Were there Stukas over Berlin? I wouldn't think so.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Rudel was flying right up until the end of the war. His unit was the only one still flying Stukas but apparently they were still flying missions.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

SG 2 was defending Kustrin in late 45 and the evacuation of many German civians and soldiers. yes the Hs 129 nearly died out by 45 and the take over was by Fw 190F's and G's with frag bombs and the evil panzerblitz tank busting rockets. am going to have to check which units still had the Ju 87G on hand in late 45.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

My resources on the Stuka are limited by apparently the night bombing NSGr1 and NSGr2 still had some in service. It also appears that there were only about 200 total left by the end of the war.


----------



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

i thought they were pulled out of servise before then??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Mostly they were. I think Rudel's unit may have been the only one still using them in daylight but several night units continued to use Stukas for a while longer.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

That's interesting, I wouldn't have thought Stukas would have still been in service, especially in the defence of Berlin. The skies were full of Soviet and Allied fighters, it must have been hard going for them. 
Anyway, it says that 15.4% of all T-34s were destroyed by 37mm calibre rounds. And even more amazingly 4.7% of all T-34s destroyed up to September 1942 were destroyed by 20mm calibre rounds, Bf-109s strafing maybe.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

you guys are so fast I cannot keep up !  

ok SG 2 was based at Wels in Austria taking on soviet armor invading Vienna and Wiener Neustadt. 10th staffel had the Ju 87G till the end of the war.

SG 77 also had the G variant in it's 10th panzer staffel opeating out of Cottbus and Pardubitz till war's end. other staffeln of the existing SG's in 45 had the Fw 190 as I mentioned.

10th and 14th staffels of SG 9 had the Hs 129 till war's end while 11, and 12th either dissolved or converted to rocket firing Fw 190's. 13th ? not sure.

one of my favorites the NSG units. NSGr 1 and 2 were split up to cover the north of Germany and the southern area of Bavaria and armed with D-5's during 1945. Both units were on the receiving end of the P-61's of the US ETO forces. NSGr 9 had the D-3 and D-5 while seriving on the Med and Italien fronts before being pulled back towards Austria.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

So it sounds reasonable that 5.4% of those destroyed in 1945 were by Ju-87Gs.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

Very interesting bit about the 20mm ammo and the T-34 Plan-D. I would guess that would have been done by 190s but I'm not sure when they entered service against the Soviets.


----------



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

i didn't think a 20mm would be that effective against a tank??


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

Plan D it could of been misidentication from the 3cm tungsten rd's of the Hs 129. Fw 190F's and G's had 2cm weapons with the Panzerblitz rockets, but heavy pointed 2cm rd's along with the vicious Minen which tore MT's and other soft skinned vehicles to shreds


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Erich, a collection of German planes in service between June 1941 and September 1942 with 20mm calibre guns, please. 
Now, I'm just being cocky. Still it would help shed light on what could have been destroying these things.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

tjose years or during 1945 as this was the year I was talking about.

during 41/42 it would of been the Stuka but with only lighter mg type weapons and these would of done nothing except to puncture outside storage fuel tanks if the rds had AP/I shot. Possibly Ju 88's and He 111 with the MG 151/20 as well


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I've never heard of the He-111 being used as a tank-buster.


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Well the T-34/76 Model 1942 had top armour of 20mm. In fact it only had frontal armour of 45mm but with slanting gave the strength of flat 80mm. 
The majority of guns that I've got listed could pierce 20mm armour at 100m, so it wouldn't be that hard to destroy the tank from the top with a 20mm or 37mm cannon.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

primarily using bombs but also forward firing 2cm and the ventral section rehoused a 2cm on a couple of field modified He 111's.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 27, 2004)

I had never heard that. Interesting. Thanks.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

Plan, it was the use of hard point bombs


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Regular Fw-190s and even Bf-109s could have taken them out from the top. So, you didn't have to always use bombs to take out the first T-34s.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

now again are we talking early war then ?


----------



## plan_D (May 27, 2004)

Yes, going by numbers no T-34 was destroyed by 20mm calibre after September 1942. And of all T-34s destroyed up to September 1942 4.7% of them were destroyed by 20mm calibre rounds. 
Now, I wasn't entirely correct in saying that 20mm rounds couldn't destroy a T-34/76 Model 1942 (There were Model 1939 and 1941 as well) on the ground. As the 20mm FlaK 30 38 with Pzgr40 ammo could destroy the T-34/76 within 100m if attacking at the rear. 
Either these gun crews were lucky, or these tanks were taken out by aircraft armed with 20mm cannons. I'm going to go with the latter.


----------



## Erich (May 27, 2004)

ok in response then I would have to say Ju 88's and He 111's before the advent of heavier cannon


----------



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

have you got any pics of a 111 with tank busting cannon??


----------



## Erich (May 29, 2004)

zippo, nadda, NEIN !

sorry


----------



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

ok were they like the 37mm but bigger??

do you know where they were mounted??


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

ill NEIN! you erich


----------



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

well he's still spaming...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

to damn right im spamming


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

He sure is. 

So, I think that the Typhoons 20mm would have been able to destroy any German tank up to the Pz.Kpfw IV. After that rockets, or lucky hits would have been needed. There would still be the possibility of destruction up to the Pz.kpfw V Ausf A.


----------



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

well done on making the 1000 posts Plan_D, i'm sure it won't be long before brad joins you...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

he made 1000 posts ages ago  the weell done should go to LG, who managed it in under a month


----------



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

now there's a spaming record brad would be proud of..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

the thing is, it wasnt spam, i dont think any of his posts were off topic


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

Not many of mine are off topic, or at least I don't think so.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

you're right, and i commemorate you. i dont know how anyone can stay on topic, i find it extremely difficult 8)


----------



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

obviously erich has no preblems doing it............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

He certainly doesn't, and he's very forceful to keep it on topic. He knows a lot on the subject though, just a bit more than C.C. No offence intended.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 30, 2004)

none taken


----------



## plan_D (May 30, 2004)

I was just wondering, what's the ammo count of the Hurricane IIDs 40mm?


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 30, 2004)

A quick internet check suggests that the Vickers S guns on the Hurrican were fed by a 15 round drum. I also just learned that the Hurricane was the first Allied aircaft to use rockets.


----------



## plan_D (May 31, 2004)

I knew the Hurricane IV had rocket racks. That's interesting though. That's a large ammo count for guns of that size.


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

It does make for a nice size load. The Ju-87G carried 12 rounds to each 37mm gun, the Il-2 had 32 rpg (I believe), and the P-63 King Cobra carried a very impressive 58 rounds for its 37mm cannon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

it's funny really, even though the hurricane was the first to carry them, i've never seen a pic of a rocket armed hurricane..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 31, 2004)

me neither come to think of it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 31, 2004)

ok, has anyone gon any pics of a rocket armed hurricane??


----------



## Lightning Guy (May 31, 2004)

I've never seen it. I would be very interested in seeing one though.


----------



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

the closest i've come is having optional rockets on a model hurricane, how stupid, they don't even give you rockets for the tiffy................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 1, 2004)

really?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 1, 2004)

I found a pic of a Spit carrying rockets. I had never seen this before. Maybe you all have but I thought this was pretty interesting.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 2, 2004)

nope ive never seen that before, thanks 8)


----------



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

i've seen them with rockets before, but never just single rails..............


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

have you considered the Fw190F-8 mit Panzerblitz rockets..........quite a death machine against soviet armor and MT's !


----------



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

what were the Air-to-Air rockets used by the germans, the ones thet fired in quick sucession..............


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

March 18, 1945 the Me 262A1a's of III./JG 7 intercepted a US B-17 pulk and fired off salvo's of R4M rockets destroying some 18 plus Allied viermots..........

R4M's and the head could be replaced by a Panzerschrek type head used for ground attack and that is precisely what JG 7 did when flying out of Prague in spring of 1945, intercepting the Soviet hordes

~E


----------



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

thanks erich

i saw a pic of them mounted under the wings of a 262 in two sets of 12, was this common??


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

yes 12 was the usual number although some experiments led to 24 under each wing. A bit heavy on slender delicate wings, but not certain if these trials were ever carried out against heavy bombers


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

The rockets weren't all that heavy though, were they? I mean, they clearly appear to be much smaller that the rockets used by America of Britain.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2004)

typical pose and the rocket itself........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 2, 2004)

Excellent pic Erich. I've heard the rails were actually built out of wood. Any truth to that?


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

yes they were. good observation. you can see the tail sections of sorts. The R4M agasint the heavy bombers actually had the tail fan out and caused the rocket to spin tightly keeping a fairly straight trajectory. the heavy Panzerschrek head can be seen on the anti-tank round. we of course all know the damage done by the Panzerschreck with it's 8.8cm round against Soviet armor. so here we have the round in the aerial form and quite lethal at that.........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Good thing for our bomber boys more of those didn't make it into action then.


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

no kidding and glad that JG 7 did not have these uglies as early as fall of 44 or January of 45 when JG 7 got really into action. Nice that there was an overabundance of P-51 escorts to break up the jet formations as much as possible ...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

Yeah. Everything I have seen suggests that the 262s were basically reduced to making attacks either one or two at a time.


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

sometimes in threes but it would depend on the escorts. Kinda strange but during the spring battels of 45 the jets would attack in staffel strength first in a straight line firing their rockets at long range and then attack by two and threes through the formation.........

not real sure on attacking ground columns though as there just isn't much on JG 7's last days in trying to knock out Soviet armor except that there were success's with the altered R4M and the four 3cm kanon


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

I imagine that concentration of firepower would have been lethal against just about anything the Soviets had at the time (but WWII armor is NOT my strong point).


----------



## plan_D (Jun 3, 2004)

Without getting too deep into the armour values of Soviet tanks, I can assure you the R4/M and 30mm could destroy anything the Soviets had. The Soviet Armour even from the ground was extremely vunerable to the Panzerfaust, as they found out in Berlin. 

The R4/M actually paved way for the Mighty Mouse FFAR folding-fin aircraft rocket. Even more scary was the X-4 a wire guided air-to-air missile with a range of 2.2 miles. They tested it on Fw-190s and they were about to test it on Me-262s but the war ended, it never got used in action but it would have been deadly if it did.


----------



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

how often were the r4m used??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 3, 2004)

The problem with the X-4 was that the launching plane had to maintain straight and level flight for the entire duration of the missle's flight. That wouldn't have been very healthy with all those Mustangs flying around.


----------



## Erich (Jun 3, 2004)

Lanc, the R4M Orkan rockets were used on every mission that III. and I./JG 7 were on intercepting US and RAF bombers by day. First mission was 18 of March 1945............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

Certainly having a X-4 drilled into your plane was an unhealthy prospect, these things didn't stick around. The launching plane wouldn't be there an awful length of time, and maybe the other Fw-190 or Me-262s could protect the launching plane. I don't know how they'd go about it, but it certainly wouldn't have been an enjoyable experience for the bomber crews.


----------



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

can you tell me a bit more about the X-4 please??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 4, 2004)

The X-4 was the worlds first air-to-air guided missile. It was an air launched wire-guided missile, which had a wire range of 3.4 km. It was controlled by the pilot of the mother plane by a joystick. 
Flares would be released from the back of the missile to let the pilot see where it was heading. It went 716 mph at 21,00 ft and had a warhead of 44 lbs. 

It was only ever air tested on a Fw-190 on 11th August 1944. There's extensive information on the Luft' 46 site under the missiles section.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 4, 2004)

A speed of 716mph breaks down to a flight time of ten seconds. From what I've heard about aerial combat, that's a long time to fly staight and level in the middle of a dogfight. I'm not saying that the X-4 wouldn't have caused a lot of trouble for Allied bombers, but it would not have put the German fighters in a very envious position either.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 5, 2004)

I assume that ten seconds is if you let it go at 3.4km. Ten seconds is a long time but at that distance you're not yet locked into the dogfight, the escorts will have to pick you out. And if your wingmen are covering you...

...not really something I'd want to do but I wouldn't want to be in the bomber being shot at either.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 5, 2004)

I agree. I'm just saying that the X-4, despite all of its advanced technology, wasn't quite a 'silver bullet.' It did have its drawbacks.


----------



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

that sounds like an amazing missile, any pics??

and surely if you were in a dogfight

1) you would be to busy fighting to fire it
2) with, what sounds like a large-ish missile, it would be suiside fighting with it anyway??


----------



## plan_D (Jun 6, 2004)

You wouldn't be in a dogfight when you fired them, they had a range of 3.4km. You're out of range of any guns at that point in time, the escorting fighters would be coming to get you but you wouldn't be in a dogfight. 
They weren't that big, just go to the link below: 

http://www.luft46.com/missile/x-4.html[/url]


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 6, 2004)

The Germans probably would have used the same tactics they used with the Wfr. Gr. 21 rockets with conventional Bf-109s and Fw-190s covering the dedicated bomber-destroyers. The complication with the X-4 was that the launching plane wasn't free to maneuver immediately after launch.


----------



## Erich (Jun 7, 2004)

slightly OT but it is the same for the He 111, Ju 290 and Dornier, He 117 bomber crews, as the radio guided air to ground bombs were sent against shipping the German a/c had to stay on a stragiht course so the operator could watch the drop of the bomb/missile to its target guided with a joystick. any German bomber deviation would of course send the projectile off course. Same applies with the X-4.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 7, 2004)

I think they German air-to-ground missles were slightly better because they were radio-controlled. As I understand it, the plane could take limited evasive action as long as the operator could still see the missle.


----------



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

surely as long as the person guiding the missile could still see and control the missile the plane could move freely, as the missile's moving independently of the plane...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

That's what I am thinking. Radio control gave more tactical flexibility that wire guidance althought a wire-guided missle couldn't be jammed.


----------



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

it would have been very difficult to fly both in a straight line however..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 8, 2004)

Did you notice the aircraft Erich mentioned from launching these missles? He 111, Ju 290, Do 17, He 177. Everyone of these planes features several crewmen so it is not that difficult to have one fly the plane and one fly the missle.


----------



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

sorry, i thought they were launched from fighters, my mistake...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jun 9, 2004)

and those planes should really have had to worry about taking evasive, normally i think they would have had fighter escort?


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2004)

surprisingly not as the heavy twin engines were involved with anti-shipping strikes, the Bf 110's and Ju 88's were involved in Allied bomber killing or ground strafing and bombing.

The anti ship killer's were pretty much on their own.............no thanks !

E~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 9, 2004)

Well they had some success. The Italian ship Roma was sunk by a guided missle as it was heading south to surrender.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 10, 2004)

And that was a BATTLESHIP (yes, I know it's Italian, but some of their equipment was well built but very vulnerable;e.g.~navy at Taranto).


The missle was a Fritz X, by the way.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jun 10, 2004)

....And there were two missles. http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/wunderwaffen/missile/fritzx/fritzxn2.jpg

That's what remained of the ship.

One more thing, Fritz X wasn't a missle, it was a guided glide bomb. The impression that it was a missle might come from the flares used for guiding the missle look a bit like exhaust flames when used.


----------



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

didn't the americans use the first RADAR guided bomb in the PTO against jap shipping??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 12, 2004)

The Americans used a weapon named BAT but I am not very familiar with it. I believe it was used on PB4Y2 Privateers. Here are a couple of pics.


----------



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

yes that's the missile, i assume it was rocket powered?? i think it said it had a range of 20 miles..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 13, 2004)

I'm not real familiar with it but I am fairly certain it would have been rocket powered as are most modern missles.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I did some checking on the Bat and here is what I found. The weapon entered combat in Jan. 1945 with the USN PB4Y2 Privateer patrol bombers. Each aircraft was capable of carrying two of the weapons. They were glide bombs (no motor at all) but glided very well; a maximum of 15-20 miles depending of release speed and altitude. They weighed approximately 1,600lbs with 1,000lbs of that being explosive. Guidance was by ACTIVE radar, the first time this was ever used (and very impressive for 1945). Several ships were damaged or sunk but it's success was limited to hitting ships in open water. If the ship was in port or otherwise near land the early seeker head would become confused by the multiple echoes and was likely to miss the intended target. Still, a very technologically advanced weapon for its time.


----------



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

i'm suprised the germans didn't come up with a similar idea, or did they?? after all the germans came up with pretty much every other idea when it came to aircraft..................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

I am not aware of any other active radar missiles being used by anybody during the war. In that since, at least, the Bat has to be considered one of the most advanced weapons of the war.


----------



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

i would agree, along with the A-Bomb, which is a pretty obvious candidate...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 15, 2004)

Very true. But I was more specifically refering to the guidance system. And an A-bomb didn't really need a guidance system.


----------



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

in terms of guidance i would say it's the most advanced guidace system i've heard of..................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2004)

It is interesting to see the Americans, in one thing at least, ahead of the Germans. Who had the worlds first ballistic missile, the worlds first Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (On the drawing board), the worlds first air-to-air guided missile, the worlds first air-to-surface guided missile, the worlds first anti-aircraft missile. The list could go on...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 16, 2004)

Yes it could. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there though.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

Pretty obvious really.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 17, 2004)

What, that the Germans were ahead of Britain in developing all of that techonology?  

The Germans had some of the best and brightest at the time, no denying that.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2004)

Ahead of Britain in some things yes, I'm not ashamed in admitting that. Germany and Britain were two(And are still up at the top) of the greatest industrial, engineering and scientific nations of the world. German technology being stolen from them by the Americans and Russians. Still, couldn't beat the British engine.


----------



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

is that plane engine or car engine, because no-one can beat either.......................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

The Americans do nice sounding engines, and big gas guzzling engines. Shame about the weight of the car, and low power out-put in comparison to the size of the thing. But we'll keep off car engines.

I was of course refering to the Aircraft engines.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

The British do have some phenomenal aircraft engines. The Merlin and Griffon have to be considered two of the best ever.


----------



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

i would say the mirlin was the most succesfull of all time..............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

Of course it was, a lot of the Allied Air Force used the Merlin. And so did some tanks.


----------



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

it's also the best remebered...............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

Hurricane, Spit, Lanc, some Beaus, Mossie, P-51, P-40. It was probably the most successful engine of the war, or at least the most successful Allied engine anyway.


----------



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

easily the most succesfull of the war................

and you forgot the lancaster.............


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

A27M Cromwell, A30 Challenger, SPG Avenger (A30), A34 Comet, A41 Centurion (Still used in the British Army in the 60s), A39 Tortoise, A33 H.A.T are all the tanks I know of with the Rolls-Royce Merlin (Re-named Meteor for tank engine version).


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jun 18, 2004)

No, I mentioned it, right after the Hurrican and the Spit. I did forget the Battle, Defiant, Fulmar, and Firefly though.[/quote]


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2004)

I've just remembered another thing the Americans had that no one else had. Gyro-Stabilisers in their gun turrets (On the tanks) from the M4A4 onwards they had stabilisers for, well, stability on the move. Easier aiming when moving, which is always good.


----------



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

but many tank crews didn't even trun it on when they went into battle as it was complicated to use..........................


----------



## plan_D (Jun 21, 2004)

It depends on the battle situation. If they were going to wait for the enemy to come to them, therefore sitting and waiting, they wouldn't, obviously. 

Attacks across open uneven terrain, it was used. And it's still used to this day, with a little more sophistication with computers and all.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 27, 2004)

OK... 
Just found this site, and i think its great... i have some info on Rudel that might clear up some opinions and misinformation on the Stuka as a tank-buster...

Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel was actively involved in the developement of the Ju-87G-1 "flying tank destroyer" and participated in trials at Rechlin and Tarnewitz in early 1943... The first operational trials took place on 16 March, 1943... By 5 July 1943, which was the start of Operation "Zitadelle", the first 2 Ju-87G-1 equipped Staffeln were operational: Pz.J.Sta/St.G 1 and St.G 2...

On the same day, Hptm Rudel, destroyed a complete company of 12 attacking Soviet T-34's... 12 of em...

Rudel was shot down 30 times by Anti-Aircraft fire, never by a fighter...

He did in fact sink the Soviet Battleship Marat at Kronshtadt, on 21 Sept 1941... He scored a direct hit on Marat with an ordinary 1,102 lb bomb on 16 Sept, but the 2,205 lb armour piercing bomb dropped 5 days later split the ship in half... Kronshtadt was defended by more than 1,000 AA guns... 

And he shot down 9 enemy aircraft, including 7 fighters, while flying the 87G...

He was so despised by the Soviet Regime, that a price of 100,000 rubels was put on his head, dead or alive...

The 87G-1 was basically a conversion of the 87D-3 with attachment points to carry the 2x 37mm Flak 18 cannons... Often had improved ground vision panel in the cockpit floor...

The D-3 was a basic "Dora" airframe with added armour protection for the crew, radiators, and engine... Deleted those sickening dive sirens... 

The Ju-87G-2 was a conversion of the 87D-5 airframe, which had tapered and extended wings, mass-balanced ailerons, reinforced ground observation panel, and deleted the wing dive brakes and fixed wing armament (2x 20mm MG 151/20 cannon)... Occasionally used 8.8 lb. SD4/HL hollow charge bombs, fitted with rocket boosters, against Soviet tank concentrations...

The 37mm BK 3.7 Flak 18 anti-tank cannon weighed 600lbs, was 11 ft 10 inches long with a 6 ft 11 inche long barrel... Muzzle velocity was 2,610-2,820 ft/second... Rtae of fire was 140 rds/min... Effective range was 2,000 meters (6,600 ft)... Fired 2 kinds of rounds... Tungsten-carbide core armour peircing tracer and high explosive tracer... Tungsten round weighed in at 1.37 lbs.... Carried 2x 6 round magazines per gun...

Enough for now.. I'm beat... More later...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

The Sturmovik was still better though. One man isn't going to change my view on the aircraft itself.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

But lesofprimus does bring up the point that maybe the Stuka's later-war role has been severly underrated. Seems like after they were withdrawn from the Battle of Britain, where they were being mis-used in a strategic role, people in the West assumed they disappeared completly. (Incidentally, they had the best damage to kill ratio of the major caregories of German planes in the BoB, suggesting they were not as fragile as believed.)

I don't have the figures, but I'm willing to bet they had a better kill to death ratio than the Il-2 on the Eastern Front, and maybe even the greater overall tank kill score. 

I think my vote would be for the Stuka, based on its record. How many other 1939 ground attack aircraft were still in use in 1945? (Apart from Japanese kamikaze-use Vals etc)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I don't think the West believed the Stuka had gone as it was still in use in North Africa. The fact is the Stuka could only be considered good in situations where air superiority had been gained. The Stuka had a great time over Poland, and France 1940 when there was no true opposition. 
During BoB when the Luftwaffe finally were getting what they gave the Stuka fell down, and suffered heavily at the hands of the RAF. So, where did they send them? To Russia where air superiority was gained quickly over the VVS. 

On the other hand the Sturmovik was in the fighting when the Luftwaffe held the skies, and it still caused considerable damage to the Wehrmacht. The Stuka wasn't fragile, it was a sitting duck. The Sturmovik at least, was heavily armoured but could still manuver.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

For sure the Sturmovik was sent out no matter what, but it suffered huge losses. Its famed armor was to protect the crew from ground fire more than other planes, and it was still an easy kill. The Russians just kept throwing them up there.

Granted the Stuka really need local air superiority, but isn't that true, really, of any tactical ground attack air craft that isn't blazing fast? This is why it shouldn't have been in the BoB in the first place, which was a battle by the Luftwaffe to _establish_ superiority. If it had, and Sealion had gone ahead, the Stuka would have been a killer against ground defences and ships.

I suppose it would be hard to find total tank kills for the Il-2 and Stuka, but as I said, I think the Stuka could come out on top, especially on a per plane basis. But that's speculation...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 27, 2004)

If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about the tank busting capabilities of the different aircraft available during WW2... The Stuka had been around since 1938 in a dive bomber role... Not a tank busting role...

When the Stuka finally started blasting away russian tanks, their philosphy had changed... They flew low to the ground, albeit not very fast... They removed dive brakes and associated hardware that made it famous during the earlier part of the war...

Keep in mind how the battlefield operated during these latter parts of the war... Furious armoured attacks and counterattacks... There really was no clear owner of the skies in a air-superiority role... The 87G-1 2 flew off dirt roads and such, and were called upon in decisive breakouts and on the spot emergencies... 

Air superiority was NOT a factor in the tank busting role of the Stuka 87G during the western assault... There really was no such thing as air superiority on this type of fast moving, move and countermove, battlefield...

The records are sorta sketchy concerning the # of tank busting 87G's that were lost to groundfire vs. enemy air action... Obviously, the # lost to AA was very , very high... 

But... Remeber how they operated these machines... Fly in low, and either a rear on attack or side on... If u did get shot down by AA, and alot of them did, u usually ended up in ur own lines.. And because the Suka was such a well designed, study aircraft, the pilots usually survived, walked back to their airfields, climbed into another plane, and went right back up....

Rudel was one such man... Probably the greatest pilot that has everflown in the skies...


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

But surely attacking enemy armour was one of the roles meant for dive bombers? In fact, weren't dive bombers the _only_ way to attack individual tanks from the air until heavy cannon started to be mounted on planes?

Regarding AA losses: On the 450-plane raid consisting largely of Stukas, preceding Operation Neptune on April 17th, 1944, 7 Stukas were shot down or heavily damaged.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

The VVS had no viable means of destroying the Stukas when 109s and 190s were in escort. There is always such thing as air superiority, and the Luftwaffe had it for the majority of the Russian Campaign. 
The Stuka was always in the prime position for attacking enemy tanks, while the 109s swooped up the LaGGs and Yaks of the VVS. Stukas were always easy prey for any fighter. The Sturmovik was not such easy prey even after being battered it could still fly home, just like the B-17. There was a reason it was called the Concrete Plane. 

If the Stuka achieved more tank kills than the Sturmovik it means nothing. The Soviets production of tanks out-numbered the Germans 7:1. There's more Soviet tanks to destroy, many, many more.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> If the Stuka achieved more tank kills than the Sturmovik it means nothing. The Soviets production of tanks out-numbered the Germans 7:1. There's more Soviet tanks to destroy, many, many more.



Oh, sure it means _something_. They still had to kill the tanks, whether or not it was a target-rich environment, and they did. The fact that the Soviets were overwhelming the Germans in numbers could easily be an argument in the Stuka's favour. I bet the Russians had more AA too...

I'll never convince anyone (least of all myself ) that the Stuka wasn't a sitting duck for fighters, but my point is most ground attack aircraft were vulnerable to some degree, and that the Stuka's vulnerability has been overstated somewhat by observers in the West who remember the BoB.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

It's vunerability hasn't been under-stated. As in most cases it is against fighters, which gave the Luftwaffe the biggest trouble in the BoB. Sure, the Stuka could withstand ground fire to a point. That point might have been higher than normal planes, but it wasn't as good as the Sturmovik. 

A target rich environment makes for more kills. I doubt the Soviets had much AA cover. The Soviets had 37mm, 57mm and 85mm AA cover, the Germans had 20mm, 88mm and 105mm. I reckon they had around the same amount plus the Germans had more effective mobile AA stations.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

I'm suggesting that it's vulnerability has been _over_stated, in comparison to other divebombers in particular, and ground attack planes in general. Absolutely the Il-2 was better in this respect, but it wasn't quite the flying tank it's made out to be, nor was the Stuka the paper airplane _it_ was made out to be. It was no more vulnerable than the Dauntless, Skua or Val, for example.

You said that because there were more Soviet tanks than German, whatever the Stuka destroyed meant nothing--I think that's going a bit too far. And if you want to talk numbers, how about the 30,000+ Il-2 (Eastern Front) versus the less than 6,000 Stukas (all fronts)? I reckon that makes whatever the Stuka did on the eastern front compared to the Il-2 even more impressive.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I meant overstated, sorry about that. 

The Stuka was no more vunerable to ground fire than the Dauntless and such armour wise. But the Sturmovik was less likely to fall out of the skie from AA fire than the Stuka, that's my point. 
The Sturmovik was truely a flying tank, it had the firepower and durability to earn itself the title. The Stuka was more vunerable than the Sturmovik. 

Well I put that too strongly, I don't mean nothing but it certainly doesn't prove its supremecy. If there are more fish in the lake, you're going to catch more. So the Stuka, only naturally, was going to achieve higher kills. 
On top of that the Stuka had complete freedom over Poland and France 1940. When they were up against it, they failed such as in North Africa and the BoB. Then put into another free situation like in Russia they began to achieve. 
The Sturmovik was up against it throughout its operational career. The Luftwaffe was always capable of making sweeps against the Sturmovik formations. 

The numbers built really don't talk about the survivability of either plane. As both planes were under different stresses from the opposition. Where the Stukas opposition was strong they could not achieve, where the Sturmoviks opposition was strong they continued on.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 27, 2004)

The Stuka did a fine job of busting tanks (especially considering the Luftwaffe only accepted about 4,800 total - not sure how many of those were G varients). But it must be remembered that the Luftwaffe held air-superiority over the Eastern Front far longer than anywhere else. That meant greater protection for the Stuka and greater risk for the Il-2. Citing Rudel as an example proves nothing because that man probably would have knocked out a couple hundred Russian tanks flying a broom stick! He was just that good.

Think about it this way, what would have happened if the Germans had had the Il-2 and the Russians had the Stuka? The Il-2 was no speed demon, but it was faster than the Ju-87G by nearly 40mph. It carried a better overall armament: 2 heavy cannon (23mm or 37mm), up to 8 rockets, PTAB 2.5 cluster munitions. The Il-2 was by far the better armored and also had much heavier defensive armament (that 12.7mm UBT was far superior to the MG-81Z of the Stuka). For busting tanks, the Il-2 was clearly the better plane.


----------



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

none of this has swawed my opinion that the IL-2 was the better tankbuster......................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Truthfully though, I think anything that can do the job be it a Typhoon, Stuka or Sturmovik is good enough.


----------



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

i'm not sure i would actually give the tiffy the title of tankbuster, i know it was very successfull in this role in normandy, but i would still just call it a ground attack aircraft.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 27, 2004)

Or P-47. They all did very well, but the point of this treat was to discuss which was best. For destroying tanks, it was the Il-2.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

True. The Typhoon was very capable at destroying tanks though, Lanc. Or Hurricane Mk. IV


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 27, 2004)

The Tiffy was excellent at destroying tanks. The rockets could knock out any German tank and the 4 20mm were very useful at destroying anything smaller than a Panther.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I bet it could destroy the Panther with the four 20mm, especially if it hit the radiator grate behind the turret...grate? Did I just make that word up?


----------



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

> i'm not sure i would actually give the tiffy the title of tankbuster, i know it was very successfull in this role





> The Typhoon was very capable at destroying tanks though, Lanc



where in my post did you get the impression i didn't think it was any good??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

By saying you wouldn't call it a tankbuster. If it can destroy tanks, and can do it VERY WELL, it's called a tankbuster and nothing you can say will change my mind  


 Have a goofy day...


----------



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

but it's primary role was as a ground attack aircraft, if it was attacking tanks, tanks being on the ground (hopefully), making them ground targets..................

just look in any book and it will tel you the tiffy was a ground attack/low level interceptor.......................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Well in that case all tankbusters are ground attack aircraft. Think about it, Il-2s and Stukas both attacked soft convoys and troops as well as tanks. 

Tanks being on the ground, hopefully? What is there going to be a glitch and they float in the air?


----------



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

i was just thinking someone would be smart and mention that Russian glider tank.................

but then again, a floating tank is a good idea  ...........................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Plan D, you confused me with that sig-change mid conversation--who's this guy, I thought... 

I mentioned the numbers because you did. Basically, if you want to claim that the Stuka had a numerical advantage vis a vis targets, I can point out that the Il-2 had an advantage vis a vis, er, Il-2s...

As I said, though, there's no doubt that the Il-2 was the tougher plane (though that 1-seater-no-rear-gunner thing was a bad idea) but, really ANY ground attack tank buster is going to lose to a fighter. But how many tank killers first flew in 1935, first flew in combat in 1938, and were still flying in 1945?

When you consider that the Il-2 did zip before 1941, then the Stuka is a candidate for best tank buster, on the basis of longevity alone.


----------



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

but they had nothing else that could do the job....................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Good grief, you guys are way too fast...  

And not having anything else to do the job is a compliment to that which is doing the job...


----------



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

i thing it's more of a "we're only using you because we have nothing else"...................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I remember the glider tank, I posted the picture of it. 
Sorry about that, DP. I hope it wasn't too confusing. 

The Sturmovik was just better than the Stuka though. On ability the Sturmovik was better, so there...


----------



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

can anyone think of a way to shorten Plan_D's name??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Erm...erm...hmmmm....let me think....hmmm.....that is a hard question...I'M A FREAK!!!  

I'm going to drown my sorrows.


----------



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

your name's annoying....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

Thanks a lot.


----------



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

you love me really...........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

I didn't know it was moving this fast. If love is here, I have to change.


----------



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




----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> The Sturmovik was just better than the Stuka though. On ability the Sturmovik was better, so there...



"So there"? Is that it then?

If you'd rather not discuss the points, fine. The Stuka did more, so there...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

That's criminal, you're not allowed to use my own trick against me.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

The Sturmovik got a better nickname. HA!


----------



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

that was just low........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

It was needed.


----------



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

cleaver though, you still haven't got a comeback..........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

See, he knows the Sturmovik was better.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

There's a better nickname than the "Stuka"?? Never knew...


----------



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




----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

You've confused me into submission.


----------



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

me too.........................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Stuka is a nickname, non...?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

It's the name. Like Sturmovik is the name, but Flying Tank and Concrete Plane were the nicknames.


----------



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

"stuka" is shortened from some really long german word for dive-bomer, it's not a nickname.........................


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

"Stuka" is a nickname. As I'm sure you know, it's an abbreviation of the German word for divebomber. Try "stuka" and "nickname" in google:

http://tinyurl.com/3k5um

The fact that the Ju87 was nicknamed, essentially, "The Divebomber", was kinda of cool, I reckon.


----------



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

that's still an abreviation, not a nickname..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

And The Divebomber is a crap name.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Did you click on the link? It's a nickname, okay?

Anyway, it's hardly relevant, Sorry I swallowed the bait about the nickame stuff... On to better things...


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

Stuka - *Stu*rm*ka*mpf flieger

And Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik was tough plane, but easy to shot down as it had only its armour for "defence". An improved version Il-2m3 equipped with 12,7mm machinegun and a rear gunner was in my opinion the best assault aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Jul 27, 2004)

Ju 87G-1 Stuka, nick name (Kanonvögel) or a/c armed with the long rods...........

wait for Martin Peggs reference on this a/c..........Ju 87 from Classic pubs somewhere in the future. should be like his epic Hs 129 book thick and wonderful, a good read and must have !


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

Erich said:


> Ju 87G-1 Stuka, nick name (Kanonvögel) or a/c armed with the long rods



These 37mm guns were really deadly. Hans Ulrich Rudel scored about 400 (?) tanks using them.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Erich said:


> ...wait for Martin Peggs reference on this a/c..........Ju 87 from Classic pubs somewhere in the future. should be like his epic Hs 129 book thick and wonderful, a good read and must have !



And I'd buy that. It's really hard to find a good book about the Stuka for its whole career. There are books about squadrons, and Rudel's book of course, but apart from that...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

This Martin Peggs, has he done many books? Or just one on the Hs-129? 
Those 37mm cannons were deadly, thing being the Sturmovik had the same calibre cannons. The Hurricane IIC, IID or IV had two 40mm cannon.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

plan_D said:


> ... Those 37mm cannons were deadly, thing being the Sturmovik had the same calibre cannons...



Some of them did, but not many. The majority of Il-2s had twin 20mms.


----------



## toffi (Jul 27, 2004)

dead parrot said:


> The majority of Il-2s had twin 20mms.



And 23mm as well.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Yeah, thanks for the correction. 23mm was the standard....


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

23mm cannons could rip open almost any kind of Panzer, so the ones without the 37mm cannons would have been alright in combat anyway. Plus the fact those with just the 23mm most likely had rockets and bombs.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 27, 2004)

Plan_D, make up your mind...

"Those 37mm cannons were deadly, thing being the Sturmovik had the same calibre cannons. The Hurricane IIC, IID or IV had two 40mm cannon."

OR (after being told very few Il-2s had the 37mms)

"23mm cannons could rip open almost any kind of Panzer, so the ones without the 37mm cannons would have been alright in combat anyway."

Take a stand lad, and stick with it, 'kay?


----------



## kiwimac (Jul 27, 2004)

Asking Plan and Lancto take a stand is like asking a willow to stand up straight! 

Fact is the Stuka was by far the best anti-tank aircraft and also a damn fine ground-attack aircraft long after its usefulness as a divebomber had come to an end.

Kiwimac


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

How is that not a stand? I was making the point that the Sturmoviks without 37mm were perfectly capable of taking out tanks anyway. Jesus Christ man!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 27, 2004)

The original Il-2 had no rear gun position. However the plane was structally armoured (as opposed to armour added) which carried major parts of the structural functions. Armour was in pilot cockpit, engine, cooling system and internal bomb bays. The armour could withstand much ground fire allowing the pilots more time aiming while over target. 
The plane could dogfight but lack of pilot training led to many losses as lessons had to be learnt on the battlefield. Experience is a hard teacher, it gives the test then teaches later. 

In 1942 the Il-2 got its rear gun position in the IL-2M. Although before that some improvised adopting turrets from such planes as the old R-5. The gunner position was not armoured so life expectancy was 7 times less of that of the pilot, or plane. 

The Il-2 Type 3 was further improved, making a more stable plane by reshaping the wings. As pilot skill improved and new tactics evolved the losses began to drop, and in 1943 only 2.8% IL-2s were lost during missions, with 50% coming home damaged. 90% were repaired at the front because of the simple design. 

Some ground crews even complained because holes were sometimes 1 metre square, and that they could not repair it. 1 METRE SQUARE!!! No other plane was complained about like that. 

36,163 were produced, maybe the biggest production run in history. 

Il-2 Armament - 2*20mm ShVAK 500/gun 
2*7.62mm ShKAS 700/gun
Bombs- 400 kg
Rockets - 8*RS-82mm or
8* RS-132mm

Il-2M - 2*20mm ShVAK 500/gun
or 2*23mm VYa 300/gun
2* 7.62mm ShKAS 
Rear Defence - 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 400 kg
Rockets- 4* RS-82mm or
4* RS-132mm

Il-2 Type 3 - 2*23mm VYa 
2* 7.62mm ShKAS
Rear Defence- 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 750kg
Rockets- 4* RS-82mm
or 4* RS-132mm

Il-2 Type 3M - 2*37mm NS-37
2* 7.62mm ShKAS 
Rear Defence - 12.7mm UBT
Bombs - 600kg
Rockets- 4*RS-82mm or
4* RS-132mm

Those being standard armaments, other variation of armament include the rear-ward firing grenade launcher DAG-10 and 4 containers of 192 PTAB each. 

That ladies and gentlemen is why the IL-2 Sturmovik aka. Concrete Plane is the greatest tank destroyer of World War 2. So there.  Needed that.


----------



## Erich (Jul 27, 2004)

I will not even compare the Ju 87 with the Il-2 as they are different planes from different countries with different modes of supportive operations. they are both the classic a/c. the Il-2 in my opinion more of the ground attack that the Ju 87 although the B's earlier before the D models did drop anti-tank bombs. No one can deny the operational success the panzerstaffel Weiß started out by testing the G-1 model and then going to the 10th Panzerstaffels of each SG except the ones using the standard 30mm Mk 103 in the HS 129.

Martin Pegg from England wrote the Classic Hs 129 book still the standard on the ac/ covering the technical aspects as well as opertaions; 1 volume in coverage but worth every cent if you can find a copy. Most likely his Ju 87 when prodcued will follow the same lines........and with profiles.

didn't the Il-2 have a 37mm in the prop and then two outboard 23mm's ?

Remember the Soviet a/c would fly in low, hard and fast, drop it's cargo, shoot up anything and leave while the slower Ju 87 came down from above stalking it's prey and then banked up at an angle to get out of the way of Soviet light anti-aircraft weapons

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 27, 2004)

I think the Il-2 mounted its cannons it the outer wings exclusively. Some variants of the Yak-9 carried heavy cannon (37mm or 45mm) through the engine vee.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

Here is some info on the IL-2 for all interested...

The VVS (Air Forces) had 249 Il-2s in service when the war started. As aircraft factories relocated east of the Urals in 1941 to escape German bombing, Stalin characterized the Il-2 as necessary to the Red Army "like air, like bread." Production became a national priority, and the Russians built 36,163 Il-2s by November 1944, at first under appalling winter conditions as laborers erected factory walls and roofs around open-air assembly lines. Later, production rates climbed as high as 1.5 aircraft an hour at some plants, and 41,129 were built by the war's end. 

The first production Il-2s flew directly to frontline units before tests of the prototype were even completed. The plane's easy handling, powerful armament, and invulnerability to ground fire made it a devastating ground attack aircraft, especially with the tenacity of desperate pilots, and the Germans called it the "Black Death." But losses were extremely high from German fighters, even after a rear gun was added for self defense.

14,200 were claimed downed in 1943 and 1944 alone. The Luftwaffe even formed specially-trained fighter units to target Il-2s, and several of Germany's highest-ranking aces gained most of their kills against Il-2s. 

Indicating how dangerous this ground attack work was, Il-2 pilots received the Hero of the Soviet Union award after only 10 missions. It normally required 100 missions to earn this highest Soviet award for valor. And pilots, surrounded by the Il-2's protective armor, expected to outlive six or more gunners. As the war progressed, the Il-2 received more powerful guns, including cannons of up to 37mm size, and more powerful engines. It was beloved by pilots and referred to affectionately as 'Ilyusha' because of its ruggedness: half of all shturmoviks returning safely from missions had combat damage, but most were repairable. Few lasted more than 100 hours-about 50 missions.


----------



## toffi (Jul 28, 2004)

Erich said:


> didn't the Il-2 have a 37mm in the prop



For sure, it didn't  It had so much space in wings and they were so strong that nobody tried to mount such gun. It was the Russian fighters that had guns only in fuselage, cause their wings were mostly wooden and couldn't carry any heavier load than undercarriage (and sometimes few RS-82 rocktes on La-5/7).


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

14,200 claimed in 1943 and 1944. Claimed and actually did are completely different things. The Americans over Korea claimed 792 MiG-15s when in reality they only got 370 air kills.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 28, 2004)

I guess the easy way to check the claims would be to see how many the Russians reported lost/destroyed--I wonder if that stat exists somewhere?
It's common knowledge that claims are always inflated, but even if the 14,000 number is halved, that's still more downed planes than there were total Stukas built, which makes it even more likely that the kill-to-loss ratio for the Stuka was better.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

The Il-2 was in a more difficult situation though. The Luftwaffe had a greater presence in the air than the VVS, plus better trained pilots. 
Where are the numbers for tank kills of the Stuka, anyway? Since a lot of the killing was done by Fw-190s and Me-262s as well. On top of the He-111 and Hs-129s. 

Also if only 2.8% were actually lost in one year, it's pretty impressive.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 28, 2004)

Definitely agree that a lot of the time the Stuka was flying friendlier skies, so to speak.

I'd love to see records for tank kills too. I did find this on the Web, from an account of the battle of Seelow Heights.

"...Manteuffel knew that he could not hold out much longer. He had no replacements and no additional armor. He placed heavy emphasis on his anti-tank gunners, armed with a few 88mm and several 75mm PAK 40 artillery pieces. He had even conscripted a local anti-aircraft battery. Luftwaffe air support would be crucial, but the fighter squadrons of Jagdgeschwader 54 and 52 were outnumbered 20-to-1. Their airfields had already been overrun. Stukageschwader 2, the so-called Immelman wing, was spread out over the entire area. Nevertheless, its planes accounted for 149 Russian tanks..."

So, in April 1945, when the Russian airforce was dominant and the situation at the air bases chaotic, this wing managed to take out 149 tanks.


----------



## dead parrot (Jul 28, 2004)

This is interesting, too, a summary of the first day of the same battle:

"By the end of the first day of the assault, the Soviets were learning just how expensive the Seelow Heights were going to be. Soviet losses added up to 75 tanks, 2,250 killed, 3,400 wounded and 12 Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik fighter-bombers lost. German losses included two Tiger I heavy tanks, four Hanomag halftracks, three Messerschmitt Me-109 fighters, seven Junkers Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers and approximately 300 killed, with a like number wounded..."

So, even if the Il-2s were responsible for both those Tigers, they got a maximum of 2 tanks for 12 planes lost, whereas 7 Stukas were down for quite possibly a significant percentage of those 75 Soviet tanks.

Now, this is just one account of one battle, and is hardly statistically significant, but it does suggest that the Stuka was still at least as effective as the Il-2 even in 1945, when it is commonly considered to have been an obsolete liability.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

I think it may be a simple # of attrition... 

The russians had alot more pilots and planes to throw into the fray than the germans did... Plus there was the whole "Invade my Mother Country???" attitude that made the use of men and machine more akin to pouring sand into a 6 inch hole cut in a piece of plywood... Put enough sand in it and u'll clog the hole up eventually...

I am of the mind that the germans and the Ju 87-G's were used not so much in an offensive capability, but rather as a target of oppourtunity situation... There werent that many of them, and the fact that the Stuka was used almost exclusivly in an fighterless enviornment (lessons learned? hehe) makes the #'s lost to enemy fighters alot lower than the Il-2, which was flown under all circumstances...

One thing to point out, is that the Sturmovik, from the rear cockpit area backwards was still made of wood...

I've noticed that alot of people comment on the whole "flying tank" , armored to the hilt thing... The armor was designed to protect from AA fire, not from enemy fighters... 

Yes it did help the pilot and engine survive (rear gunner who??? piss on him) , but so very many Il-2's were shot down by enemy aircraft... An insane amount... It's the only reason that so many were made, to replace the ones lost...

And btw, just to clear this up, the Il-2 was 40 mph faster than the Stuka, level flight... Big freakin deal... 40 mph is nothin... A racehorse runs 40 mph... Big difference??? I think not... More speed is better, I agree, but not as big a deal as made out to be...

I have not given my opinion on which I think was a better tank buster yet, but I believe that given the circumstances, if Germany had the Il-2 instead of the Stuka, the war verses the Russians might have had a different outcome... 

I still havent made up my mind, but I find the Ju 87-G models were SPECIFICALLY designed to destroy armoured vehicles... The Sturmovik was not, although it filled this niche quite successfully... Take Kursk for example...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

I don't think that can be taken into account for Stuka statisics, DP. The first one doesn't state how many tanks the actual Stukas accounted for. And weren't JG-54 equipped Me-262A-2a in 1945? If so, it's a perfectly capable tank destroyer. 

And the second account doesn't show much either. At Zeelow Heights the German tank crews were accounting for many. The Soviet tanks were in a very difficult situation, and the Germans threw everything at them. 

Les, we know the armour on the Il-2 was for defence against ground fire. I believe I already stated the rear gunners life expectancy was 7 times lower than the pilots, or planes. 
The Il-2 Type 3M was a definate tank destroyer with two 37mm cannons, plus rockets and bombs.


----------



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

and, as has been mentioned, there were more targets for the germans than there were for the russains..........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

If I remember correctly the Western Allies had aircraft at Zeelow heights too. That is why IS-2s were painted with white around their turrets so the ground attack aircraft could identify them Russian.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

40mph is huge in aircombat! 40mph is 20% greater than the Stuka and that is statistically significant. As for Il-2 losses and Ju-87 tank kills, it needs to be remembered that the Russians were not very careful with lives or equipment as the had more than enough of both. Consequently, Il-2s would be committed to dangerous areas (producing high losses) and the tanks would simply attack in mass allowing the Stukas ample targets.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Which has already been stated, many times. So the amount of kills to losses of either aircraft have to be taken with the circumstances they achieved these kills.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jul 28, 2004)

Exactly. I think it should be remembered that the Il-2 had better armament (offensice and definisive), better armor, and better performance. It was the better tank buster. The success of the Ju-87G was due to the superior tactics of the Luftwaffe and the more advantageous conditions it flew under.


----------



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

so we're all agreed the IL-2 was the better tank buster??


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Not all, but us three are.


----------



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

and who cares about the others...................

(sorry, joke)


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

It's pretty obvious the Il-2 is the best tank killer. Although all the others were perfectly capable, be it a Mosquito, P-47, Typhoon, P-38, Ju-87G, Hurricane IIC, IID or IV, LaGG-3 or Fw-190. Plus many more aircraft, basically anything with either big cannons, rockets or bombs could do it.


----------



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

i've never heard of the mossie or P-38 tankbusting


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Well, it might have happened. Both the Lightning and Mosquito could carry rockets. And the cannons could destroy tanks. I was making the point anything that could carry rockets could destroy tanks. 

I don't know if they actually did it though. Maybe targets of oppurtunity.


----------



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

i don't really see why they couldn't................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Well if the Mosquito could bust ships, it could certainly bust tanks. And the P-38 was capable of carrying rockets and bombs. So it could have done it. 

A dare say some Lightning or Mosquito pilot spotted a convoy and went down giving them hell with the rest of their ammo.


----------



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

i'm just having trouble picturing a mossie attacking a tank.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

It may have never done it. I'm sure it was perfectly capable though.


----------



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

just try picturing it in your head..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

I can picture it. It could carry bombs and rockets after all. And I'm sure some had a good go over Burma with ground targets, at least.


----------



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

on the other hand the hurricane looked amazing while shoting up a tank...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

That had two huge cannons under the wings, so that's pretty easy to picture. It's not like you use 40mm cannons for air-to-air.  One shot, one kill though.


----------



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

15 rpg wouldn't get you far though...............


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Thirty 40mm shells is pretty impressive though. I suppose if you hit a plane with every shot, that's 30 planes.


----------



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

not really as both guns fire at the same time, so it's only 15, which is still impressive, but you can't afford to miss however.................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

I suppose you could set them up to fire individually. Still you've got your normal guns.


----------



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

which on the Mk.IID was 2x.303, not much use, they were used to sight the cannon..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Lucky hit, on the pilot. It's a complete joke stating they would fight air-to-air with the IIC.


----------



## Dan (Jul 28, 2004)

i heard that the Hurricanes that were used in north africa were equipped with armor percing rounds that were mainly "tank killers" but the pilots had to be careful because the guns were extremely heavy and the planes would usually end up nose first into the sand


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

Those are the Hurricanes we are talking about, Dan. The IIC, IID and IV were equipped as such with two 40mm Vickers cannons under the wings. 







The above being a Hurricane Mk. IV.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

Lightning guy... We are not talking aircombat here... We are talking about ground attack... Flying between trees and buildings and under powerlines... Being faster does not necessarily mean a higher survivability on the battlefield... Many, many, MANY ground attack aircraft were lost to operational reasons... Slower means better maneouverabilty, tighter turns, and better jinking... And besides, last time I checked, ground attack aircraft did not attack tank concentrations at their maximum speed...

And BTW, if u think that 40mph makes a difference when sighting in a 37mm flak gun on an attacking aircraft on a cannon run, u need to share what u be smokin man, cause that weed from Amsterdam is real hard to come by...

No one seemed to notice my comment from my last post concerning the theoretical scenario...

Would the war on Russian soil have turned out differently if the Germans had the Sturmovik, and the Russians had the Stuka??? 

Or for that matter, if the Germans had a specifically designed, from concept to production, ground attack fighter similar to the Il-2 and Stuka, and produced in mass quantities, unlike the Stuka, but with that special German engineering that we all love so much...

Would it have changed the war for Germany??? Tough question, and theortical I know... But what if???

I will agree with this much... The Il-2 was faster, better armoured, more manouverable, more armament onboard, and pretty much a better plane in general...

But does this make it a better tank buster??? I think we have to take into consideration the quality of the armaments... 
Whose 37mm cannon was better??? Which one jammed less??? Which was more accurate??? Which one has a higher velocity??? Did the Russians use a cannon shell that had a Tungsten-carbide core??? Which 37mm had a higher rate of fire??? Was the Stuka a more stable platform at approach attack speed??? Which was easier to aim???

Many many questions... We can all guess, but in the end, if u didnt fly one or both during WW2, then it all comes down to which one u favor...

And which one destroyed more enemy tanks... Yadda yadda yadda, the Russians had more tanks to destroy... Yea... And the Germans had less Stukas... Does this mean that the Sturmoviks were flyin around lookin for tanks, couldnt find any, and flew back home to base with weapons still on racks???

Nope... There were enough German tanks in that theatre to go around and then some...

Was it that the Russian pilots sucked, compared to the Stuka pilots???

Nope... Rudel washed outta Stuka flight training, not once, but twice... He was shot down 30 times by AA... (probaly that high because of his 2000+ sorties) 

Because his plane was 40mph slower than the Il-2???

Nope... 

Very good Russian Anti-Aircraft gunners???

Maybe...

Dont forget to reply on the theoretical issue i mentioned.. Im interested in ur opinions guys... U all seem real attuned to this sorta stuff, as I am...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

I think LG posted that theoretical thing first. 
Amsterdam weed is very easy to come by, actually. How much do you want? 

You cannot answer the Germany having Il-2 question. The reasons Germany lost the Russia war was not due to air power but for many, many other reasons. And if you wish I could list them, to the best of my ability.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

Livin in the USA, Amsterdam weed is just a glimmer in ones eye... Too risky gettin it shipped here... Policeman delivers ur package... Not good.. Dont feel like learnin to toss someones salad...

And yea, I understand why Germany lost the war, but would it have made a difference if the Germans had 10,000 Il-2's flying across the Soviets steepes???

Instead of a couple hundred, old, outdated Stukas...

And I was unaware LG posed this question before...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

I honestly think it would have made a difference in losses by air. You have to remember though the Stukas over Russia were for close air-support in the bombing role mostly. 
Guderian (Col. Gen of 2nd Panzer Army) was very thankful of the air-support he had at the begining of the campaign into Russia. But even as early as November 1941, he noticed that the OKW had started to become drunk on success and was moving the air support all over the place, allowing the VVS some local superiority if only for a few short hours.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

Interesting little bit o info there... Maybe i shoulda been more specific... I was not talking about Stukas in general, but Ju-87G tank destroyers...

Do u think the extra losses by this theoretical airpower could have stemmed the Russian Red Tide??? Or was the winter simply just too much period???


----------



## plan_D (Jul 28, 2004)

The Wehrmacht was stopped not only by the incoming winter but by the condition of the roads. They were not roads, but mud baths. The OKW and OKH were so drunk on success they did not stop to think for a second, sending the forces deeper and deeper into Russian terrority. Giving out unrealistic objectives for the Panzer Armies, such as that of Panzer Army 2. Which fought from June to November 1941, non-stop. Pushing all the way to Tula, and the gates of Moscow through weaving actions while encircling many Russian units. 

While tanks and trucks were becoming stuck into the roads, and when the first snows fell the German units felt the bite of winter. Winter clothing had been requested since the start of Operation Barbarossa but the OKW were not willing to hand it out. 
The men of the Wehrmacht were worn out, by the end of 1941. They had no rest, no proper equipment and even at the start they were using poor French vehicles captured in May 1940. The German High Command were not listening to their frontline commanders such as Manstein and Guderian, so they lost touch, and some didn't even believe the roads were as bad as stated. 

There were too many reasons as to why the Soviet Union prevailed over Germany. 

No plane could have stopped it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 28, 2004)

Nice info... I knew that the army really overextended itself... Its an amazing example of how NOT to invade another country...


----------



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

especailly russia...........................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2004)

It went very well at the start, as we all know. If the OKW had issued winter clothing and more metal road to put over what the Russians liked to call roads. 
Also let the troops have a little rest. Not only were the troops physically exhausted but mentally exhausted as well. It doesn't help the command skills of the Generals if they are mentally exhausted. 

Some of the tactics on the front were genius, and many Russian troops were encircled and captured. Hundreds of thousands at a time. One other thing the Germans didn't realise, was how effective the T-34 was. It was far superior to the Pz. IV. Luckily though the Russian generals were unwilling to use them effectively. 

Although even during 1941, Guderian found that the Russians were learning. He described how they would force masses of infantry at a head on assault, then a mass tank army would come at the flank. This being on the operational basis, as this was Guderians area. He wasn't a battle commander, but he would have been able to do it. He brought together Blitzkrieg after all. 

On top of all that, the attack in June was something fatal. As it was supposed to happen in May. However a British attack in the Balkans made them delay the assault while they dealt with the British.


----------



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

typical brits, always ruining things..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 29, 2004)

The do make great boots tho...


----------



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

that was random....................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

We did/do more than just good boots. It was very random though.


----------



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

> We did/do more than just good boots



you know i think that's what they'd say if they did an advert for great britain..................


----------



## plan_D (Jul 30, 2004)

How do you know I'm not the advertiser for Great Britain?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 31, 2004)

you're doing a great job..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Random is ok... Just bein silly i suppose...

I have been to London, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Brighton in my time with Seal Team-2...

Got severely drunk with a barroom full of British sailors in Zebrugge, Belgium back in 1994... The beer was unreal... They were mixing 4 different beers from taps and it looked purple... One glass supposedly equaled 4 budwiesers...

All i know is that i was frucked up on 2 of em, which i drank rather quickly... Was not prepared for the alcohol %...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

Yes, American beer is very weak. Being in Belgium I hope you had some Stella Artois aka. Angry;Wife Beater;Rocket Fuel. It's weak if it's lower than 5% in my opinion. 

So you've been to the fake Britain then. You should at some point go up north in Britain, to Yorkshire.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

I have to agree... American beers suck ass... I do not remember the names of the beers we drank 10 years ago lol... One thing i do remember is that we drank for 3 days in Denmark in a bar called SKUM... I have a pic of 2 pals standing under the sign... Funny shizit...

I so much more enjoyed my alcohol consumption over seas, especially in the North Atlantic...

LMAO, the fake Britain... Would u care to elaborate some on that??? Why is Yorkshire unfake??? Or is it non-fake???


----------



## plan_D (Jul 31, 2004)

London and most of south Britain are there for the tourists. They aren't real, it's just one big rat race. You have to go North to see real people, proper accents instead of the Southern Jessie accents. No one talks like Londoners in real Britain. 

There's so much variety and all the tourist stay south...missing out...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 31, 2004)

Well, if its any consolation, i wasnt there as a tourist... If I was, i would have most certainly spent time away from the big cities, as I have in many, many other countries...


----------



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

> London and most of south Britain are there for the tourists. They aren't real, it's just one big rat race



that's the south east, down here in the south west, whilst we do rely on the tourist trade, we're still proper people with proper cornish pasties, we got dam good real ale as well, you should come down and try it sometime........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

Does it rain less inbetween the 2 , or is always rainy on the south coast??? Is there more rain in the Northern country???


----------



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

it rains everywhere in great britain, but here in the south west we get it straight off the atlantic ocean..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 1, 2004)

Saltier rain???  
Just bein a smart ass...

To get back on this topic, which tank buster would you say destroyed more enemy tanks???

I dont reeally have any solid info on this, but from all the reports i have read and what not, the Stuka seems to have been a more consistant destroyer of strictly enemy heavy armoured vehicles... 

Yea the Sturm blew up some tanks, but the Stuka definatly had more targets to line up with those 37mm big sticks...

I still think the Sturmovik was a better made plane...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2004)

I think it was the Stuka that accounted for more enemy armour. 

You should try going to Lancashire, Lanc. They are all drips, it's always raining. You should come to Yorkshire, Lanc, that's real ale. Timothy Taylors....


----------



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

are you dissin our real ale?? and you really should try a proper cornish pasty.......................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2004)

Im gonna vomit... Cornish Pastry... Ugh....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 2, 2004)

Should I really? They better be big. I can't be doing with small meals.


----------



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

obviously you've never seen a proper cornish pasty, some are huge!!!! trust me they fill you up........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

OK.... WTF is a cornish pastry???

Whatever it is, it sounds nasty...


----------



## plan_D (Aug 3, 2004)

They are actually quite nice, Les. You see, if you had gone to real Britain you would have had one.  It's just a pasty with meat and vegetables in it, very nice stuff. And a great snack if you're at the pub and you need something to eat...


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 3, 2004)

like a hot pocket??? lol


----------



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

> It's just a pasty with meat and vegetables in it



how dare you, it's so much more than that, just ask a cornishman................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Cant be THAT good if we aint heard of em over here on this side of the pond...


----------



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

the reason you haven't heard of them is because they're not full of fat and grease...................

cheap shot i know, but it had to be said...........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Dude, I recall seeing many many fat and obsese people in England... And alot of yellow brown nasty teeth...

(cheap shot retuned...)


----------



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

i can't remeber, was it 1/3 or 2/3 of your population that's overweight??


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

It could statistically be 1/3, but it seems to be concentrated in certain areas of the states....

Down here on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, (not from here thank god), there are hardly any fat or obese white people....

ALot of fat blacks, but thats a given....


----------



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

there's hardly any fat people here in the south west.........................


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 4, 2004)

Probably like here then.... ALot of fine lookin woman are around here as well... We attract em.... We have many Casinos here in Biloxi.....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 4, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i can't remeber, was it 1/3 or 2/3 of your population that's overweight??




Actually, my mom said she heard it was nearing 1/2...



Glad I''m on holiday...


Won't be missing Lard-Donalds' MAJOR customers...


(There are McDonalds' here in Brasil, but it's a lot less greasy and fattening - better ingredients and cooking)


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 5, 2004)

Dear God, I sure am slow to post...


I've been here since December and am nearly everywhere on the site, yet I still haven't reached 750 posts!!


----------



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

if you go to the member list, find yourself and then you can chack out your averege posts per day....................


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 5, 2004)

3.37 posts per day for me and 17.21 posts per day for you...



Anyhow, I've just noticed that you got here before me...


First time I noticed...


----------



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

i think i've been here longer than everone exept crazy, although Plan_D, you've got a higher rate of posts per day than me, so you'll soon overtake me.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

I have a while, Lanc.


----------



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

but unless you leave or find somewhere to spam allot you will one day................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

I have many life goals, and getting more posts than you isn't one of them.


----------



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

and why not??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

Because I don't want to write that down on my little piece of paper.


----------



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

it should be the happiest day of your life wwhen you overtake me.................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 6, 2004)

I doubt that very much. Everytime I achieve life goals it is a happy day, but I've only done one. So, as overtaking you isn't a life goal, it won't be a happy day.


----------



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

shame................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

You don't have much curosity, do you?


----------



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

what??


----------



## plan_D (Aug 7, 2004)

Nevermind.


----------



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

ok, and i remembered that a while ago we had a discussion about single engined types with large wingspans/wing areas, i've got a plane that beats both the stuka and IL-2, the vickers wellesley, the Mk.I had a single 950hp engine and a huge wingspan of 74ft 7 in!! giving it an equally impressive wing area of 630sq ft!!!! that's compared to the stuka's wingspan of 45ft 3.5in and wing area of 343.38sq ft, i'd like to see if anyone can find a single engined type that can beat that................


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

Get a picture of it.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm surprised you've never seen it, after all, it IS British and was also the first plane from Vickers to have the geodetic fuselage like the Wimpy...







It don't show the wings too well, but it's one of the best pics I can find...


----------



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

'ere you go....................


----------



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

you bitch GrGs, you posted that as i was posting mine!!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Aug 8, 2004)

You bugger lanc, you got that drawing/profile since it didn't work when I got it!


----------



## plan_D (Aug 8, 2004)

I was asking for a picture that shows the wings well. I don't have to see everything British...just the good looking things.


----------



## ev0 (Aug 8, 2004)

eeh. why does an aircraft need that big wings? Early crappy wwII aricraft?


----------



## toffi (Aug 8, 2004)

It needed so big wings to achieve huge range as it was single-engine.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 9, 2004)

That was a pre-war bomber wasn't it?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Aug 10, 2004)

Wingspan has a lot to do with range. Just look at the Voyager aircraft.


----------



## toffi (Aug 11, 2004)

Remember that when Wellesley was designed (1931-32) ceiling was not the priority. Main goal was extending it's range and enlargement of bomb load. The best way was to make aircraft weigh less (geodetic construction) and put more fuel into tanks. Simple as construction of nail.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

To open this one up again, does anyone have a listing of the Russian Top Tank killers??? I have a list of the German side, but not the Allies....

Oberst Hans-Ulrich Rudel 519+ 

Ofw. Anton Hübsch 120+ 

Hptm. Gerhard Stüdemann 117 

Ofw. Alois Wosnitza 104 

Lt. Jacob Jenster 100+ 

Hptm. Hendrik Stahl 100+ 

Lt. Anton Korol 99 

Oblt. Wilhelm Joswig 88 

Oblt. Max Diepold 87 

Lt. Wilhelm Noller 86 

Ofw. Hans Ludwig 85 

Ofw. Heinz Edhofer 84 

Ofw. Siegfried Fischer 80 

Maj. Theodor Nordmann 80 

Lt. Kurt Plenzat 80 

Hptm. Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer 80 

Hptm. Kurt Lau 80 

Oblt. Hans-Joachim Jäschke 78 

Oblt. Helmut Hannemann 77 

Hptm. Hubert Pölz 76 

Oblt. Wilhelm Bromen 76 

Oblt. Rainer Nossek 73+ 

Oblt. Gustav Schubert 70+ 

Fw. Otto Ritz 70 

Hptm. Hans-Hermann Steinkamp 70 

Oblt. Johann Klaus 65+ 

Ofw. Werner Fehdler 65 

Hptm. Erwin-Peter Diekwisch 64 

Hptm. Otto Schmidt 61 

Hptm. Andreas Kuffner 60+ 

Maj. Martin Möbus 60+ 

Fw. Josef Blümel 60 

Oblt. Willi Tritsch 60


----------



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

519's an amazing tally, not only that, 11 air-to-air kills as well..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

Plus a battleship . . . .


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 26, 2004)

Yep, the Russian Marat...


----------



## kiwimac (Sep 26, 2004)

Try painting *that* on the side of your aircraft!

Kiwimac


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

Not many pilots can lay claim to that one.... A Battleship symbol on the side of ur aircraft.....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2004)

There would have been a few Japanese and a few American pilots that could claim it.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 26, 2004)

Most in a plane with at least 2 engines, though...


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 26, 2004)

See, the thing about Rudel and the Marat is that he ALONE sank that ship.... Not several Bomb hits, or Torps and Bombs....

I dont know of a single American pilot that can lay to that claim... And I dont think any single Jap pilot sank one of our Battleships... I wonder what the tonnage of the Marat was in comparison to one of the Iowa/Missouri class BB's....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

About 25,000 tons full load (50,000 tons lighter than an Iowa-class). Deck armor was between 1.5 and 3in which was totally inadequate for WWII. But then Marat was a WWI error class battleship. It would have proven EXTREMELY difficult (if not impossible) for one aircraft to sink a WWII era battleship (short of nuking it that is).


----------



## johnny (Sep 27, 2004)

If you look at that list you will probably see that most of those pilots (Rudel for sure) were flying Ju-87 Stuka dive bombers.That should make it the best tank buster.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2004)

I was thinking the same as the info u posted LG..... Good info...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

Thanks.


----------



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

this is a great time to mention the lancaster.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

Which did what? Was a four-engined bomber that required no less than 3 attacks by 2 squadrons to sink one battleship? What does that prove?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 27, 2004)

It proves that the Lancaster can bomb Battleships. It seemed pretty obvious to me. Did the B-17 ever do that? We all know Lanc was going to bring the B-17 abuse into it. 

How can you get the idea that the Stuka was a better tank killer just because Rudel flew it. He'd probably done even better if he was in a Sturmovik. 

The Stuka was comparable to the Hurricane IID, they both could do it but they weren't the best.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 27, 2004)

Hey, who was the rear gunner for Rudel?


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2004)

Rudel had several rear gunners... Erwin Hentschel was the longest that served with him, with 1,400 missions..... 

He drowned when Rudel and Erwin performed one of the most daring escapes from the Russians after attempting to land and save a crew from a shot down Stuka....

PlanD, I think u are right.. Rudel would have been more successful in an Il-2... He was shot down over 30 times while in the Stuka...

It would probably be safe to say that the Sturmovick was a better aircraft....


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2004)

The B-17 bombed battleships. I'm not sure if they had any success (Colin Kelly not withstanding) but they did bomb them.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 27, 2004)

Exactly, so if the B-17 tried but failed while the Lancaster tried and succeeded then...well I don't know where I'm going with this. I don't think it could make a good discussion. 
The Tirpitz was going to go anywhere anyway. When the Commandos blew up St. Nazaire its fate was to stay in the North Sea. 

The Sturmovik is like much Soviet equipment. Take the T-34 for example; it's greatest fault on the battlefield was its crew. They weren't capable of complicated actions on the battlefield so even though the tank itself was great, the Germans managed to crush them with inferior tanks. I am refering to 1941 there. 
The Sturmovik was excellent but the crews weren't very good, and none were as good as Rudel.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2004)

But the T-34 wasn't equipped with radios was it? That would explain the inability to undertake "complicated actions" and yet would be the fault of the tank and not of the crews themsevles.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

Rarely were the T-34 Model 1940 equipped with radio. But most, if not all, of Model 1941 were equipped with radio. Those normally being platoon commander vehicles. 

The crews weren't trained in tactical moves as the Germans were. From many reports in 1941 the German tank crews describe moving formation of T-34s (line astern) being attacked at the front. The T-34 crews instead of spreading out into a battle line, moved around the destroyed tank and carried on in single file. Obviously making easy prey for the anti-tank artillery or tanks in front. 
The Soviet commanders were also to blame. The junior officers especially lacked any conviction in their orders and many countermanded orders were given, which would confuse anyone let alone someone with no tactical training. 

An example of German superiority in tactics are easily shown by the actions XLVIII Panzer Corps '42-43. Col. Balck managed to encircle three Russian Armies (2 Tank Armies, 1 Army) with only 2 Panzer Divisions.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2004)

Well critical and independent thinking are hardly encouraged in a Communist society are they?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 28, 2004)

You know what that line of imminent death reminds me of?


You English chaps in the French-Indian and Revolutionary Wars!

"Right mates, lets march to the battlefield in a single-file li-BAM!"
"Ok, our leader is dead, but lets keep go-BAM!"
"Let's just go, mates...-BAM!"

And so on and so forth...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 28, 2004)

You know by you saying that, GrG you've just shown excellent discipline in English warriors. Normally in the 17th and 18th Century when the leader was killed the army would fall apart. 
That was standard tactics in those days, it all changed in World War 1. 

You know the paradox in the Soviet Union was the absolute freedom the tank designers were allowed. Free thinking was allowed there.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 29, 2004)

True about the discipline, but c'mon, it's stupid!

If I was marching and a buddy of mine got killed next to me, I'd duck and try to hit whoever did it, by shooting at the direction the shot came from...

It would be like if the Germans flew their He-111s at 100m, at 250km/h, with no escorts or bombs, in loose formation, no guns, right over Kent, where the most V-1's were downed and where Flak was everywhere while Spit XIV's and Meteors started flying down and attacking them while they took no action...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

In those days everyone did it. Look at the French Army in the battle of Waterloo tight block formation marching forward. Grape shot from the British cannons ripping them apart and they carried on. For the opposition that would be somewhat unnerving.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 29, 2004)

I know, I was just using you guys as an example...

"Gentlemanly warfare," it was...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

Shoot them in the morning, play football in the afternoon. Christmas 1915. 

You ever read about Monte Cassino? When the British and Germans were collecting one anothers dead and injured, then talking and they were all saying "You have British faces". Most people say it was really hard after that 'cos they'd talked to them as humans instead of the enemy.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

That is why the Christmas 1915 incident was so frowned about officially. It was awefully hard to shoot and someone one day after you had seen a photo of him with his little girl just the day before.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

True, very true. But they say that only 2% of infantry in World War 2 were shooting to kill.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

So what were the other 98% doing?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

Shooting in the direction of the enemy fire. Maybe hoping to dishearten the enemy, or just wound.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

Shooting in the direction of enemy fire would still be shooting to kill. 'Spray and Pray' would still be shooting to kill. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that 2% were truly aiming at someone?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

If you shoot at someone in the leg, you shoot to kill? No.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

Who the hell in WW II was aiming for an enemy soldiers leg??? 

Pacifists???

U shoot someone in the leg, they fall down, pick their weapon back up, and continue trying to kill u.....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

It was mere example. I'm saying people might have been aiming for the guts, hoping they'd only wound them to the point they cannot fight anymore. 
This isn't my statistic anyway. So take it up with the people who say that, not me.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

U said that..... I took it up with u.... And it was a poor example....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

I think it was a fine example. If you are shooting someone in the leg, then you are not aiming to kill them. My point being not all shots fired are to kill.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

Why the hell are u trying to shoot someone in the leg for???

And for ur information, many men died from having their femoral artery severed and bled to death...

Man, if u are in a firefight and can aim at the guys coming at u, or as your runnin up on them, u dont shoot for the leg... You dont try to maim, and u dont shoot to wound unless ur trying to take prisoners....

To make ur point valid,


> My point being not all shots fired are to kill.


 the only ones not meant to kill were the ones trying to take prisioners.... Or, the individual didnt want to kill, which is extremely difficult to believe.... If someone is trying to kill u, ur gonna shoot em in the leg??? Gimme a break....

And ur example wasnt fine... Ur whole premise is bogus.... We are talking combat in WW II, not a dispute in the parking lot of a Piggly Wiggly shopping center over who gets the parking spot....


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

I never said someone WOULD shoot them in the leg. I was making the, which I thought obvious, point that not ALL, where ever it may be, shots are to kill.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

I once shot a Somalian in the foot when he decided after we disarmed him, that he was gonna slide a blade into my buddies guts... He never got the knife outta his sheath...

I wasnt trying to kill him.... But I shoulda...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

You should, but you were actually firing a gun not to kill him. Bad move but you still did it.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

You could be aiming to kill someone and still hit them it the leg. You would me a lousy shot but its possible. And during combat a lot of people become much less accurate than they are on the range.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 29, 2004)

Les was aiming for the leg though.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2004)

Whoever said 2% were just shooting to wound has never been under fire. After a couple of shots fired at you, you are doing all you can to make it stop, period. Wounding someone will not assure that you will make it stop. The first shot, you think, "What did I do to that guy?". The second shot gets more serious. If you are lucky enough to still not be hit on the second shot, you start to get irritated, to say the least. The adrenaline kicks in fill bore and you aren't thinking "Should I just wound him?". More like "I'm gonna kill him before he kills me."


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

Like I said about a page back, I think than only 2% were shooting to kill should be interpretted as only 2% were aiming at a particular individual as opposed to spraying a general area. Even if you are merely spraying a general area your intent is still to kill whomever is in that area.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 29, 2004)

Now that I would agree with, LG. Kind of like suppressing fire. You lay that down to keep the other guys heads down while your buddies move in closer for the kill. If you manage to get a kill with suppressing fire, that's one less to deal with.


----------



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

i think that if i was in a all out combat situation, i would aim for the biggest (and easiest) part to hit, the body...........


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 29, 2004)

But in urban or jungle warfare you can't always see a definite target. You may just know that there is fire coming from a particular window or behind a set of shrubs. In that instance you simply fire into an area without aiming at a particular target but you are still intending to kill someone.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 29, 2004)

PlanD, I was aiming for his foot, not his leg... I was qualified as an Expert Marksman with the M-16, .45, 9mm, and M-203....

I can tell u from my personal combat experience that the muzzle flash from an enemies weapon makes a great aiming point... Muzzle brakes and flash suppressors only work so good.. Most of my combat happened at night, or in the morning darkness... 

Basic SEAL manouvering in combat is based on a simple concept: Throw as much lead into a given target area in the shortest period of time while withdrawing and call in air support or artillery... This massive onslaught of firepower is meant to overwhelm the enemy and make them think that the engaging force is larger than 10 men.... But then again, 3 M-60's on full auto, an M-79 autoloader, and 6 M-16's on full auto make for a rather convincing argument...

Point is, when ur are in combat, be it Iraq, Somolia or Omaha Beach, you were shooting to kill whatever ur errant bullets might hit....


----------



## duggi4 (Sep 30, 2004)

ja,b-17 to gether with b-26 did try bomb jap fleet in defense of midway but i've seen a pic of a b-25j tear a jap destroyer in two with its bombload.
rudel...truelly an aviation legend. i would think the ill2 best tank killer followed closely by the typhoon and p-47. every one remembers falaise gap. and i've read about a p47 strafing the paving underneath a panther after its rockets expended,to get the underside of the bank by the bullets bouncing up off the paving and actually set it alight .


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Well his foot then. 

I know about all of that. Although I heard when SEALs come under heavy fire they are told to fire and retreat. 

Anyway, I don't see the point in carrying it on because I was quoting what I was told.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 30, 2004)

> when SEALs come under heavy fire they are told to fire and retreat





> Throw as much lead into a given target area in the shortest period of time while withdrawing and call in air support or artillery...



We never retreated anywhere.... How dare u...


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Of course they have. Throwing as much lead in as possible makes an easier escape. I never said you personally have retreated but I have been informed that SEALs are trained to shoot and withdraw under over-whelming enemy firepower. 

In fact there was a documentary I saw about some SEAL mission that screwed up in the '90s. It was in some airport warehouse and they were left on the open concrete withdrawing. 

If you aren't trained to shoot and withdraw, and that programme was talking bull. What are you trained to do?


----------



## johnny (Sep 30, 2004)

What has being a Seal got to do with the best tank killer of WW2? Did tank killers shoot people in the legs?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Fair point, You must ecuse them though. They tend to veer off on to unrelated matters quite easily  Back on topic would be appreciated 8)


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

This topic died ages ago. Long ago on a page far far away, we all agreed it was the Il-2 except Kiwimac.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

True. But the site is getting more and more popular and many of the newer member may not have had a chance to fully express their views. It doesnt have to be about the best tank-killer, but talk about any tank-killer is ok.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

A tank killer. The tank killer is designed to kill tanks...there tank killer talk.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

In a 15 word statement, 12 words begin with either T or K.

But seriously 8)


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Are you trying to oppress the letters T and K?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

No, but to me it appears you are showing a certain discrimination towards the other 24 letters of the english alphabet.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

I am. I feel that the letters T and K are the male and females of the letter master race. And I as the Letter Socialist - LEZI (  ) - have written a book "Mein Letter" in which I describe the Final Solution to rid the world of the other letters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Bloody hell, thats got me going


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Does that make me the Erich Hartmann of crap?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

No idea what you're on about, ill just say yes


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

The initials of my maths teacher are TK  you arent my maths teacher are you?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Erm... ... ... erm... ... ...No?  <runs away under his big black EVIL cloak>


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

I wish I had an evil cloak. Then I could swish it when I walked around corners.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

It would have to be black with red lining though, oh yeah and have a huge collar.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

What are you? Sam Fox from that stupid reality show, the club!?! 

It has have a silver lining..singing "every cloud has a silver lining..."


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Even a mushroom cloud?


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

I don't know...since when did I look like I knew!?! TELL ME! WHEN!?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Since you changed from being "sensible serious" plan_D to "drunken hyperactive" plan_D


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

I was never sensible serious. Well I was but I was kidding myself. At times, it was even depressing...you know like when you go to the fridge for a yoghurt and your scummy brother has eaten the last one!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

i dont have any "scummy brothers"  or sisters for that matter, you might think im lucky, it gets lonely though  8)


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

No, it's alright having siblings. Then you have someone to fight, blame, kill and destroy...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

I have Conflict Desert Storm 2 to provide that entertainment 

If im stressed, I kill Iraqi's with anti-tank mines.
If im wrong, I blame my comrades.
When I kill, I shoot Iraqi's in the head with a Light fifty.
When I destroy, I fire RPG's at tanks through a smoke grenade.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Violence is no way to solve problems, it's the way to crush them!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

So, Conflict: Desert Storm 2 good!?

And I'd advise you to use the violence thing...when using violence its your best answer to a challenge...much better than the old "He started it"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Yup most definatly, especially when you sneak up on an Iraqi and shoot a flare up his arse


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Sounds like a middle eastern porn movie. Also, amusing. I heard you can't lose a single person or the mission is a failure. That's stupid and unrealistic. 

My conclusion is, I'd rather get drunk.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

but hey, losing people is rare


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Not true, I've lost myself several times. I've also lost several people while on nights out or days walks. In fact throughout my life I've lost several people only to find them at my front door 3 hours later.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

PROMISE ME you will NEVER post at the same time as me again


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Why not!?! You love it!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

I know I love it! But we spam too much  Ah well, i might as well let my hair down once in a while, and youve got 6 months of spamming to make up for


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

6...6!?! No one will complain, well they shouldn't because they spam as well. ANd this is funny!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)

Yup  but tomorrow afternoon you will wake up and think someone else has been on your account because you wont remember any of this


----------



## plan_D (Sep 30, 2004)

Oh but I will...the only time I've forgotten something because of alcohol was last month...I mean...last month as in all of it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2004)




----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 30, 2004)

Boy, u two basically killed this freakin thread with ur jibberish..  So much for staying on topic Mr. Moderator..  Why not just go in chat if u two are just gonna have private conversations.....  

Isnt that what its there 4???


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Sep 30, 2004)

plan_D said:


> I am. I feel that the letters T and K are the male and females of the letter master race. And I as the Letter Socialist - LEZI (  ) - have written a book "Mein Letter" in which I describe the Final Solution to rid the world of the other letters.

































That's one of the greatest things I've ever read!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 1, 2004)

That's the longest row of smilies I've ever seen.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 1, 2004)

It was supposed to be horizontal, but my ctrl+v crappered up and went down vertically...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 1, 2004)

doesnt matter, it is damn funny


----------



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

one of the sites more memorable quotes...........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 1, 2004)

What is? GrG explaining the long vertical line of similes?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 1, 2004)




----------



## NightHawk (Oct 1, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> I have Conflict Desert Storm 2 to provide that entertainment
> 
> If im stressed, I kill Iraqi's with anti-tank mines.
> If im wrong, I blame my comrades.
> ...


conflict desert storm is such a poor game. you should try DOOM III 
there is much blood and guts around in thet game.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 1, 2004)

I rather like CDSII actually.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 2, 2004)

Doom games suck. They are just run around shooting with no though, blood and guts were good when younger but now I play Sudden Strike, Blitzkrieg and Flight Sims...oh and Freelancer 'cos it's fun online.


----------



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

the only one i play is CFS..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

I used to play CFS, but it will no longer load up on my comp... 

I play Diablo 2, Panzer General Assault 3D, Age of Empires 2, Robert E Lee Civil War, and Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2....


----------



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

> Jedi Knight Dark Forces 2....



the star wars games look amazing.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

I agree...


----------



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

but i have no means with which to play them............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

Too bad ur missing out....


----------



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

i no


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

*hands Lanc a tissue....*


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 2, 2004)

Being a farmer, he uses his sleeve as a tissue and then eats it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 2, 2004)

Eats his shirt??? Man u guys in the country are a tough bunch...


----------



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




----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Dude i am NOT a country guy


----------



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

but i am and i believe he was refering to me............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

But guyS is a plural.

I could be a tough one though, I just cycled to the postbox and back (2 miles) in a downpour on a bike with 2 semi-flat tyres and i beat my previous record by 19 minutes. (16mins compared with 35 mins) I reckon i could get it under 10 mins on the right day with hard tyres.


----------



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

> But guyS is a plural



yes but he was refering to country folk in general..............


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

4 miles in 16 minutes, is not good.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

no thats 2 miles in 16 minutes 8) i said, 2 miles


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

That's even worse! I run 3 miles in 24-25 minutes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

its uphill for most of the way back, and my bike had a flat tyre so i couldnt go quick, and it was raining so i couldnt see when going down hill, and i had jeans on which are not very good for cycling in  In the conditions i rode in, 16 mins is damn good...


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

No it's not.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

It is! i was nursing a slow puncture, I was on a touring bike and they have no grip in the rain, believe me, i had the back out a couple of times. And about 2 mins was spent at the other end "doing the deed" and checking the bike. I doubt i exceeded 2 mph even going down the long hill, normally i do 40+ down it. Next time its bright and sunny and the punctures are fixed, ill do a speed run and see what time i get, then we can judge.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 3, 2004)

We shall. You still suck.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Depends on the request, i blow for a premium.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

> i blow for a premium.


Dude u finally showed ur true colors..... Now youre really scarin me...

And if ur riding 2 miles to ur mailbox, ur in the country..... Just no farm....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

no im riding 1 mile to my postbox, the second mile is the return journey. But That said i am also only 1 mile away from the main road which leads in (and more importantly out) of Cornwall.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

Wait a minute... I thought Cornwall WAS the Country.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Cornwall is a county (our equivalent of a state) in the country of england. A lot of Cornwall is the country side, but there is a road or 2 if you really look....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

So Cornwall is the capital of Cornwall county (state)???

Sounds to me like Cornwall is in the country, with 2 roads and all... Bunch of  Hicks.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Ok. Right. England is a country, yes? England is comprised of areas known as counties, which include: York, Anglia, Cumbria, Wiltshire, Hampshire etc; and CORNWALL. The County Town of Cornwall Is a city called TRURO. 
Much like the American system, where Dallas Is the Capital of Texas, for instance. (I think it is, isnt it?)

I sorta exaggerated with the 2 roads bit, It does actually have a lot of towns, most of which seem to be fishing villages.

Dont confuse this with what a native Cornishman will telll you though, they all think Cornwall is a Country in its own right, which it isnt.

Got that?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 3, 2004)

There are 2 uses of the word "Country"...

England is a country...
Redneck Hicks live in the country.... The woods... The boonies... The sticks...

I was referring to the latter.... Remember, I have been to England before...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 3, 2004)

Ah ok. I tend to call the latter the Country_side_ though so as not to get confused.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 12, 2004)

See, we here Americans are smart enough to understand what ur trying to say, even when using the same word in a different context.... We dont get confused very easily....

Huh?? What was that??? Where was I??? Ummmm... What were we talkin about???


----------



## JCS (Oct 12, 2004)

Nothin' wrong with livin' in the country.


----------



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

absolutly not............

and cornwall is a dutchy, which is sort of a state that used 2 b independant or summit like that, but yes, we do want to be separated from England..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 13, 2004)

Booooooooooooo.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 15, 2004)

Cornwall wants to succeed from England and be its own country???


----------



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

kind of..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2004)

Thats Silly....


----------



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

not to a cornishman............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 16, 2004)

But cornishmen are silly. Its just retarded, i mean a cornish government...?


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

Crazy could you please delete the last 5 pages of this long thread as they have nothing to do with the subject matter ?

v/r

Erich ~


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2004)

actually i'm with Erich on this one...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2004)

But this topic is dead. And buried. Theres no advantage to deleting the pages.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 31, 2004)

Of course there is... When new members and guests read this thread they wont read a bunch of spammed crap.....


----------



## Maestro (Nov 1, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

There is spammed crap all over the place.


----------



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

i still think we might as well delete it......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 1, 2004)

Then why not delete all the spam?


----------



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

because it would takes ages..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2004)

Exactly.


----------



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

but i don't have to do it so it's not my problem................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2004)

Not mine either  Admin problem that...


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 9, 2004)

Sorry to be dull, but going back to the topic, I'd have to say the Tiffie - no question.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 10, 2004)

The IL-2 was far better  The Tiffy was great, but not as effective as the IL-2.


----------



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

well both were effective, but they faught in different enviroments............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

I know, but even you said the IL-2 was the better one.


----------



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

indeed it was, but the tiffy would win in a dogfight...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 12, 2004)

Yeah I agree there. Actually im not 100% sure. The IL-2 had a hell of a lot of armour, and a tail gunner...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

Do u have any idea how many Sturms went down to enemy air action???? A SHIzITLOAD.....

The Tiffy would be no exception, and easily own a dogfight with a Il-2....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Hmmmmm ok.


----------



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

and 4x20mm wil do allot of damage, even to an IL-2..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I never really see the Tiffy as a ground attack aircraft, it just doesnt look like it would be any good in the role.


----------



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

but you have to see it firing rockets, they made it one of the best ground attack aircraft of the war, and you have to remeber it was a big beefy plane that could take it's fair share of damage................


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 20, 2004)

If one doubts the Typhoon Tank-busting qualities, any leftover Germans from the Falaise Gap engagement will vouch for them....Typhoons started to really come into their own on the run-up to D-Day, and after.....

But the real glory should go to the Hurricane, which was the first Allied aircraft to use rockets, trialed in Feb. 1942, at Boscombe Down, using 3 rails per wing....
-First used operationally by Hurris II's n' IV's of 137 Sqn. on 2nd Sept. 1943, with a Typhoon escort they successfully took-out the lockgates on the Hansweert Canal in Holland.....- They continued in this role [4 per wing now] into 1944, when Typhoons continued...

Hurricanes played a huge part in Tank-busting, ETO, in N.Africa, Italy and especially in Burma etc. the 40mm Hurri's with rockets decimated Jap tanks....I dunno the figures, but it wouldn't surprise me if all added-up, the Hurricane was a top exponent at this....it was certainly the first......


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 20, 2004)

hurricans fires rockets?
never heard of it, i though its NEVER s'pose to have any extally stuff even like the drop tanks and how can it be armed w/ 40MMs?, and the typoon is not good compared to the TEMPEST, which, is the best tank busting aircratt, (the tempest is developed from the typoon), compare:
Typoon: TEMPEST:
Speed: 405 MPH 426 MPH
Armament: 4X20MMs 120 Shells 4X20MMs 200 Shells
Range: 610 MI 1,530 MI
Empty Weight:8,800 pounds 9,000 pounds
Max Weight: 13,250 pounds 13,540 pounds

and other things are about the same... anyway...the tespest is clearly better!!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 20, 2004)

Actually, the Hurricane Mk.IID had two 40mm Vickers "S" guns under the wings, with 15 rounds per gun, as well as two 7.92/.303 Mgs for sighting purposes...


Anyway, performance isn't the only thing that makes a plane great, if this was true, the Me-163B would be the best plane of the war, and the Swordfish would be the worst...


Oh yeah, Hurricanes did indeed carry rockets, bombs, and drop tanks, in the desert.


Tempests were too fast, and 8in rockets were too inaccurate for tankbusting (*EDIT*~unless they were up real close, like at Calais...), in my opinion...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

Nor did the Tempest do as much tankbusting. It was used far more often as an interceptor than a ground attack aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 20, 2004)

Exactly, Tiffies were usually relegated to ground attack, rather than Tempests...


I was just stating my views of a Tempest as a Tank-Buster, I know it didn't do it much; it did much more fighter sweeps and V-1 chasing...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 21, 2004)

Yeah, the Tempest had a narrower wing construction than both the Tiffy and the Hurricane, and that isnt usually the mark of a ground attack aircraft. Both the Typhoon and the Hurricane were better ground attack aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 21, 2004)

I feel pretty certain that the Tempest would have been better than the Hurricane in an anti-tank role. The Hurricane certainly did more, but I would have prefered flying the Tempest.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

> hurricans fires rockets?
> never heard of it



there was an entire mark developed to fire rockets, the IV i believe............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

You are all wrong. The Vildebeest was the best ground attack aircraft of the war...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

The what?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Look at this an aviation site and he's never heard of the Vildebeest...tut tut...

It was a joke, the Vildebeest served in Burma and India until 1942. It was a bi-plane, and quite frankly dog wank.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

I rememberr you mentioning it before but I cant remember...

Good to have you back by the way.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

Thank you. 

Although the Vildebeest was crap, it did get a few kills here and there. And provided at least some air support...when the enemy had no fighters around.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

well that makes it better than the fairey battle............


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

I suppose it does. I think in some circumstances it was another case of "It was so bad, it was good"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

That phrase also applies to my driving...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 22, 2004)

Woooooooo! plan_D is back!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

He is? Where!?! I want to kick his ass!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Where you been anyway?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Working, drinking, working a bit more...then drinking some. There was a holiday to Gran Canaria somewhere in there too.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)




----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Why have you got a truck as your sig, CC?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

I like trucks


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

Okay then. That's a good enough reason for me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

It better be cos I dont have any others


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

You could have a pic of a Vildebeest.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

i'm not a fan of that P-39 siggy..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Im not a fan of that Lancaster siggy...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Yea but atleast his plane contributed something to the cause.... Yours was used as a target drone for crying out loud....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

very well said.................

and my picture looks good.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Pokryshin contributed to the war effort in deals with his P-39...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

nowhere near as much as the lanc................


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

A handfull of Russian aviators does not make up for the fact that the P-39 was a crapass plane CC...... Why do u think they got em lend-lease in the first place?????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

because america didn't want them..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

I was hoping CC woulda stated that fact......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

he'd preberly say "because the they had the P-38, as long as they had the P-38 they didn't need any other plane because the P-38 was better than every plane at everything and didn't have any flaws"..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

OUCH!!!!!!

That sounded like a Grand Slam goin off....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Why would I say that? The P-38 couldnt have won the war on its own, im not stupid lanc. Youre the stupid one if you ask me for assuming id say something untoward like that.

Just cos I like the P-39 doesnt make it good. Its badness is part of the appeal for me.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

only with more typing.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

And more complete crap...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 23, 2004)

yet you seem to think the P-38 could do no wrong, you never speak of it's flaws...........

please don't turn this into a P-38 Vs. mossie thread, no-one want another one of them..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

God please no......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

I know the P-38 had flaws, but there wasnt an awful lot of them. And why would I talk about them whilst championing it? It wouldnt make sense. Its not like you make a song and dance about the Mossies flaws either...

And if anything lanc youre the one turning it into a P-38 v Mossie thread...You started it off.

Im just gonna ignore this thread for a while cos youre being immature.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 23, 2004)

I'm up for an education in the flaws of the Lancaster Lanc . . .  

The Russians had some succes in the P-39 due to the roles they were using it in. At low altitudes, the P-39 wasn't that bad of an aircraft and it's firepower was very useful for ground attack missions. The lack of a turbo was a serious problem if it had to fight at altitude. Does anyone know if the Russians had any trouble maintaining the V-1710 engine in the P-39?


----------



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

you mean you don't know the lanc's flaws??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

Just noting that I've never heard you say a cross word about the Lancaster.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 24, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yet you seem to think the P-38 could do no wrong, you never speak of it's flaws...........
> 
> please don't turn this into a P-38 Vs. mossie thread, no-one want another one of them..............



The P-38 had some flaws in the ETO some were severe however it's biggest flaw was in quantity more were needed every where. In the Pacific there was only one fighter group that was all P-38s start to finish the 475th ant P-38s are reported to have 5,737 kills in the PTO with another 2,500+ in the MTO (more than half the score of the P-51s with just more than half the sorties and close escort. remember there were 10,000 P-38s and just less than 16,000 mustangs) The P-38 always gave better than it took even when the odds, experiance and developement were against it. As for winning the war by itself a silly idea, but there are two documented missions where a single P-38 covereda bomber group against terrible odds, succeded not only to shoot down enemy attackers but preventing loss of any bombers to the enemy. What would have been the situation if there had been twice as many and then there is the P-38K that would have added 10%or more to it's performance envelope?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 24, 2004)

The P-38K would have been a fine aircraft, but I'm not sure it would have been any better than the definitive P-38L. The K would have been superior at high alititude but the L was probably the better all-around. The main thing the K would have offered is a powerful, high-altitude fighter available at an earlier date.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 25, 2004)

True. The climb was better and the increase in speed would have kept been in the P-51H speed class (though the P-38L still beat it in every other way).
The J and then the L were still in a class by themselves so it wasn't thought that a production stoppage was worth it.

I wonder what a L would have done with the up rated engines/props?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

Well, at very least, it would have flown...I hope.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

The engines on the L delivered greater horsepower than the engines on the K. The Paddle props would have increased climb by 1,000fpm or so (not bad considering the P-38L would climb over 4,000fpm anyway) and they would also increase speed at altitude. They would have degraded the low-level performance however.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

So, it WOULD be able to fly. You know the easy way to get over the lack of low-level performance in -38Ks is not to use them for low-level attacks and use the left over -38Ls instead...genius.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

I would agree with that. I was just noting that the L was very effective and any altitude making it, perhaps, more versatile. The K would have been a pure high-altitude fighter (like the Ta-152 or the HF mks of the Spit).


----------



## plan_D (Dec 25, 2004)

True that does make the L more versatile. If the war had carried on the K would have been needed to take on the Ta-152 though. I'm not saying the L couldn't but the K would have been better in the job.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

Agreed. The K was a pure, uncompromised high-altitude beast.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

I did some checking and found a mistake on my earlier post. The F-15 engines on the K model Lighting were rated @ 1,875bhp in WEP. This would have been an increase of 150hp per engine over the F-30 engines in the L.


----------



## Erich (Dec 25, 2004)

the K would have been totally phazed out and replaced either by the Ta 152 or the Me 262A. that was the plan for the /fall of 45-1946


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

We are discussing the proposed P-38K and not the Bf-109K, for clarification.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

Seeing as he mentioned the Me-262, how was the P-38 fairing against them? I imagine with that mean dive speed it had a pretty good chance of zooming down on those pilots that made a slight mistake...


----------



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

i'd fancy the -262 to be honest................


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 26, 2004)

I dont seem to recall a P-38 pilot ever downing a Me-262 in combat... Anyone else heard anything on this????


----------



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

and why are we talking about this in the best tank killer thread...............


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 26, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> I dont seem to recall a P-38 pilot ever downing a Me-262 in combat... Anyone else heard anything on this????



I've heard of at least one but as the 262 came in numbers the P-38s were moving to an attack mode in the ETO so they didn't meet often.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

First jet encounter was by a Mosquito, I heard. And the first one downed was by a P-47, the first kills by -262s were F-5 Recce Lightning and two PR. Mosquitos...this is what I heard, feel free to correct it if it's wrong.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 26, 2004)

I heard it was two F-5s and one PR Mossie, all on high-altitude recon (obviously, they were unarmed) work...


----------



## plan_D (Dec 26, 2004)

You're right, yes. It was two F-5 Lightnings and a PR. Mosquito in July 1944, at some point.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm not aware of any encounters between a P-38 and a Me-262 (though I have flown some simulated encounters). The P-38 was credited with the first kill over a Me-163. But I believe by the time the 262 could be encountered with any regularity the P-38 was mostly relegated to shooting up the Wermacht and note escorting heavies.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

I flew against -262s in a P-38 on Il-2 FB - it was certainly interesting combat.


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

the Me 262 encounters are all covered in earlier threads pertaining to the Schwalbe. how about we get back on topic shall we ?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

The topic that everyone accepts the Il-2M was the best Tank Killer aircraft of the war in ability but personal preferances swing to the Ju-87G in some?


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

really ?

NSG Ju 87's used in the night role agasint WEstern Allied forces


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

In percentage terms the Il-2s did lose a lot more but the Il-2 performance wise was better and did kill more.


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

killed more ? doubtful when you count all the Stuka Panzer aces as well as all the different Stuka variants in service.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

I prefer the Tiffy and stand by it!


----------



## plan_D (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm talking about the Ju-87G variant alone, as the others were not tank killers - they were dive bombers. 

I personally like the Tiffy better too, but it wasn't the best tank killer.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 27, 2004)

Actually, I know it wasn't, but I think that it had the capability and potential to be, if it had HVARS equipped or larger cannons...


----------



## Erich (Dec 27, 2004)

a couple of things. SG 1 and 3 and 77 during 43-45 do not have written histories so we will never know right at present was their 10th Panzerstafflen actually shot up.

neither a concise history as far as I am aware of all Il-2 units. in any case the Il-2 did cause havoc as experienced by a good friend of mine, now deceased but it did no damage to the Stugs of the Stug Abteilung 1 under his own admission. It appears like many so-called tank busters the Il-2 and Tiffy did cause many MT casualties but did not in effect destroy armor in the "claimed" amounts.....


----------



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

i also like the tiffy, a fine aircraft................


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

the broken backed NSGr Ju 87D-5's in the above photo fired rounds such as these............ 2cm hard cores which did tremendous damage


----------



## plan_D (Dec 28, 2004)

Did no damage to StuGs? Which StuGs, are we talking StuGIII 'cos they'd be ripped apart from the air. .50 cals could tear them open for on high.


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

sorry freind as the Soviets were pretty crappy shots in Ost Preussia I guess. The Stug 3's were covered in concrete and no silly .50's were going to go through that. The 20mms bounced off but I can only imagine what the 37mm's did


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2004)

StuGIIIs covered in concrete?  I wouldn't consider 11mm of top armour concrete, would you?


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

sorry bud that is what they used over the top as well as sandbags, wood, anything possible to deflect any type of rounds. from the top and front/back and even sides as the Schurtzen was more of a joke during late war and was a simple tie down for camo since Stug Abt 1 was used in the defensive role in 1945, the unit waited till the last moment to fire their 7.5cm's at the JS II's and T-34's.


----------



## Udet (Dec 29, 2004)

Hello Care Bears:

This brings into my mind, on and on, the tale on how absolutely "perfect" the allies tell their weapons were.

The guys of the USA tell the world the P-51 arrived in Europe to make a real "laid-back" work "erasing" the Luftwaffe from European skies with ease. Bulls**t. I know veterans and stories are somewhat different.

The guys of the former USSR tell the IL-2M was one of their several "wonder" weapons. Bulls**t again.

Yes cutties, the allies won. Their victory was absolute and undisputed, who has any reasonable doubts at all on that?

The thing would be, how or in which manner was their victory achieved?
It is right there where the going gets rough for the allied creatures. Their victory was not easy at all; their plans hardly went ahead with the mathemathical perfection they frequently claim and likewise, German plans were not always "ill-fated" during the last stages of the conflict.

I have soviet propaganda footage showing the IL-2M´s making a dive attack (the angle could hardly surpass 45 degrees) with all wing cannons blazing (37 mm) and the view is very cool; a very very powerful punch.

However, I did learn such footage had been made in late 1945, in combat traning flight. The war was already over.

The Il-2M made its contribution for victory. Again, any reasonable doubts on that?

1944 saw a dramatic reduction of German fighter strenght in the east, since many units were sent west for the Defense of the Reich against the heavy bombers. Even under such circumstances the IL-2s had frightful loss rates. Yes, there were not too many German fighters to intercept them and the Shturmoviks got produced in massive numbers: a very valid thing to do. In war everything is valid.

Still, resorting to affirm it destroyed "thousands" of German tanks is another one of the wild overdoses of the drug of victory the allies tend to suffer.

It is frequently depicted: the rear gunner (12.7 mm) as a new feature on the IL-2M made the soviet plane a nearly "superb" machine. Bulls**t.

Yes, if you have a rear gunner looking out for enemy interceptors, your chances of survival certainly increase. However, and as I said on the "Bombers defensive armament" thread, if you are clumsy and slow, no matter how heavily armored and packed with defensive guns your aircraft is.

Your much much faster and manouverable enemy will certainly bring you down in far bigger numbers!

If the heavies of the 8th and 15th Air Forces packed with up to twelve (12!) .50 cal defensive machine guns got obliterated by the German fighters, try to think of the fate of perhaps a large formation of single engined planes fitted with one defensive rear gun only!

It was in some other WWII forum where one member posted a story of the Il-2´s. When Germany finally surrendered the soviets seized some Kriegsmarine vessels as war prizes.

It appears like one day, they VVS conducted some combat training flights in the Blatic Sea and one (or several) of such war prizes, were used as targets for the bombs of the Shturmoviks.

Perfect weather, target speed: zero, no AA fire, no enemy planes. The IL-2 pilots could hardly score hits on the crippled target. 

I do not recall where, and can not tell if there is any confirmation of such event happening though.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

heres a series of pics from my files for ya, can you guess the Stukageschwader in the first one ?


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

nice ordnance huh ?  here's a big boy


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

another one from the same unit......which unit ? Teh SG with staffeln flags...


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

a bit later in the war....late 43-winter 44, Doras to take out Soviet armor


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2004)

Nice shots!


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

do you know the Gescwhader and the staffel emblem of the owl ?  

the Geschwader operated a tank killing 10th panzerstaffel with the Ju 87G-1and 2's


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

Erich, the second shot (Wolf) is of Stab 1/ STG 77......

Not sure about the owl........ Is it 3/STG 77??????


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 29, 2004)

And BTW Erich, Great pics man..... Everyone here greatly appreciates the time and pictures u have posted here.... Thx, Dan


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Everyone here greatly appreciates the time and pictures u have posted here.



Indeed we do!


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

good job Dan and thanks for the compliments.

yes Gruppenstab I./SG 77 and the owl was 3rd staffel. The sky in the Ist gruppes emblems was white

E ~


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

another pic this a typical Soviet tank killer


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

The StuGIII, as the SPG on its own, could actually be ripped open by .50 cals - like a cheap tin can, I may add. They did stick trees, sandbags - ANYTHING on but I'm refering to the mere 11mm of armour they were built with. 

The Finnish were the best at camoflauging and uparmouring their tanks with natural resources in the field. Sometimes you can't even tell what it is because of all the trees attached to it.


----------



## Udet (Dec 30, 2004)

Mr. Erich:

I have no option but to join the people in thanking you for posting such interesting photos.

Do you happen to know the name of the man standing by the big bomb?


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

no I do not unfortunately ............ wish I did. the cahp up by the Ju was radio operator of that particular a/c and crewed with a Staffel Kommanduer in 3rd staffel. I have another pic somewhere showing the armor details of the D variant of the cockpit..........very nice

E `


----------



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

that's a great shot of the stuka..................


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

the armor details of the Ju 87 cockpit are hiding somewhere in the stack

ok here is a little something from SG 77............ ooooops


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

Plan d 

the Stug 1 Abteilung was helped by many 2cm and 3.7cm Fla weapons.....

look familiar to you ?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2004)

Yes, of course.  

I'm not saying it was EASY to get down to the StuGs. Also, they weren't easy to targets to hit - very low and more than likely well concealed. I'm just saying their armour protection alone wasn't going to stop .50cals. Especially if a P-47 dived down on them.


----------



## Erich (Dec 31, 2004)

I don't want to get a land war discussion going on this thread but I am talking about towards the end of the war not Normandie. heavy wood beams, snadbags and anything to break up the square look of the stug was used. During the spring of 45 the 1st Stug Abt was used to block up holes-gaps made by soviet armor so it was camo'd the best way possible in the terrain it was engaged. here's a pic of Soviet tank killer; RK winner Walter Kuhn in his stug III.


----------



## remoraptor (Jan 3, 2005)

Rockets vs. AT guns? I'd prefer rockets. They seem to be more simple to use plus they give fighters the ability to destroy tanks without taking out much from their agility.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2005)

The Il-2 had rockets and cannons. So, unload the rockets then you've still got some punch against the rest in the cannons.


----------



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

and even 20mm work fine against "soft" targets.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Ill just have Cannons. LOTS of big cannons


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2005)

Also the Bf110s (late) carried rockets as well as their heavy nose armament configuration in the eastern front.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Bf-110's could have some mean ol' cannon arrangements...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

The cannons would typically prove to me more accurate and more reliable than rockets as well.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Thats why I prefer them, and they can also be used much more effectively in aerial combat, and therefore prove more versatile.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

I wouldn't go that far. 37mm weapons were fine for busting tanks but ineffective in the air-to-air arena against maneuvering targets. Also muzzle velocity and rate of fite tended to be rather low and those are extremely important in anit-air roles.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

I know once you go bigger than 30mm my theory is ill-proven; but with a battery of 20mm and 30mm cannons (Fw-190A-8 et al) I think my statement is agreeable.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 3, 2005)

It is true in that respect. Though even the 30mm weapons of WWII were less than ideal for attacking enemy fighters.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 3, 2005)

Yes, although the 20mms and the Machine guns could just be used. If needs be though, the 30mms could be used to bring down a plane, probably bombers where you have more time to get a good aim.


----------



## remoraptor (Jan 3, 2005)

The Krauts had very good cannon but they seem to have this bad habit of mixing up various calibres in an aircraft. Not just in tank killers but in every type of combat aircraft. Take the Do217 nightfighter for example: six 20- and 30-mm. plus four 7.92-mm mg. Why not just six 20-mm. or four 30-mm.? Just imagine what their armourers and supply officers had to go through just to keep these plane shooting...


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2005)

sorry friend the Do 217 was never equipped with 3cm weapons only 2cm.

a heavy almost useless a/c in the ETO except to intercept slow moving Soviet a/c on the ost front. My cousin flew one of these monstrousities during 1942 in NJG 3 and then the Bf 110G-4..............

cheers


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

Betcha he enjoyed his cockpit time more in the -110G....

And I have never seen any reference either concerning the 3cm weaps on the 217...


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2005)

it's true that certain varints of the Do 217 had the 4 mg 17's and four 2cm's forward and also a test bed for the future Schragwaffen when using 4 and then 2 2cm weapons judged by Rudi Schoenert.

Really weird my cousin scored 8-9 of his 12 victories in the Do 217.

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

> Really weird my cousin scored 8-9 of his 12 victories in the Do 217.


Thats funny....... U wouldnt have thought that at all..... Did he have that much more flight time in the 217????


----------



## Erich (Jan 3, 2005)

quite a bit actually from what I understand before going over to the Bf 110G which they then shipped out all Do 217's. He then was transferred over as Gruppenkommandeur of II./NJG 5 flying the 110G-4 in which he was killed in a stupid accident. What sucks for me is that his kills confirmation of 12 have fallen off the face of the earth. I can only trace up to 7 right now............anyway I degress as this is a tank busting thread...........yo pass the 3.7cm bitte !


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

Big Guns
Cannon with a calibre of 37mm and more have never become popular as aircraft weapons, despite many attempts to adopt them, both for air-to-air combat and for air-to-surface combat. Currently they are very rare. The main attraction of such weapons has always been the possibility of a single-shot kill of a large bomber, a small ship, or a tank. The disadvantages of these weapons are excessive weight, limited ammunition supply and low rate of fire. Recoil is also a significant problem, but in theory this is one that can be avoided by the development of recoilless guns. However, no recoilless gun has ever been really successful.

Early Experiments
Among the earliest cannon fired from aircraft were the Hotchkiss weapons of calibre 37mm and 47mm, weapons constructed with parts of the automatic cannon of the period. The 37mm was produced in significant numbers, and available in version with a long and a short barrel. A few hundred French aircraft were equipped with them during WWII; mostly on the Breguet 5 and the Voisin 4, both single-engined aircraft of pusher configuration. Because they were loaded manually, the rate of fire was very low; and they were not very effective in air-to-air combat. They were useful as ground attack weapons, however.

The French identified another possible use for large cannon: As anti-submarine weapons. During WWI aircraft were slow enough that a spotted submarine might be able to dive before the aircraft could drop bombs on it. A cannon extended the reach of the anti-submarine aircraft. This culminated in the concept of a "high seas flying boat", for which a specification was written in 1918. This would be an aircraft with a crew of four, an eight-hours endurance, and an armament including two machineguns, 120kg of bombs, and a 75mm cannon with 30 rounds! The aircraft designed to this specification never entered service, but the Tellier T.7 did serve as testbed for the 75mm cannon between 1920 and 1922.

In Britain too, experiments were conducted with a number of large-calibre weapons, mainly for use against balloons and airships, although they were also used for ground attack. Vickers delivered the Vickers 1½-pounder and 1-pounder guns, the 1.59in Vickers Crayford, also known as the "Rocket Gun" because its incendiary projectile left a trail of sparks, and the Vickers 1-inch gun. The automatic 1-pounder cannon, basically a much enlarged Maxim machinegun, was the most successful, but nevertheless remained rare. Its recoil was the largest disadvantage.

More common than the Vickers guns was a weapon developed by the Coventry Ordnance Works, the 37mm 1½-pounder COW gun. The COW gun was automatic, very light for a weapon of this calibre, and had a good ballistic performance. But nevertheless it was a bulky weapon, and it saw little service. During the the interbellum it was carried by a few large aircraft, and a handful of fighters were designed round it, but none of these installations was adopted by the armed forces. The weapon seems to have seen its only actual service on the ground, as anti-aircraft gun...

Cleland Davis designed the recoilless guns named after him. They were simple weapons, basically a barrel with two open ends; the recoil was compensated by firing a lead shot rearwards. The loading procedure required the barrel to be made in fore and aft pieces, joined at the center, so that the round could be inserted manually. Leaks at this joint were a serious design problem. Three versions were produced, a 2-pounder, a 6-pounder and a 12-pounder. Its service life, mainly as anti-Zeppelin weapon, was short. The lead shot fired from the rear, and the rearwards blast, made this weapon highly inconvenient to install in the fragile WWI aircraft. It was installed on some aircraft, but generated little enthusiasm among the crews who had to use it.

One of the first aircraft designed for a really large cannon was the Admiralty Type 1000, also known as the AD.1. The Admiralty's concern was the German fleet, and it planned three versions: A bomber, a torpedo bomber capable of carrying an 18 inch torpedo, and a gun machine armed with a recoilless Davis 12-pounder gun. The latter would be used to lob shells at small warships from a safe distance. Development of the giant seaplane began in 1915, and it was completed and flown in the summer of 1916. Concerns about the rearwards blast of the Davis gun caused to design to be changed for a 12-pounder Naval Landing Gun, a conventional cannon, that would be installed on a mount allowing 49 degrees elevation and 38 degress depression. In the end, no gun was ever installed in the AD.1.

Soviet Recoilless Guns
The recoilless Davis guns inspired the development by B.S. Stechkin and L.V. Kurchyevskii of a series of similar weapons in the USSR. Between 1930 and 1936, when he was arrested and disappeared, Kurchyevskii developed a series of guns, that were installed in experimental and even production fighters. The design of all these aircraft was influenced by the rearwards firing of a compensating mass. Either the guns had to be in the wings, or the barrel had to be extended to the extreme tail of the aircraft.

Project Z, also called TsKB-7, was a small low-wing monoplane fighter developed by Grigorovich. He used parts of the I-5 biplane fighter to speed development. The aircraft had a recoilless 76.2mm DRP under each wing, and a single 7.62mm PV-1 machinegun in the fuselage to assist in aiming. About 50 production aircraft, called I-Z, were built. But because they suffered from handling problems, and the DRP guns were single-shot weapons, they were mostly used for further development work. Grigorovich followed with the IP-1, a refined aircraft armed with APK-4 guns at the wingtips. These could fire five rounds. Although the IP-1 entered production, it was without the recoilless guns: The 20mm ShVAK was preferred. The IP-4, with four 45mm APK-11 guns, remained experimental. Later Grigorovich fighters still had heavy armament, but significantly, stuck with multiple conventional 20mm cannon.

Meanwhile, work had also been underway in Tupolev's design bureau. The ANT-23 had a highly original concept: The crew and the two engines, one tractor and one pusher, were installed in a small nacelle. The long barrels of the recoilless APK-4 guns actually formed the tail booms. However, when a shell exploded in one of the guns the ANT-23 barely landed safely, and the aircraft was abandoned. More promising was the ANT-29. This was a conventional, highly streamlined twin-engined monoplane, with a single 102mm DRP or two APK-8 in the fuselage. The ANT-46, a basically similar design, instead had two APK-11 guns in the wings, and apparently the design goal was to use the 100mm APK-100. But the arrest of Tupolev and the disappearance of Kurchyevskii ended the development of fighters with recoilless guns.

Tank Busters
The interest in large aircraft cannon was revived during WWII by the steady increase in the armour thickness of tanks. Most air forces discovered the need for dedicated anti-tank weapons for attack aircraft. However, experience on the battlefield showed that this was not always the best solution: Tanks were well protected against anything but a direct hit, and that was difficult to achieve. Soft-skinned supply vehicles or horse-drawn artillery where much more rewarding targets, but the power of a heavy cannon was wasted on them.

In the USSR, S.V. Ilyushin managed to convince the Politburo of the need for a modern, heavily armoured ground-attack aircraft. The first prototype of the Il-2 Shturmovik flew in 1939. With 990kg of armour, the Il-2 was always a modest performer and highly vulnerable to fighter attack, but it was well-protected against small arms fire from the ground. The Il-2 was, according to Stalin, as essential for the Red Army as bread, and about 36000 were built. This made it the world's most built aircraft, but such production figures were necessary to compensate for the heavy losses. Instead of large cannon, the Il-2 relied on high-velocity guns of small calibre. The initial armament of 20mm ShVAK cannon was insufficient, but they soon replaced by the powerful 23mm VYa. Only in 1943 a number were equipped with the 37mm NS-37. These were considered effective enough against the German tanks, because the rear and top armour was much thinner than the front armour.

P.O. Sukhoi, with his Su-6, had unsuccessfully competed with the Il-2: Although the Su-6 was a better aircraft, it was decided not to halt production of the Il-2. This did not deter him, and in 1942 he got approval for a long-range attack aircraft to complement the short-ranged Il-2. The Su-8 was a sleek, powerful, twin-engined aircraft, again with a heavily armoured cockpit. It could be armed with either four 37mm 11P-37 cannon, or two 45mm OKB-16-45 cannon. The latter were fed by clips. To assist in aiming, four 7.62mm ShKAS guns were installed in the wings. The Su-8 would have had the heaviest forward-firing armament of any WWII aircraft, but it was not put in production, because the war was nearly won. The line of thinking behind the Su-8 was continued with a series of anti-armour derivatives of the excellent Tu-2 twin-engined bomber. The second prototype of the Tu-2Sh carried a 75mm cannon, and the third carried two 20mm ShVAK cannon, two 37mm NS-37 and two 45mm NS-45. The Tu-2RShR had a 57mm RShR cannon installed in the lower fuselage. All these aircraft remained prototypes.

Initially, the Germans also opted for high-velocity cannon, but they did not have a direct equivalent of the VYa. Instead, the Junkers Ju 87G anti-tank aircraft appeared with two BK 3,7 cannon in pods under the wings, with six rounds each. The BK 3,7 was a 37mm weapon, developed from the Flak 18 anti-aircraft cannon. This armament installation proved highly successful against Soviet armour, despite the vulnerability of the obsolescent Ju 87 design. A purpose-designed attack aircraft was the Henschel Hs 129. As in the Il-2, the cockpit was an armoured box. With two Gnome-Rhone 14M4/5 radials, captured French engines, the Hs 129 was decidedly underpowered. It had a MG 17 and a MG 151/20 on each side of the fuselage, but the anti-tank cannon was carried in a fairing under the belly. It could be the 30mm MK101 or MK103, but also the BK 3,7. There were even experiments with the mighty 75mm BK 7,5, in an attempt to ensure the destruction of Soviet tanks, that carried increasingly heavy armour. Such 75mm cannon, the KwK 39 and PAK 40, also appeared on the Ju 88P, but their weight, recoil, and enormous muzzle blast were too much even for this twin-engined bomber. After the Ju 88P-1, later models switched to two BK 3,7 cannon, or one BK 5, derived from the PAK 38.

The RAF and USAAF never had an armoured ground-attack aircraft similar to the Il-2. Instead, they increasingly used fighter-bombers. Compared with the Il-2, these were more vulnerable to small arms fire from the ground, especially those with liquid-cooled engines, but on the other hand they could defend themselves succesfully against enemy fighters, and in general formed a force with superior range, speed, and flexibility. Both approaches can be defended. The Germans seems to have considered the Allied air superiority on the Western front more threathening, but then the front in the East was much longer, and air support was spread thinner.

Below, a table of anti-tank cannon carried by WWII aircraft. The ammunition specified in this table is the AP round used for anti-tank missions, which usually has a higher muzzle velocity than other rounds developed for the same gun.

Name Ammunition Rate of Fire Muzzle velocity Weight 
MK 101 30 x 184B (355 g) 250 rpm 960 m/s 178 kg 
MK 103 30 x 184B (355 g) 420 rpm 860 m/s 146 kg 
BK 3,7 37 x 263B (380 g) 160 rpm 1170 m/s 295 kg 
BK 5 50 x 419R (1250 g) 50 rpm 1200 m/s 540 kg 
BK 7,5 75 x (3300 g) 933 m/s 1000 kg 
VYa 23 x 152B (200 g) 500 rpm 905 m/s 69 kg 
NS-37 37 x 195 (735 g) 250 rpm 900 m/s 150 kg 
Vickers S 40 x 158SR (1130 g) 100 rpm 615 m/s 134 kg 
Moulins 6pdr 57 x 441R (3170 g) 60 rpm 790 m/s 816 kg 

Fighter-bombers could still be armed with large guns, and the Hurricane Mk.IID was fitted with two 40mm Vickers S cannon in pods under the wing, with two Browning .303 retained to assist in aiming. In the North African desert it proved effective, but the type was abandoned because it was vulnerable both to enemy fighters and to light AA guns, and its armament was considered to be ineffective against the newest German tanks. An alternative was the Mosquito Mk.XVIII with an Molins 57mm cannon, but this cannon too was rated unable to cope with the armour of a Tiger tank. The Mosquito Mk.XVIII, nicknamed Tsetse, was instead sent to Coastal Command for use against U-boats. The Allies switched to rockets as anti-tank weapons, and did not consider cannon again.

Near the end of the war a new breed of attack aircraft started flying. These were aircraft with the general configuration of light bombers, but a performance closer to that of fighter-bombers. A good example was the Beech A-38 Grizzly, a compact, clean aircraft powered by two mighty R-3350 radial engines. The A-38 carried the powerful T15E1 75mm cannon in the nose, with 20 rounds of ammunition. Unfortunately for the A-38, all R-3350 engines were required for the B-29 program.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2005)

pics.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

Nice writeup, Les. Hard to imagine a Mossie with a 57mm cannon! 

The original P-38 design and all of the early models though the P-38D carried a 37mm cannon with 15 rounds of ammo. Obviously, 15 rounds aren't going to get you far and they went to the 20mm cannon with 150 rounds.

The solid nose attack B-25s did have a variant (B-25G) with the 75mm M-4 and 21 rounds, loaded manually. The M-4 was later replaced with the lighter T13E1 (B-25H). The barrel went through the tunnel that would normally be for the crew access to the greenhouse up front. The mod was done in New Zealand by North American engineer Jack Fox, working with Pappy Gunn. By the time they were readily available (Late 1944), the H model often flew without the 75mm due to lack of targets for it. It also had a slow rate of fire due to manual loading, which also was a reason to have it removed.

The B-25H also carried 16 x .50 caliber machine guns! It was mainly used for anti-shipping and ground attack missions in the Pacific. With the 75mm, it was quite effective against ships. The slow rate of fire would not have done well for tank-busting.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 4, 2005)

BUT, it could sink a large ship in something like seven shots...


*AMAZING.*


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

Mosquito FB. XVIII "Tse-Tse" Named Tse-Tse Fly because it had more bite than a normal Mosquito. 6 pdr (57mm) Molins cannon with 25 rounds.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

I prefer the BK 7,5 75mm cannon on the Hs-129B-2...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I like that too but only 25 were built, weren't they?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

I dont know the exact number, but it certainly wasnt many.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I read they had some success in their short career. One hit from that 75mm would rip any tank apart, from the top. Same calibre as a Sherman M4


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

It was the plane that was bad rather than the gun. The cockpit was too cramped and the engines were unreliable. Wasnt too fast either...


----------



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

a 6pdr could ged rid of allot of things though..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

The USAAF drew up design specs for a version of the P-38 equipped with a 75mm gun that even Kelly Johnson wasn't aware of. The modification involved moving the cockpit forward to what was normally the armament section while the 75mm gun ran beneath the cockpit floor with the auto-loader sittting in the spot that had been the cockpit. 21 rounds were carried along with 300rpg for 2 .50cal mgs bracketing the cannon.


----------



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

the .50cal would proberly have been used to sight the 75mm................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

That was the primary mission, but they also allowed the fighter to have some measure of self-defense as the 75mm weapon would have been useless in air-to-air combat.


----------



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

but 300rpg wouldn't last long at all................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

24 secs. That would be comparable to the ammo supply on most marks of the Spit.


----------



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

wow didn't think it'd last that long, mind you i'm normally thinking about the .303...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The USAAF drew up design specs for a version of the P-38 equipped with a 75mm gun that even Kelly Johnson wasn't aware of. The modification involved moving the cockpit forward to what was normally the armament section while the 75mm gun ran beneath the cockpit floor with the auto-loader sittting in the spot that had been the cockpit. 21 rounds were carried along with 300rpg for 2 .50cal mgs bracketing the cannon.



Woah, even I didnt know about that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeah I did not know that until now either, that is really interesting. I have found some info on it though since reading this last post. It was called the XP-58 Chain Lightning.



> The XP-58 was the largest version of the series of aircraft based on the P-38 and continued with the XP-49. The "Chain Lightning" was initially designed as a long-range bomber escort, but was redesigned as a low-altitude ground attack aircraft and finally retro-designed back to a bomber escort/attack aircraft. Besides the many role changes, the XP-58 was plagued by engine, armament and crew changes. In the final configuration, the aircraft had two crewmen; a pilot and a rear-gunner operating two power turrets although the turrets and the forward firing armament was never actually installed. Engine and supercharger problems caused the project to be canceled after one aircraft was built.
> TYPE
> XP-58 Number built/Converted
> 1 Remarks
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2005)

Now ive heard the name Chain Lightning but I didnt really know its purpose...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

Yeap same here.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 4, 2005)

But it sure screwed up the nice lines of the P-38. That plane is ugly. :-


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2005)

I completely agree!


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

I am not refering to the XP-58 Chain Lighting. The aircraft I am refering to is a direct derivitive of the P-38E. It used identical wings and booms with only the central nacelle being altered. The only place I have ever seen anything on it is in Warren Bodie's book on the P-38. It features several excellent drawings of what the design would have looked like.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

Really I have never heard of it. What is the book called I will deffinatly have to read it. That is very interesting.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

Here you go, Adler:

http://www.historicaviation.com/historicaviation/product_info.po;jsessionid=EwsoavZl9qcZXzfSD53TFFpx(0CppkxPt)?ID=3856


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

Thanks, it will be interesting reading.


----------



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

that thing looks more like the P-61 than the P-38....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2005)

evangilder said:


> But it sure screwed up the nice lines of the P-38. That plane is ugly. :-



Too damn right...what were they thinking!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2005)

I think with that aircraft they were trying to combine as much fire power into an already proven aircraft.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 5, 2005)

The book doesn't contain much information on it. It was a totally a USAAF project that Lockheed and Kelly Johnson were completely unaware of. The book does include a couple of neat sketches of the beast. One is a profile shot and one is cut-away of the cockpit nacelle.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

You wouldnt happen to be able to scan them in and post them would you? Thatd be great 8)


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2005)

another book of interest on this very subject is the Ju 87 by Martin Pegg. Will be produced through Classic Publications. If any of you are fortunate to have the Hs 129 Tome then you know the expertize behind Mr. Pegg and the quality of Classics work's. It should be superb...........

Erich ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Will have to check them both out.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

I don't have a scanner here unfortunately. In another week or so I will be back where I have access to one. At the point I am hoping to be able to post the pics of the 75mm version of the P-38 as well as a pic of a P-38 with a total of 6 underwing hardpoints.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Wow 6 hard points, pretty impressive.


----------



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

still no internal bomb bay though


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

Why would a fighter have a bomb-bay?


----------



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

sorry, jus comparing it to the mossie, force of habit by now...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

lol, Here we go again!


----------



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

believe me i didn't mean to...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 6, 2005)

I figured out a way today that a P-38 can be used to transport 5 people + the pilot


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

And how is that, strap them down under the wings? It would be one hell of a ride none the less.


----------



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

suprise us then CC??


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

If you slice them real thin, they might fit behind the seat in the radio compartment!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

evangilder said:


> If you slice them real thin, they might fit behind the seat in the radio compartment!



 That would make a mess a though! LOL  And trust me you never get the blood out from everywhere and then it begins to stink really bad!


----------



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




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 6, 2005)

Dont say anything I know he was kidding.


----------



## Erich (Jan 6, 2005)

Eagle, the HS 129 book is OOP but definately worth looking into at some of the finer and much larger book distributors online. Martins Ju 87 monster is not published quite yet.

the Locobuster fighter group the US 55fg started out with P-38 and later the P-51D and K

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Actually, a number of P-38s were modified to carry a person in the rather cramped confines of the radio compartment. And with those 6 hardpoints a P-38 could carry 6 500lb bombs, equal to the Mossie.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I was talking to a vet that flew the P-38 last night and he said his "training" for the P-38 was crouched down in the radio compartment, behind the pilot with the radios and armor plating removed while the IP flew the plane and showed him a few things. After that, he was given his own plane!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

There was a training version of the P-38 called the Swordfish I think...


----------



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

for real??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Actually, a number of P-38s were modified to carry a person in the rather cramped confines of the radio compartment. And with those 6 hardpoints a P-38 could carry 6 500lb bombs, equal to the Mossie.



The only reason I could think that it would be used in that reason is to extract a downed pilot and rescue him. Unless you are talking about the snoopdroop version which was designed as a bomber.
As for the 2 seat trainer it was the TP-38. There were several versions made. I believe they were all modifications to existing aircraft though.



> Lockheed TP-38J Lightning This aircraft was unofficially designated TP-38J to identify a certain modification. These aircaft had a small seat for a second pilot behind the original seat, and was used for conversion training, or for training for the P-38M night-fighter crews
> Number converted: unknown
> 
> Lockheed TP-38L Lightning Two aircraft were converted to conversion trainers with a second seat
> ...


----------



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

dual controll??


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

Late mode P-38J's and all P-38L's could carry 2 x 2000 lbs bombs on their main racks. This matches the Mossie's 1 x 4000 lbs bomb.

In some special instances, the P-38L could be setup to carry even more bombs, I think 5000 lbs were carried.

The P-38M was a two seater night fighter variant with radar. Some saw action before the end of WWII.

Some P-38's had level bombing bombsights installed. One would act as leader and lead a flight of P-38's on a bombing mission, all dropping when he dropped. To me this is an intriguing concept. Large formations of P-38's carrying, lets say, 3000 lbs of bombs and drop tanks to bomb German cities and would have been difficult for the German's to intercept. This would be especially true for early morning raids where the cover of night provided protection through most of the inbound journey. The P-38's would climb to 30,000 feet and just as dawn broke would begin a slow dive down to about 23-25,000 feet as they made their approach to the specified target, making them quite fast.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Excuse me I stand corrected I meant to say night fighter and not bomber.
There were several night fighter versions built as single seaters also. And yes the dual seat trainer TP-38's had two sets of controls.


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2005)

so as an effective Tank killer the P-38 was ? in the ETO ?? granted a great ground attck plane agasint soft skinned vehicles, MT and locos/trains


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I am not sure how effective it was a tank killer. I know if the experimental version that was talked about in other posts with the 75mm cannon or the ChainLightning could have been effective but I am not sure how effective it was.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

There were not alot of TP-38s. At least that is what I have heard. Most pilots got the training that I mentioned from my conversation with Bob Grainger. That was training in the states, mind you. Before he got that "training", he had never flown a multi-engined aircraft!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

From what I can tell there were only 2 confirmed TP-38's built and the rest are all and unknown amount. I do know there were not many.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

This is what I mean:




While the P-38 design was starting to prove itself in testing and combat, one underlying problem still existed. Compressibility was still a major obstacle in the performance of the P-38, and it led to many rumors and myth about the flight characteristics. One prototype P-38 was modified for dive testing. An older P-38 E was the aircraft used for this experimentation. The forward gondola section was moved forward by thirty inches, and the cockpit was move forward by thirty-six inches. The cockpit flight controls were the same, but there was room behind the pilot for a co-pilot/observer/test engineer. This modified P-38 E "Swordfish" first too flight on June 2, 1943 and was immediately put into extensive dive tests. The tests would have limited results, but this design led into another use for this type of P-38.



AAF training before Pearl Harbor was only designed to train between 12,000 - 13,000 pilots each year. After the attack, plans were changed and the numbers were increased significantly. However, the problem was that the government was unprepared for any armed conflicts, and pilots were being forced into the P-38 without adequate training. There were no twin-engine trainers available, but when the British balked at purchasing the Model 322 Lightning I fighters, they were employed as trainers. They were basically stripped down models of the P-38, but they were still rather advanced for the average trained pilot taking the controls for the first time. Johnson envisioned the P-38 Swordfish to be used to take pilot trainees along for demonstration flights with an experienced pilot at the controls. This would dispel many rumors and raise confidence in inexperienced pilots. Lockheed test pilot Jimmy Mattern was sent on tour with a Swordfish version of the P-38. He performed maneuvers that were normally feared by the recruits, such as rolling into a "dead" engine and many low-level aerobatics. After five months of training sessions, P-38 accident rates dropped from 6.5% to 1.5%. Mattern would receive the Civil Medal of Merit for his actions, which saved the lives of many recruits. Once again, the P-38 demonstrated its versatility and value to the Allied cause.

www.p-38online.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Wow interesting I have never heard about it till now, thanks.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Welcome 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Have you ever found any more info on this version.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

Dont think so - I know about most of my stuff on the -38 from www.p-38online.com. its a great site on the P-38.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah I like it.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

That was also used for testing the laminar flow wings, which you can see in the picture. They were looking for ways to resolve the compressibility with this. There were some dual engine trainers later (AT-11? I think).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

dual trainers? Are we still talking about the P-38? All Lightning trainers were dual engined.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> That was also used for testing the laminar flow wings, which you can see in the picture. They were looking for ways to resolve the compressibility with this. There were some dual engine trainers later (AT-11? I think).



Compressability problems were never resolved in the P-38. However, the L-model (and some J's by retrofit) were equiped with dive recovery flaps on the lower wing which helped in high speed dive recovery (and also could be used to get inside an opponent in a turn fight).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> That was also used for testing the laminar flow wings, which you can see in the picture. They were looking for ways to resolve the compressibility with this. There were some dual engine trainers later (AT-11? I think).



My bad, I understand now what you were saying. Sorry about that. You meant there were dual engine trainers. And yes there was the Beech AT-7/AT-11 Kansan, and the Curtis-Wright AT-9 Jeep. There may have been more though.



> AT-7/AT-11
> Type: Advanced Trainer
> Origin: Beech
> Crew: Two
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

I know they never resolved it, I said they were looking for ways to solve it. The dive recovery flaps with the power operated ailerons helped the manueverability.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Dont think so - I know about most of my stuff on the -38 from www.p-38online.com. its a great site on the P-38.



That is a decent P-38 site. Here are some others:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p38.html
http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html
http://home.worldonline.dk/winthrop/p38.html
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~frontacs/WBStored/P38PilotComments.html (interesting comments about WEP usage and engine turns)
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P38.html (video and other info)
http://www.475thfghf.org/Lindbergh.htm
http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozatwar/lindbergh.htm
http://www.kazoku.org/xp-38n/articles/p38info.htm (for flight sim modeling but some good info too)
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_pto_aces.html (PTO Aces - mostly P-38 )
http://home.worldonline.dk/winthrop/p38op1.html (operating manual - mostly as regaurds takeoff and landing)
http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html (about the P-38 being a "big target")
http://www.uswarplanes.net/p38.htm (production info)
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/p38.htm

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I know they never resolved it, I said they were looking for ways to solve it. The dive recovery flaps with the power operated ailerons helped the manueverability.



The dive recovery flaps mostly helped avoid terminal dives (where it is impossible to pull out). In some circumstances they could also provide a little extra turn, but I think those instances were rare.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

That AT-9 is BUTT UGLY.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Problems of the P-38:



> Tail flutter was quickly found to be a problem. In an attempt to fix it, small weights were attached to little booms in the middle of the elevator. This fix was derided by Kelly Johnson, who regarded the weights as useless, and in fact the buffeting eventually proved to be due to the straight connection of the wing root to the fuselage pod. A few aerodynamic changes, most particularly the addition of a wing-root fillet, solved the problem. Nonetheless, the little weights were a feature of every P-38 built from then on.
> 
> A more serious problem was "compressibility stall", the tendency of the controls to simply lock up in a high-speed dive, leaving the pilot no option but to bail out. The tail structure also had a nasty tendency to fall apart under such circumstances, and in fact this problem killed a YP-38 test pilot, Ralph Virden, in November 1940.
> 
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

Thanks for the other sites Lunatic. And yes it is Plan D


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 7, 2005)

The AT-7 on the other hand is a great looking a/c


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

They made the AT-7 for quite some time after the war. I believe until the 1960's for private use.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

I used to have a report on the P-38 from a commander (pilot) to his superiors on the problems of the plane in the ETO/MTO. The biggest problem he pointed out was the complexity of going from cruise mode (with tanks) to combat configuration. There were so many steps involved, many of them not physically easy to accomplish, that many pilots were shot down while trying to reconfigure the plane when the enemy appeared.

I'll try to find that report, i have it saves as an "offline favorite" I think, but its in an old version of Windows. I.e.: I'll need to setup to boot to another drive to retrieve it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2005)

I think a major problem with the ealier P-38's that would present a problem in the ETO (even though it is not really a life threatening thing) was the fact that the engines were so far from the cockpit that the heating for the pilot sucked. Anyways I cant remember how we got on the topic of the P-38 as a tank killer, yes it could do it, but it was not really a tank killer.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok. Let me clear up several things.

The P-38Ls carried loads as high as 5,200lbs in combat (2 x 2000lb on the maing pylons and 4 x 300lb under the outer wings).

In addition to the Droop Snoot, there was a version of the P-38 developed with APS-15 "Mickey" BTO radar.

To the best of my knowledge, the Swordfish was never used to give areobatic demonstartions to other P-38 pilots. This would have been rather ill-advised since the Swordfish had considerably different flight characteristics from a standard P-38. It was described as being the best diving version. 

The dive recovery flaps were used fairly often to tighten a turn. I am currently reading the history of the 475th FG and several pilots mentioned using the dive flaps in combat.

The P-38s were fairly effective as a tank buster and achieved some notable success in the MTO. Even though only the late versions of the P-38 had rockets, the standard firepower was sufficient to handle most German tanks from above and behind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> To the best of my knowledge, the Swordfish was never used to give areobatic demonstartions to other P-38 pilots. This would have been rather ill-advised since the Swordfish had considerably different flight characteristics from a standard P-38. It was described as being the best diving version.



This I pretty much believed my self. As for the tank busting abilities I am not arguing that, I just trying to figure out where this all got started.


----------



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

however the tankbuster in the med had to be the hurricane Mk.IID, with the vickers S guns................


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Who is in competition with that Hurricane IID???????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

I dont know anything about tankbusting in the MTO...


----------



## Adolf Galland (Jan 8, 2005)

ummm...when ppl talk about tank busting, y did everyone just talk about fighter-bombers? cuz not just the fighter bombers are effetive tank-destorying aircraft...like the dive-bombers are really compareable to the fighter-bombers in this role(probably even better than it)


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

Dive bombing tank busters????

Hmmmmmmm....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

We do talk about dive bombers, its justthat I dont the the Ju-87G or IL-2 really done much in the MTO...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 8, 2005)

And those 2 particular aircraft didnt even divebomb, they approached at a shallow glidee angle... Well, the Ju-87G-2 and IL2-M3 did atleast......


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

As I mentioned, the P-38 earned a formidable reputation in the MTO as a tank buster. I'm not sure dive-bombers were as effective as tank-buster as strafing fighters/attack planes. I know Rudel prefered to have dive bombers attack Russian AA guns to make the job of shooting up tanks easier for his Ju-87Gs.


----------



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

> As I mentioned, the P-38 earned a formidable reputation in the MTO as a tank buster



but the hurricane Mk.IID did even morso............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2005)

Adolf Galland said:


> ummm...when ppl talk about tank busting, y did everyone just talk about fighter-bombers? cuz not just the fighter bombers are effetive tank-destorying aircraft...like the dive-bombers are really compareable to the fighter-bombers in this role(probably even better than it)



Well I think that would be because most fighters could be configured to be fighter bombers and ground attack but tank busting is more of a mission. Many aircraft were used for tank busting duties, some were just better then others.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

True. But personally, I would rather be in the fighter-bomber instead of the dedicated tank-buster as I would like to have a fighting chance if I was bounced.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

I agree with you completely and in the fighter bomber role I would want to be in a Fw-190.


----------



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

but i think i'd rather have the pure tank buster, then atleast i've got a better chance of destrying the tank and it'll be easier, and if i get shot down, i'd hjave died gloriously on the battlefield for queen and country...........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

I'd rather be flying something like the F4U-4 corsair. Very tough, very fast, and it can drop napalm on the tanks for nearly 100% effectiveness. Then I can get the hell out of there at 400+ mph, and if some enemy fighter is by some fluke able to intercept me, I have a decent chance of winning that fight too.

8) 

Lunatic


----------



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

i'd feel more at home in a hurricane Mk.IID.............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'd feel more at home in a hurricane Mk.IID.............



At least you think you would. The fact is neither of us would "feel at home" in any of these planes  

But seriously, to be effective the IID had to go down low and slow and attack the tank, exposing itself to enemy ground fire while doing so. And it was a sitting duck for almost any true German fighter.

With the F4U-4 however, you can carry two large napalm tanks, come in at high speed, and dump each one across multiple tanks, potentially killing more than one each attack, and at least one is almost a sure thing since you can miss by quite a bit and still get the tank. One 110-gallon napalm bomb would spread over a pear-shaped area about 85 meters long and about 25 meters wide. Much easier than trying to go down and gun it, and you probably get any supporting infantry or vehicles too! And when you're done, you're in a top rated fighter and can either strafe ground targets or engage in aerial combat.

Just my opinion of course.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



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

yes and mine is that i'd rather be in a hurricane Mk.IID, ntohing you can do about ym opinion, nothing i can do about yours..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Like DerAdler, id have to go with the Fw-190A...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 9, 2005)

So would i......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

It makes more sense than a Hurri MkIID anyway...


----------



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

the hurricane comments were just about what we'd rather be in for tank busting, it had little to do with the topic.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

There must be reasons why you'd rather be in it though...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

Its British thats why, correct Lanc?  As I said I would want to be in a Fw-190A, pretty much for the same reasons as Lunatic would want to be in a Corsair. You have the ability to defend yourself after expending your tank ordinance. And hey Lanc when you go down in enemy territory, your first thought is not to die gloriously for queen and country, its to evade and survive.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Or take your cyanide pill if you get captured..


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Its British thats why, correct Lanc?  As I said I would want to be in a Fw-190A, pretty much for the same reasons as Lunatic would want to be in a Corsair. You have the ability to defend yourself after expending your tank ordinance. And hey Lanc when you go down in enemy territory, your first thought is not to die gloriously for queen and country, its to evade and survive.



Yep. Which I why I like the Corsair - it's the fastest plane with the best dogfighting ability and armor, and it could carry two large napalms. Napalm is clearly the weapon of choice if you're attacking tanks - nothing else (in the WWII/Korea timeframe) compares.

BTW: wouldn't you want the FW190F-8 for ground attack? The low altitude supercharger setup and additional armor makes it the better choice I think.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2005)

I would go with any Fw-190 except the pure fighter varients or the torpedo or pr varients. The Corsair is a good choice as well as the P-47 and the Typhoon I would think.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would go with any Fw-190 except the pure fighter varients or the torpedo or pr varients. The Corsair is a good choice as well as the P-47 and the Typhoon I would think.



P-47 could only carry one napalm tank, and it was not as tough as the Corsair.

As far as I know, the British did not use Napalm.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 9, 2005)

This is from the Bomber Command campaign diary dated April and May 1945.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bombercommand/apr45.html

_18/19 April 1945

1 Mosquito of No 141 Squadron was lost while carrying out a napalm attack on an airfield in Northern Germany; this was a new form of weapon being used by the Mosquito squadrons of No 100 Group._


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, I guess the British did use Napalm.

Do you know if the Tempest or Typhoon delivered it?

Thanks,

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 9, 2005)

Looks like just the Tempest and Mosquito did. I would think this was becuase the RAF only took up the use of napalm in the dog end of the war.

Heres the site I got the stats from - it's in French though.

http://www.histoiredumonde.net/article.php3?id_article=347


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 9, 2005)

Hmmmm, sounds like the beginnings of a new Poll question......

Best Tank-Busting Fighter/Bomber........ But true Platform Fighters, not the IL2.........

Options include?????
F4U-4 Napalm
Hurricane Mk IID 20mm vickers 'S'
Fw-190F-3/R3 with 30mm Gondola Mk103 cannon
Fw-190F-8 Panzerblitz I 88mm Launch Tubes

Any others to include in the poll?????


----------



## Erich (Jan 9, 2005)

side note: P-61A's on the 422nd and 425th nfs used Napalm on crossroads in Germany during 1945


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 9, 2005)

I had not heard of napalm being used in Europe. I know it received heavy use in the Pacific and vitually every fighter-bomber available was used to deliver it there.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I had not heard of napalm being used in Europe. I know it received heavy use in the Pacific and vitually every fighter-bomber available was used to deliver it there.



I posted earlier in this thread on this very topic. Napalm was actually used in the ETO first, and surprisingly more than people are aware. It was just not so publicized. It seems it was much more palatable to the American public to be roasting Japanese than Europeans with the stuff.

The first use of napalm, contrary to many sources, was on July 17, 1944 when US P-38s attacked a fuel depot at Coutances. Napalm was used for the first time in the PTO on July 23, 1944, against the Japanese on Tinian, which is often mis-reported as the first use of Napalm. On Sept 13 1944, P-47 Thunderbolts of the U.S. 406th Fighter-Bomber Group used napalm to destroy a good part of the German 12th Panzer Brigade near Dompaire France. P-47's of the 358th FG of the XIX TAC, 9th AAF, dropped napalm in the Driant area (one of 6 old forts near Metz, France?), on Oct 3, 1944.
Napalm was used in the Battle of the Bulge, on Dec. 24, 1944, by the 405 Fighter Group which flew 8 sorties that day.

Napalm was definitely used in the ETO. Patton's Third Army air support dropped 17,486 tons of bombs, 3,205 napalm tanks, and launched 4,599 rockets, all in the ETO. And they were not the only unit using napalm.

However, by far the biggest use of Napalm was by heavy bombers. The RAF especially used it to fire bomb Dresden and other German cities. On the night of March 9, 1945, 279 B-29's dropped 1665 tons of napalm on Tokyo killing an estimated ~84000 Japanese and seriously injuring another 41000, more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki!

It should also be noted that the Germans used "oil bombs" on Allied and Soviet troops, I believe starting in 1943, possibly earlier. They also dropped such bombs on London during the Blitz. These were not as nasty as napalm, but the intent was the same. They opened the door to the use of such a nasty weapon and reaped the whirlwind for doing so. Had they not used such weapons, I seriously doubt the Allies would have either.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Medvedya said:


> Looks like just the Tempest and Mosquito did. I would think this was becuase the RAF only took up the use of napalm in the dog end of the war.
> 
> Heres the site I got the stats from - it's in French though.
> 
> http://www.histoiredumonde.net/article.php3?id_article=347



That just says they could carry it. Tempests are often listed as having been able to carry rockets, but during WWII they were not equiped to do so. After the war they were modified to have rocket capability.

I'm not sure if there was anything special to be able to deliver napalm, I think there was some kind of special fuse puller involved.

We need some definative statement that napalm was really used by the Tempest in WWII.

The RAF, in particular Bomber Command, was a very heavy user of Napalm during WWII. They just favored dropping it on cities from heavy bombers at night. It was the primary "incendiary" bomb in 1944, and was used to obliterate Dresden and other German cities.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

I've never heard that the RAF used Napalm on Dresden. I heard incendriay, which generally doesn't refer to napalm.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Hmmmm, sounds like the beginnings of a new Poll question......
> 
> Best Tank-Busting Fighter/Bomber........ But true Platform Fighters, not the IL2.........
> 
> ...



The Typhoon?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

in thoery but the RAF didn't really keep a tally of these things so we don't know how effective it was.............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Of what things?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

tanks destroyed..............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Ah, okay.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

that's a bit petty for the RAF................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 10, 2005)

Damn RAF...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I've never heard that the RAF used Napalm on Dresden. I heard incendriay, which generally doesn't refer to napalm.



Yeah I always thought it was white phospherous they were dropping on Dresden. But now from what I read it says that about half were napalm.



> When indendiary weapons were dropped on bunkers in Germany, the intense heat literally baked and dehydrated German World War II soldiers, giving rise to the German word "Bombenbrandschrumpfeichen," meaning "firebomb shrunken flesh." Allied bombers dropped an estimated 3.4 kilotons of incendiaries on the German city of Dresden. The attack on Dresden in February 1945 has always been a contentious issue because of the number of lives lost, the lateness of the war, and the cultural significance of the city. The city was a legitimate military target, and the allied air forces did attempt to precisely bomb the city's marshaling yards. In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945, the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1,299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Of this tonnage, 1247.6 tons were expanded by the Eighth Air Force, 2659.3 tons by the RAF Bomber Command. The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs -- all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs -- all aimed against the Dresden city area. Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs. The exact number of casualties from the Dresden bombings can never be firmly established. Most of the latest German post-war estimates are that about 25,000 persons were killed and about 30,000 were wounded, virtually all of these being casualties from the RAF incendiary attack of 13/14 February 1945. If opprobrium attaches to anyone, it should be Winston Churchill who specifically asked that east German cities be bombed to create refugees and spread havoc. Although Dresden was an unfortunate victim of circumstance, such was not the case for Berlin. The Allies placed the German capital in a different category, ordering attacks on "city center" and employing the maximum number of incendiary bombs.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

I've never read about heavies dropping napalm. I know a lot of incendiaries were used in Europe, especially by RAF bomber command. But as Plan_D noted, there is a difference between and incendiary bomb and a napalm canister.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2005)

I agree with you, but from what I have read on www.globalsecurity.org which has allways been pretty accurate the heavies did drop napalm.



> The main incendiary agents are thermite (TH), magnesium (MG), WP, and combustible hydrocarbons (including oils and thickened gasoline).
> 
> Thermite incendiaries are a mixture of powdered aluminium metal and ferric oxide and are used in bombs for attacks on armoured fighting vehicles. Thermite burns at about 2000°C and scatters molten metal, which may lodge in the skin producing small multiple deep burns.
> 
> ...





> For example, during 16 days of 'softening up' attacks proceeding the invasion of Iwo Jima B-24s dropped 1,111 drums of Napalm on the island.
> http://www.ww2guide.com/bombs.shtml


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 11, 2005)

I knew some of the heavies dropped napalm in the PTO, but I had only heard of them dropping incendiaries over Europe.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

I knew there was use of Naplam in the ETO and PTO, and was pretty familiar with how often it was used... Kinda surprised that not many of u knew this....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

Yeah to be honest until this forum I knew it was developed in WW2 but did not think it was used until Korea. Now I actually found out that it was actually developed in WW1 (a very primitive version of it) and was used by the Americans and Germans in WW1.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

I did some checking and found a reference to P-51s using the 108-gallon "paper-mache" tanks as a form of napalm. The fuel tanks would be dropped and a burst of API ammo would be used to ignite the fuel. Relatively crude, but effective nonetheless.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

The great thing about Napalm was that it was relativly safe to use. It was less volotile then regular gasoline. It is kind of like C-4 you need to have certain components to make it work. I do not know what they are for Napalm (I am only going off of what I have heard and read, in all actuallity I know very little about Napalm other then the fact that you dont want to be near it when it goes off) but like for C-4 you have to have pressure and heat. If you only have heat it will not go off (we actually use it to cook off of in the field some times) and if you have pressure but no heat it will not go off. So it was relitivly safe to handle. I have also heard of reports of Napalm being dropped out of the sky in 50 gallon drums and then being shot and ignited.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

like a moltov cocktail in the air??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Pretty much.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

Only a lot bigger. And they were 55 gallon drums weren't they?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Yeah, they weren't little bottles with a rag coming out.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

I made homemade molotovs. Great fun


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

Yeah I meant 55gal drums not 50gal drums.


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

A night Ju 87D-5 ............. cool eh and in colour too !


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 14, 2005)

Sweet pic Erich! 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)

very nice....................


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Haven't seen a color pic of one of those! Sweet!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2005)

Yes indeed! Sweet! 8)


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

ok then a side view for u guys......this is one of the NSGr birds flying at night


----------



## evangilder (Jan 14, 2005)

Holding out on the side view eh? That's a great shot!


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

give me a few minutes to transfer another colour image, this of a different NSGr Ju 87D with a white band instead of yellow.


----------



## Erich (Jan 14, 2005)

ok this may not turn out. thanks to author Nick Beale from the UK for his article in a French aviation journal


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 14, 2005)

It turned out just fine.  Now if only I read French.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 15, 2005)

Nice shot Erich! 8)

I can read some of the French but there are some words I dont know so I cant make much sense of it


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 15, 2005)

good pics.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2005)

Yeah very good pics. I have not seen to many like those before.


----------



## Erich (Jan 21, 2005)

these pics are of the gent by the Ju 87D in the upper portion of the thread on page 34 ?

the pics are out of order and the swastika has been blotted out according to law in Deutschlnad. If you look how the young apprentice appeared in the bottom pics and then move upward, you can see of course the outstanding performance that this radio-operator/rear gunner did while in STG 77: note the medals received. But the main thing is look how our young man has aged over 3-4+ years of war. In case he made it through.............over 1000 missions flown. Got to hand it to guys like this flying cannon fodder over Soviet airpsace


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 21, 2005)

Splendid pics. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Jan 21, 2005)

Except the Swastika has been blocked, for no reason.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 21, 2005)

Great pics!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2005)

Great pics.

Blocking the Swastika seems a lttle silly but im sure they have their reasons...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2005)

It's for those weak-hearted politcally correct lefties. YEAH! You know who you are!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2005)




----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 22, 2005)

Yeah, lets just block 'em out and pretend they never existed. Life is rosey!
*La La La La La La La....*


----------



## Erich (Jan 22, 2005)

the swastika symbol was banned as a hate symbol of an evil regime several years ago in Germany. Firstly and historically for decals of WW 2 a/c. Every German militaria site is required by law to blot/cover all swastika's in war footage whether single stills or movies, adds, commercials, etc.....medals, documents.

also in effect although not sure if this is true or not but from what I am hearing there is a ban being pushed throughout all of Europe to remove the symbol from anything having to do with the old 3rd Reich and WW 2 in general. This is besides the showing of photographs. Documents, stone memorials, posters, any reading materials....


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 22, 2005)

I've heard that too, about the possible ban throughout Europe. All brought on by the Prince Harry incident.

I can understand the idea of banning hate symbols, but I still think political correctness is getting quite out of hand.
I don't want to take things way off track, so I won't say any more about it.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 22, 2005)

Still, what happened, happened, and there it is. The Swastika is much, much older than the Third Reich anyway. In houses in India, it's above the doorways with small dots inside each of the 'hooks'. I think to ban it is a mistake. People who are into their Neo-Nazi ideas aren't going to worry about a ban, and by banning the symbol it gives it some kind of unjustified mystique. Far better to have it there, and make sure people are properly aware of all it stood for between 1933-45.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2005)

Erich, those are formidable photos!

Medvedya: you made an excellent point.

The hammer and the sickle of the soviet union flag should actually receive a more agressive treatment and be properly banned, not only across Europe, but across the entire earth. If the sole view of swastikas is offensive to many, the symbol of the hammer and the sickle should be then a universal offense to mankind.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2005)

Erich said:


> the swastika symbol was banned as a hate symbol of an evil regime several years ago in Germany. Firstly and historically for decals of WW 2 a/c. Every German militaria site is required by law to blot/cover all swastika's in war footage whether single stills or movies, adds, commercials, etc.....medals, documents.
> 
> also in effect although not sure if this is true or not but from what I am hearing there is a ban being pushed throughout all of Europe to remove the symbol from anything having to do with the old 3rd Reich and WW 2 in general. This is besides the showing of photographs. Documents, stone memorials, posters, any reading materials....



You are correct about the ban and I think it is quite stupid. I have quite a collection of Third Reich Uniforms and several museums, libraries and even the US installation Panzer Kaserne in Stuttgart some times lend my uniforms for display purposes. Whenever I leave the house and take them to the place where they will be on disply I have to cover up the swastika's with tape and keep them from being seen, so I normally put them in protective cases to keep them out of sight but I think it is a bit rediculous.
The swastika goes back much farther than the Nazi's and in some Native American Indian tribes it means friendship. I have even seen Roman Artifacts with swastikas on them. To ban a symbol I think is obsurd, it is just like the Confederate flag being banned in the United States. It is a piece of cloth and means nothing more but some consider it a symbol of hatred and slavery. I think they should grow up, it is a part of history.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 22, 2005)

I'm sure someone in the world finds the red maple leaf offensive. 


8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 22, 2005)

Probably the French, they find everything offensive


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 22, 2005)

Except their own Body Odor that is....


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2005)

Les of Primus is correct.

It was in the early 90s that I first visited France with my parents; I was 6 years of age, and clearly recall myself asking my father what was that ugly smell in the Paris subway while being in a real crammed wagon.

I do not recall my dad´s answer but I understand what was the smell.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 22, 2005)

i think it'd be wrong to bad it, it'd be like we're trying to forget that chapter in history but only by learning about it can we prevent it happeneing again.................

and talking of political correctness, you know the punch and judy puppet shows?? well a puppetteer in a town near where i live called bodmin was banned from performing that in the town as it was seen to promote domestic violence, they thought all the little kiddes would go home and beat their wifes with sausages.................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 22, 2005)

Back on the idea of tank killers . . . I was able to get the pics of the P-38 armed with a 75mm cannon scanned in. They are in the pics section if anyone wants to take a look.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 22, 2005)

Not back on the Tank Killer subject...  

It is stupid banning them. I fail to see how you could be offended by the symbol, plus the fact I bet it's the minority that's offended and this is a democracy! 

I still think that because it's a democracy Nazis and Communists alike should be allowed political parties, they aren't going to get any votes but it's not democracy if you don't allow them. 

Nothing happened in 1938, the Germans were invited into Czechoslovakia, it was a happy time THEY SERVED PUNCH!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

but banning punch and judy, that's taking it to far..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2005)

LG i cannot find the pics u are referring to .......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

they've got their own topic...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2005)

Oh OK thx....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2005)

in the pictures forum i believe...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 23, 2005)

I got it.. Thx... I was looking in the archive...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2005)

Cool Ill go check them out! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

Banning them would simply just be hiding the past.


----------



## Erich (Jan 23, 2005)

this is all not surprising when you have only an 1/8th of the population of Germany made up of WW 2 vets. The others will speak and set the tone in Germnay and elsewhere when it comes to stupidity. the 9/10ths of German schule students are ignorant of the WW 2 past and would just rather forget it even happened. 
All ebay.de current listings ban the swastika symbol in any form as well as other German militaria sites

v/r

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

Erich said:


> this is all not surprising when you have only an 1/8th of the population of Germany made up of WW 2 vets. The others will speak and set the tone in Germnay and elsewhere when it comes to stupidity. the 9/10ths of German schule students are ignorant of the WW 2 past and would just rather forget it even happened.
> All ebay.de current listings ban the swastika symbol in any form as well as other German militaria sites
> 
> v/r
> ...



I am sorry, I overreacted I was thinking someone else wrote this who typically pisses me off. I think you are over exagerting the 9/10 of students.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2005)

He did say 9/10ths...not everyone...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

Read above I changed my post. I overreacted. I am sorry.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 23, 2005)

Ah, I bet you thought a certain RG_lunatic wrote it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2005)

Yes I should have looked who wrote it first. I respect a lot of things that RG posts and have learned some things from what he has posted but a lot of things he posts just seem to be outright against the rest of the world and piss me off. Again I am sorry Erich if you read that post of mine. I was jumping the gun again.


----------

