Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

Thanks.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

Hey, who was the rear gunner for Rudel?

 

[lesofprimus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[GermansRGeniuses]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

"Gentlemanly warfare," it was...

 

[plan_D]

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.