Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I

[Lightning Guy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Erich]

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]

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

 

[Erich]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.