Best tank killer aircraft of WW2

[plan_D]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

ha, that would be funny

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

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

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

should be similar to a normal mustangs i should think

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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