Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 (2 Viewers)

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

not bad at all

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[cheddar cheese]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[Lightning Guy]

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

 

[plan_D]

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

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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