Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The 262 had the problems that Parm is talking about, as I have read and been told that they would flame out if u were too aggressive as well......

As was stated by erich, who is a researcher, there were some 262 tank killers roaming the Russian countryside with those sweet little rockets, specially modified for anti-tank instead of anti-bomber...

I have unfortunatly not been able to confirm this combat role for the 262 (still trying), but I have read some info concerning the modification of the R4M to the anti-armor specs... It seems that there weren't too many rockets modified.......
 
Gentlemen, manfred Boehme when he wrote his JG 7 book years ago did not have complete as inforamtion as he does now. In fact he has been helping us with priveldged info concerning the NF unit Kommando Welter.

JG 7 would fly low and fast, almost porpoise like flying over hills. the idea was take the Soviet Armor and MT columns by complete surprise and while the ground troops would look to the heavens for the a/c hearing the jet engines in the distance they never figured they would be coming in low, from the sides or the rear with heavy 3m blazing and R4M's blowing and tearing everything apart. the attitude was why flame out as it was suppose to be a fast intercept and then fly home to re-arm if possible or take on mid altitude Soviet Yaks and Migs or anything else the Soviets were stupid enough to pit against this most experienced jet outfit. the only drawback with JG 7 during it's existance was it's own politics, some pilots wanted to fight for Germany and try and keep it free while some others were die-hard to the core Nazi's. My last statement is simply why JG 7 has never had a unified Jagdgeschwader meeting of it's former members since the war. And still today the remnant will not meet totgether, still with too many bitter memories against one another.
 
Besides Manfred Boehmes book I use Classic publications volumes 3 and 4 of the Me 262 and the ancient Monogram soft-back. yes there a couple of web-sites that show the rockets together ~ anti-bomber and anti-armor. The anti armor being the Panzerschreck shpaed charge. have to look somewhere for them
 
have you heard that the anti-bomber version of the rocket gave similiar impact to an 88mm flak round ? it seems to be so though a 12 round salvo it was probably 1-3 rockets that hit the US heavies each and brought them down, so one can imagine the total carnage with these uglies flying through a compact box of B-17's/B-24's
 
Just for the record the A-10 and the 262 are not, repeat, are not comparable in speed. The 262 was quite a bit faster than the A10 is today. And no, when they fire their gun (which during actual combat is a three second burst) they do not lose 200 mph. Maybe 10 kts tops. And the A10 doesn't slow down to attack tanks, that makes it only more vulnerable and less manuverable. Coupled with its high G manuevers its engines are at mil power. So to think that the 262 would slow down to do ground attack is 'non sequiter'. It does not follow. Plus doing that in a 262 would make it less stable a gun platform, and more vulnerable to ground fire which the 262 was very, and on top of that its poor acceleration would have made it easy easy pickings for enemy fighters.
Turbojets without afterburners do not acclerate as quickly at propeller driven aircraft, what jets excel at is the continuation of their acceleration past the point where propeller aircraft have their prop tips going transonic/ supersonic.
 
Oh and lastly, is this thread about the best tank killer/fighter or just tank killer? Because without that qualification you can't really say what is the best. Obviously while the Ju-87 might serve in the latter category it wouldn't do to well in the first.
 
Monkeysee1 said:
Just for the record the A-10 and the 262 are not, repeat, are not comparable in speed. The 262 was quite a bit faster than the A10 is today
Click to expand...

Oh my god do you actually read the post or not. I never said the speed was comparable, I was just saying that the A-10 would not attack tanks at its full speed just like a 262 would not attack tanks at full speed. Please read posts before replying to them!
 
what aircraft did the japanese use for tankbusting?

I only know they did kamikaze attacks against tanks where common footsoldiers would get under a tank and detonate the explosives they wore...
 
marseille jr said:
what aircraft did the japanese use for tankbusting?

I only know they did kamikaze attacks against tanks where common footsoldiers would get under a tank and detonate the explosives they wore...
Click to expand...

There was a ground-attack version of the Ki-46 reconnaisance aircraft, but I think it only saw limited sevice. I think it was the Ki-46-IIIc.


I like the Hurrican IID "Flying Can Opener". Its' twin 40mm cannon gave it tremendous fire-power and the Hurrican was a stable gun platform. Gun recoil was a problem though.

One of the more unique tank-busters was a variant of the Hs 129B2. It had six 75mm recoiless guns facing downward and to the rear. It flew low over its' target and a magnetic detector triggered the guns. Apparently it was effective. It would be interesting to see a picture of one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
507
Dimlee
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register