P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
Damn! The Germans were really adiment in destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!
Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Huh???
My guess is (as I know you will have already realised, les) "adiment" translated (from Redneck to English) is "adamant" meaning 'Impervious to pleas, appeal, or reason; stubbornly unyielding'.
"Damn! Those Germans were really adamant on destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!"
On a historical note, I find it hard to believe that Germany designed the 75mm as an air-to-air weapon.
"Damn! Those Germans were really adamant on destroying tanks and aircraft with those 75mm!!"
On a historical note, I find it hard to believe that Germany designed the 75mm as an air-to-air weapon.
plan_D said:
LOL that is funny. Good stuff.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Hehe..
Poor kid....
Im not defending him, I was feeling sorry for him.
Thank you Sir!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Seems to me that you have two types of Tank-Killers during WW2.
1. Close air support types/dedicated anti-armour types. Examples are IL2, Ju-87G, Hs-129, IL-10, Hurricane IV.
Generally characterised by heavy fixed weaponry, heavy armour for survivability, low top speeds and low service ceilings.
2. Fighter Bombers. Examples are Typhoon, Fw-190A/F/G, P-47D, P-38L, Bf-110G, Yak 9 .
Generally characterised by fast speed at low altitude, relatively solid construction, anti-tank armement is primarily expendable munitions (bombs, rockets, napalm, bomblets), but fixed armament is usually quite heavy (up to 45mm for some YAk-9 variants).
It seems to me that you are not really comparing like things. Dedicated anti-tank aircraft can't really be put up against fighter-bombers. The question is, as a commander, if you had to choose, what would you go for?
1. A dedicated anti-armour platform is far more vulnerable to AAA and fighters, but more likely to cause havoc on the battlefield.
OR
2. A fighter-bomber can protect itself better with its speed and manouervability, but is less able as a anti-armour platform.
1. Close air support types/dedicated anti-armour types. Examples are IL2, Ju-87G, Hs-129, IL-10, Hurricane IV.
Generally characterised by heavy fixed weaponry, heavy armour for survivability, low top speeds and low service ceilings.
2. Fighter Bombers. Examples are Typhoon, Fw-190A/F/G, P-47D, P-38L, Bf-110G, Yak 9 .
Generally characterised by fast speed at low altitude, relatively solid construction, anti-tank armement is primarily expendable munitions (bombs, rockets, napalm, bomblets), but fixed armament is usually quite heavy (up to 45mm for some YAk-9 variants).
It seems to me that you are not really comparing like things. Dedicated anti-tank aircraft can't really be put up against fighter-bombers. The question is, as a commander, if you had to choose, what would you go for?
1. A dedicated anti-armour platform is far more vulnerable to AAA and fighters, but more likely to cause havoc on the battlefield.
OR
2. A fighter-bomber can protect itself better with its speed and manouervability, but is less able as a anti-armour platform.
cheddar cheese
Major General
Personally, id have Fighter-Bombers.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
what about tank destroyers with fighter escort??
Id personally go with figher bombers. They pack a punch against tanks and ground forces and can defend themselves.
- Thread starter
- #415
Erich
the old Sage
a small notation, SG 2's Panzerstaffel with Ju 87G-1's had the other staffeln of Fw 190A-8's as high cover so yes at least with this unit there was a protective screen against Soviet incursions while Rüdel and his boyz pounded anything they found crawling on the cground. SG 77's Panzerstaffel had the same type of "high" protection as well.
Still I agree that the GAF's 75mm on either a dedicated TK or on a ad-hoc design was a killer combination. It made a crappy plane such as the 129 into a cult classic since not many people know about it. All I can say is if the 129 could do what it did to Stalin tanks imagine, if the western Allies had no air supremacy, what it would have done to Shermans, Cromwells, and Churchills. I don't think even a Pershing would have fared well.
:{)
:{)
- Thread starter
- #417
Erich
the old Sage
the Hs 129 was not a crappy plane, its Mk 103 3cm took out any existing Soviet tank in the war. the 7.5cm was a total joke, jamming, too heavy pilot could not aim properly and the aerodynamics was totally laughable. this was a carry over to the Ju 88 and proposed 188 variants with the similiar weapon.
Stick with the tried and proven and the 3cm and 3.7cm's were outstanding including the tungsten cored ammo
Stick with the tried and proven and the 3cm and 3.7cm's were outstanding including the tungsten cored ammo
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
That was really its only limiting factor were those damn French engines.
