Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[Lightning Guy]

So what if the Germans produced alot of burning Russian tanks? Who cares? Certainly not the Russians.

In addition to providing the Ju-87G's with top cover, the Germans provided them with standard Ju-87s for flak suppression.

Even fast, maneuverable fighter-bombers were still going to be vulnerable during the attak phase. The low-altitude fighting required by the mission also left you vulnerable to ground fire or being bounced. The fighter-bombers only options are to either 1) jetison the external stores (in which case it has essentially sacrificed the mission or 2) keep them (then it is practically as vulnerable as a Ju-87G or Il-2). The fighter-bomber only truly has a self-defense advantage on the way OUT.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

P-47's and P-38's still win this catagory. These planes, when armed with napalm, were the most effective tank killers of the war.

well in that case it's the napalm not so much the planes that are the tank, i know that's true of all cases but many planes are suitable delivery platforms for napalm.......

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree also. I would not say they were the best ground attack aircraft. The P-47 may have been one of the best all around and I really really like the P-47 but in that case the only thing that made them the most effective was the Napalm and as Lanc said Napalm was the most effect killer then not the P-47 or P-38.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Then how far do you take it? It was the 37mm guns on the Ju-87G that killed tanks and not the Ju-87s themselves. Do we disqualify it because other aircraft could carry the same gun?

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well that's different, that's a cannon that fires shell yet remains mounted to the plane, napalm is disposable stores, it's not built onto or majorly fixed onto the plane, there re many suitable deliver platforms for napalm, it's the napalm that made the -47 and -38 good tank killers, so logically any plane that could drop napalm could be a good tank killer, the -87G with 37mm is different as the plane itself played more of a role in the tank's destruction........

 

[cheddar cheese]

But dropping Napalm at low level requires a tough, fast plane...P-38's and P-47's are just so...im sure youve heard about the stories of Lightning smashing into telegraph poles and flying home.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah but many planes are suitable delivery platforms for napalm, was it the actual B-29 that caused nuclear deserts in japan? no, it was the atom bomb, not the plane that delivered it, when a fighter gets a kill it's counted as the plane and the pilot's kill, not the gun's........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Good argument here, I guess it depends on how you look at it. I personally would say that napalm does not make the aircraft the best ground attack aircraft. I personally do not think the P-47 was the best ground attack aicraft but at the same time it is a great argument for it and probably could be the best but not because of Napalm. Napalm is a devestating weapon though.

 

[Lightning Guy]

Plenty of aircraft could have carried a large-bore cannon. And plenty of aircraft could carry rockets (which were quite possibly the best anti-tank weapon of the war). If an airplane drops a bomd, launches a rocket, or fires a gun and destroys a tank, that plane killed the tank and the weapon was a means to an end. Unless we intend to make this a thread about the best anti-tank WEAPON, we shouldn't an aircraft because it used some means other than cannon to knock out its targets.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I will agree with you. I just think that there were aircraft that might have been better in the fact that they were built for that purpose.

My vote goes for the Tempest or the Typhoon. I know they may not have been built for that sole purpose but that is where my vote goes.

 

[lesofprimus]

Panzerblitz..........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap

 

[Lightning Guy]

Well, I may be wrong here . . . but if we are going to limit the discussion to purpose built tank killers we are down to the Il-2 and the Hs-129. I drop the Ju-87G because it was a dive-bomber modified to a tank killer.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Il give you that too. The Hs-129 would have been a marvelous aircraft had the damn engines been better.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

well i think if we're limiting it to purpose built tank destroyers we should atleast include varients of aircraft desinged to take tanks out.......

 

[Erich]

stick with the Il-2, Hs 129 and the Panzerstaffeln Ju 87G which was designed to eliminate any Allied/Soviet tank. The Typhoon is much like the Fw 190F/G variants, modified single seaters to accept heavy cannon and racks for rockets and put in a ground attack role: Napalm was just a sort-arm for taking out large areas of compacted troops and MT's and not necessarily tanks

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

I'm thinking the hurricane Mk.IID should also be included??

 

[CurzonDax]

Il give you that too. The Hs-129 would have been a marvelous aircraft had the damn engines been better.

To me, the Hs-129 is a "cult classic". It is overshadowed by the Stuka, P-47, Typhoons, and so on. It my fav anti-tank platform. But also was not a plane that was originally designed to be a AT plane, it only found its fame then and only in the Eastern Front where air supremacy and superiority was sometmies dicey.

On the other hand, P-47s, P-38s, P-51s (I know that they were not perfect for this role but they were used), Tempests, and Typhoons could switch to the fighter roll if jumped by the GAF (not that I would want to dogfight in a Tempest or a Typhoon). And I think that is the big difference between the Allied and Axis AT planes is that the Allied ones (and I am talking western Allies for the Stormavik was also not a good "fighter") could defend themselves as fighters when the need arose and still sock it to the Panzers.

:{)

 

[GT]

Update.

 

[Erich]

funny a thought just crossed my mind but I wish Tony Williams was available online here, as he has Allied vs real confirmation figures of the amount of tanks destroyed by single/twin engines of the RAF/US against German Panzers. I can asure you it is nothing what the Allies have claimed. My guess and I am going to have to dig out the correspondance with him and others but at least 1/2 if not more of the Allied claims are pure bogus