Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (3 Viewers)

[Erich]

I believe in the Soviet arsenal the Il-2 series and variants were the most produced of any Soviet a/c ? with regard then it is simple math, yes the thing was shot down in droves and they still came up like a swarm of bees. The Il-2 which I have made mention was more of a threat to killing motor transport and total disruption of supply lines than a German panzer killer. The Soviets of course were # 1 in ground attack, the ugly almost worthless P-39 used as a fighter via lend lease but the biggest role was ground attack, many of the Yak, MIg fighters the same, if it had a cannon installed then use it for ground attack at no matter the cost

 

[Udet]

Jabberwocky:

I will commence this posting by borrowing a phrase commonly used by my mexican mates here; whenever someone comes along with comments which are completely out of line they´ll say the comment "does not have feet nor head".

Well Jaberwocky, your comment affirming "1/2 of the IL-2s lost during WW2 were scrapped after returning home with severe battle damage" more than qualifies to have the phrase applied. It lacks feet, and also lacks head.

May I know from where did you get such a piece of jewelry? Whatever the source might be I can tell you it is horribly wrong.

I have had the chance of speaking with some 15 men who flew the IL-2. Noteworthy to mention is the fact I did not just met once with each of them; many were my neighbors so I had the opportunity to see and to speak with them throughout many years.

Not that they are not proud of their victory; also, not that they have modified their speech for they still referr to the Germans as "fascist snakes". The fact remains they enlightened me further as to how horrific their losses were during the last months of the war, and also of the capabilities of soviet pilots throughout the entire "great patriotic war".

The IL-2s were the aerial version of soviet infantry, launching massive attacks in the largest numbers possible and to endure likewise horrible losses.

It is perhaps the most overhyped plane of the entire conflict. Read the soviet propaganda mythology and get shocked to read such a "perfection" of combat. A perfection western propagandists perhaps did not dream of. They put it that by 1944, every single IL-2 would reach the target right on time, wonderfully guided by ground control, every single bomb, rocket and piece of ammunition fired by each IL-2 hit the target: "fascist soldiers, tanks, artillery, all destroyed" (ah! and also Bf 109s and Fw 190s "shot down in huge numbers" by that wonder the Ilyushin was, hold your guts!).

After reading it, you fall under the impression the red army of 1944-45 is the perfect fighting force. From ancient times to present day, no army has ever come close to scratch the perfection achieved by the red army of the last year of the war. You can´t avoid laughing. When it came to filing totally wild and exaggerated claims the soviets did not do half jobs.

I will not contest the fact there were times when badly damaged shturmoviks made it back to base and that damage was so bad they were simply written off.

To affirm "1/2 of the total losses of IL-2s" were the product of such situation is a flat joke though. You perhaps were referring to crashings when attempting to land when returning from mission due to bad training.

Another part of your posting, that by the way lacks head and feet as well:

"it assuredly did train and turn out tens of thousands of highly competent pilots by the end of the war" (!!!!).

This is exactly what most experts, scholars, historians and buffs do not understand: the armed forces of the soviet union during world war two NEVER QUITE HAD THE CHANCE TO CREATE the alleged "superb, professional, out-of-this-planet-skilled" armed force that "emerged from the depths of the soviet territory to swallow the Germans" as the soviet propaganda has been depicting since 1945.

Total, complete, absolute, utter crap. A Pokryshkyn was a rare comodity in the military air force of the soviet union during the war, did you know this fact? His unit too had to absorb significant losses during the fight.

Losses of men for the soviet union were so horrible during the entire duration of the war they got effectively deprived of the necessary core of battle seasoned personnel to train the rookies getting drafted.

I recall when I asked the veterans of the functioning of the ground forward air controllers widely described by the soviet accounts. The response might get your attention: many of the shturmoviks had no radios by 1945. )

They had to follow the leaders to reach battle zones.

Have you ever read the accounts, say, of JG 54? German pilots in the Leningrad front noted how persistent the VVS was -it is important to say German pilots were very persistent as well, perhaps more than the soviet pilots-. Whether in small or larger formations, the IL-2s would appear day after day, even during weeks when that particular front was not having intense activity. The Germans would bring down so many of them, and still there would not be one single day when the IL-2s wouldn´t show up, to again, take very high losses.

How come all these experts refuse to understand and acknowledge this essential principle that contributes creating an effective military force?

Everything was urgent for the soviets, men and war materiel. Very urgent, from the very first day, June 22, 1941 all the very long way until the final drive on Berlin in 1945.


Again, hoping this can be of help:

The MASSIVE boxes of four engined heavy bombers of the 8th and 15th USAAFs working on the "strategic bombing" capaign over the Reich were far more tougher cookies to bring down than the IL-2s ever came close to be.

The B-17, a large, sound item, had 4 radial engines, which unlike liquid-cooled engines, could take a far greater deal of damage and perhaps make it back home. Oh -again- add the scandalous number of .50 cals each bomber had....what came of them? They were DOOMED. Losers. Against fighters they lose. Simple.

(Right, the IL-2s had their liquid-cooled engines protected by armour but as Mr. Primus commented, when the German pilots learned of the weak points of the enemy plane, the shturmoviks commenced falling like leaves.)

You are not going to contest the fact a B-17 was by FAR a more difficult target to bring down are you?

Well, it was precisely those large sound planes, flying in those massive formations, carrying an insane number of .50s that found themselves doomed against fighters. Again, what made the soviets believe the shturmovik could "hold its own against fighters"?

I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.

It is an amusing activity to read on some other forums, and realize that in fact, there are people who are 100% convinced the IL-2 was not only the "greatest tank killer" of the war, no, they do not stop there. They move a little step further and claim the shturmovik could "accept a dogfight" against Bf 109s or Fw 190s -quoting the exact words used by posters-.

They too swallowed the argument of the vaunted 12.77 mm UB defensive machine gun manned by a rear gunner. As someone said on some other thread here, the point of that machine gun has been effectively turned into a bloody urban legend.

I have films of stuka rear gunners setting Spitfires and Hurricanes ablaze. We know the rear gun in the stuka was of lighter caliber (MG 15 and MG 81 Z-7.92mm). During 1939 and 1940 all British fighters were fitted with guns about identical caliber of those of the defensive rear gunner. The Germans unlike the russians never made a scandal out of their rear gun in the fearsome dive bomber. It provided the plane with a minimum level of self defense capabilities, and there were times when the rear gunners succeded in shooting down RAF fighters. Yet, without proper fighter cover and presence of enemy fighters they go nowhere, just as whenever there were no enemy fighters around they could carry out their work.

All these conditions fit perfectly in the situation of the IL-2, exception taken for IL-2 pilots never had the skill Stuka pilots had in the business.

Pulling them out of their ignorance is not my task, so I will just have the required fun whenever I read the IL-2s "could accept dogfights" also that the rear gunner was one of the world´s wonders.

With or without that rear gunner, manning whatever bloody gun, the shturmoviks are losers to fighters.

 

[Udet]

There are, however, certain things to be remarked:

(1) Luftwaffe fighter opposition from late 1943 throughout the whole 1944 was extremely scarce in the eastern front.

The bulk of the jagdwaffe was brought west to deal with the ever growing formations of heavy bombers of the USAAF. Interceptions of IL-2s by German fighters during said period where not very common, but when interception happened, the IL-2s suffered accordingly.

Still, and as Davparl commented, losses of IL-2s were horrible in the 1943-1944 period. Thanks for the data DAvparl, I already had those numbers.

Also, did you know that in 1945 ALONE, the VVS lost the humble number of +/- 11,000 combat planes to all causes? (Repeat 11,000- eleven thousand!), the IL-2s comprising +/-40% of such losses.


(2) As I said, the IL-2 did a significant contribution to the soviet war effort. That is not being disputed here.

Since the Luftwaffe stripped the eastern front of its fighter force to take care of the western skies, the IL-2s did not suffer that much from fighters during the 43-44 period, but from Flak and the mediocrity of the crews you bet it suffered, and it suffered very greatly.


(3) Most German pilots who fought against the IL-2s will of course say it was "difficult to shoot down". So far I would have a difficult time in recalling any episode of German pilots making fun of the enemy hardware.


(4) I brought up the speed Stuka/IL-2 speed comparison to enlighten people on some technical features of the soviet ground attack plane.

We do know the IL-2 of course could carry a far wider variety of weapons such as heavy cannons, bombs and non-guided rockets, but this is a useless comparison for the soviet craft was designed as a ground attack machine from the offset, whereas the stuka was a dive bomber, the "flying artillery" of the Blitzkrieg notion. It was the task of the Stuka to deliver its bombload with the highest possible accuracy to then return to base for refitting bombs. (Exception taken in the case of the Ju 87-G deployed during the last year of the war; what they did was to remove the dive breaks -btw, removed from the D-7 variant on, which was fitted with cannon armament too- and had two 37 mm cannons for tank hunting missions installed).

By the way, the rails under the wings of the soviet plane -for the rockets- diminished the already poor flying carachteristics of the plane even a bit further.

(5) I believe you have a photo showing a brutally damaged IL-2 that made it back to base. You ought to be careful with soviet photos of the era we are discussing here.

Every single photo taken back then was processed by the hands of soviet propaganda; every shot was carefully taken. There are no coincidences in soviet war photographs of the era.

I have nearly 75 films of German fighters intercepting IL-2s. At least 5 are of the first IL-2 "one-seater" while the reast are of the IL-2 M3s and believe me, you see them getting torn to pieces by German fighters.

One things is for sure: you will find countless times more photos of B-17s with horrible damage that made it back to base than of IL-2s. You have to believe that.

Erich:

You are correct, the IL-2 -along with the Bf 109-, is the most produced plane in history of military aviation.

 

[lesofprimus]

I have to agree 100% with Udets above post... The average Il-2 pilot was a fresh faced farm kid with the basics of rudmentary flight, kinda like Luke Skywalker... They didnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of going toe to toe with fighters....

BUT....

There are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule....

3-4 outta 100 Shturmovik pilots knew what they were doing, and were very VERY good at what they did...

 

[Erich]

siade note more German Panzer killers coming ................

 

[KraziKanuK]

Yes Erich some 36000 Il-2 produced.

One has to be careful with what the Trinity, Udet, Huck and Kurfurst, have to say.

I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.

The USAAF NEVER considered stopping the bombing raids. They considered going to night bombing as the British did. What they ended up doing was bombing targets within escort range.

Christer Berstrom of Black Cross/Red Star series of books:

"22 June 1941 - 1 July 1942, the Il-2 loss rate was a terrible 7.7 % (one lost in every 13 sorties)."

"Through 1944, a total of 4,100 Il-2s were lost in combat - compared with the 8,800 at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 47 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year."

"U.S. 8th AF: Through 1944, total of 3,497 heavy bombers were lost in combat - compared with the 1,686 heavy bombers at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 207 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year."

Was the Il-2 loss rate that terrible in comparison?

posted by Denes Benard, author of many aviation books, on another board:

Year--Total Losses--Losses to enemy action--% of strength at hand
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1941--1,100--600--73.3 (54.5% of all losses)
1942--2,600--1,800--34.2 (69.2% of all losses)
1943--7,200--3,900--45.0 (54.1% of all losses)
1944--8,900--4,100--46.6 (46.1% of all losses)
1945--3,800--2,000--27.3 (55.6% of all losses)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 23,600--12,400--70.3 (52.5% of all losses)

.............................
as of 31 May 44

In Russia

Luftlotte 1

Stab/JG 54
I/JG 54
II/JG 54

Luftlotte 4

IV/JG 51
Stab/JG 52
I/JG 52
II/JG 52
III/JG 52
I/JG 53
III/JG 77
part II/JG 301

Luftflotte 6

Stab /JG 51
Stab Staffel/JG 51
I/JG 51
III/JG 51

393 pure day fighters (FBs not counted)
-----------

Luftflotte 3 (France, Belgium, Holland)

Stab/JG 2
I/JG 2
II/JG 2
III/JG 2
Stab/JG 26
I/JG 2
I/JG 2
III/JG 26

168 pure day fighters
--------------------------


Luftflotte Reich
Stab/JG 1
I/JG 1II/JG 1
III/JG 1
Stab/JG 3
I/JG 3
II/JG 3
III/JG 3
I/JG 5
II/JG 5
Stab/JG 11
I/JG 11
II/JG 11
III/JG 11
10./JG 11
Stab/JG 27
I/JG 27
II/JG 27
III/JG 27
IV/JG 27
II/JG 53
III/JG 54
I/JG 400

648 pure day fighters

So Udet is correct that most of the LW's fighters were used to combat the heavy bombaers, BUT Luftflotte 3 had less than 1/2 of what was on the Russian Front to defend France, Belgium, Holland.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It must have been like the Sherman tank. It was no problem for a Sherman to defeat a Panther or Tiger, all you did was attack it with enough Shermans and you were going to get it! To heck with loss rate.

Well when you put it that way, I will have to agree with you then.

 

[Udet]

Mr. Kanuk:

I will get back to you later on this.

Mr. Krazy, there is something in your postings that reminds me of Carlitos Jiménez Botella, Gennadiy Afanasevich Masulin, Viorel Simion, Plamen Apostolov, Chuck "Big Mac Fries" Jackson, Syoma Svyatoslavich Akayev and of -the very famous- Frank Mboma.

 

[Erich]

a little different scenario sort of ...........

Loco buster with the Ju 88C-6

Udo Cordes

Oberleutnant
born 22.07.1921 in Dortmund

RK on 25.05.1943 as Leutnant after 150 combat missions and 41 locomotive kills

While Cordes is one of the most successful bomber pilots ("Der Lok-Töter") he is mentioned in this book as he was in combat with II./SG 2 "Immelmann" at wars end.

In spring 1942 he arrived at the Ostfront and flew successful missions with 4./KG 3 (shortly also with 6./KG 3) for what he was awarded the DKiG. In January 1943 he was transferred to the 9.(Eis.)/KG 3 under the leadership of Hptm. Fach. Here he developed his own attack tactics against the supply trains of the Soviet's, which he used to destroy 41 locomotives, 19 trains of which were 2 tank wagons and 3 ammunition. Under the worst weather conditions he shot up 5 locomotives on 08.03.1943 and under similar circumstances 6 locomotives and a complete fuel train on the 16.03.1943. Furthermore he destroyed until the KC award 11 tanks, 2 flak emplacements and achieved 2 aerial victories.

1944 until the disbandment in March 1945 he was Staffelkapitän of the 14.(Eis.)/KG3 where he achieved further successes. From 01.04.1945 until wars end he was with the Stabsschwarm of II./SG 2 (since 23.2.1945 (?)) as Adjutant) flying Fw 190. On 23.04.1945 he was shot down but took to his parachute to save his life. His last combat mission was on the 07.05.1945 near Dresden against Soviet tanks. On the 10.05.1945 he was POW with the Soviets who released him on the 02.11.1949.

In all he flew 296 combat missions as bomber and attack pilot and besides others destroyed 81 locomotives.

by the way Hauptmann Fach coverd in a magazine article shot up 63 Soviet locos with the Ju 88C-6 modified armament of 3 mg's and 3 2cm weapons

E ~

 

[Erich]

back on topic, concerning A. Korol I am now in touch with his Bordfünkers son from 1945. Hopeful this chap can add some interesting bits on Soviet tank popping soon from his fathers flugbuch and or his impressions

 

[Bullockracing]

I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons for the Brits, the P-39 for the Russians, the 190 with the 30mm underwing pods for the Germans, the Americans get the P-38 (surprise!).

No kidding, I would actually prefer to generate a sortie (as a CO) that would be a success as a mission with these aircraft. The traditional ground attack planes stereotyped for a tank-killing mission are under-performers compared to my picks, and generally (as mentioned before) really can't stop a heavy tank anyway.

I'm currently braced for impact on this one....

 

[plan_D]

The Hurricane IID/IV were no more survivable than the Il-2. While carrying the Vickers-S 40mm cannon the Hurricane was slowed down to such levels that it would be an easy target for the enemy fighters, and it was less armoured than the Il-2.
However, the Hurricane IV could carry rockets with four Hispano 20mm cannon. This would make it effective against the lighter tanks and any 'soft' targets. These Hurricanes had a lot of success in North Africa and South-East Asia, but were of little use anywhere else. No. 6 Sqdn. did keep it's cannon equipped Hurricanes up until the end of the war however, moving right up through Italy and the Balkans from North Africa.
For the British, you're better off taking the Typhoon. It can go into the combat zone, and leave the combat zone much quicker.

The P-39 was not suitable for tank busting duties. And it was never used in that role by any air force that used it. It's a common myth that the Airacobra was used in CAS with the VVS, but it just a myth that appeared after a misunderstanding of the Russian language.
The only "reports" I have heard of the P-39 being used to knock out tanks were from the American press reports about the Airacobra in North Africa. But this was the same "report" that stated the P-39 was prevailing over the Bf-109 in the theatre. Hardly something I take as a serious report.
Airacobra's were used in the ground attack role in most theatres however, when the oppurtunity arose. In most cases it was a low-level air superiority fighter that covered the advancing troops. The only place the P-39 was specifically sent to attack enemy ground or naval positions was in the PTO and CBI. It found a short-lived, but successful, role as a dive-bomber against Japanese shipping.
For the Soviet Union I would stick with the Il-2/Il-10. While unable to leave the battlefield quickly, it is an effective killing machine. The tactics surrounding it's survival, and it's fighter cover needed to be improved.

The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war. They had excellent armour values to protect their under-belly from low-calibre AA rounds, and retained the performance to handle themselves against enemy fighters. While not carrying massive cannons or rockets, these machines used properly could inflict massive damage on an enemy formation with proper tactics.

"Our task was to do all we could to delay the thrusts, to give the German ground forces time to improvise defensive positions to stop the rush. Wherever there was a hole in the front, it was our job to try to plug it. Our Focke-Wulfs were armed with two 13-mm machine-guns and two 20-mm cannon, which we used for strafing attacks. The bombs we used during these operations were mainly the SC 250 and SC 500 and also SD 2, SD 4 and SD 10 bomblets carried in large numbers of containers.
"When we found enemy units moving forwards unopposed, as a matter of policy we concentrated our attacks on the soft-skinned supply vehicles; these were relatively easy to knock out with machine-gun and cannon fire and we knew that without frequent replenishments of fuel the tanks spearheading the advance would not get far. If the enemy armoured units were actually in contact with our ground forces, however, then the tanks themselves were our main target."

Leutnant Werner Gail, III/SG 3 based at Idriza in August 1944. The unit was operating the Fw-190F.

Most ground attack planes would aim for the supply columns, and supply trucks. This made dedicated tank destroyers quite pointless in my opinion. But what sets the Fw-190F and G apart is the 5mm armour protection along the bottom of the plane, under the pilot and engine. Along with extra 6mm armour around the engine cowling.

Attacking enemy armour used a general tactic of approaching at 300 MPH, at 30 feet, and drop the bomb when the tank disappeard from view. This would either bounce the bomb into the tank, or smash straight into it. A one second delay would let the Fw-190 escape before the bomb and, hopefully, the tank explode. Then the Fw-190 would proceed to attack any soft-skinned targets with it's machine-gun or cannon, or if need be become a fighter. The Fw-190F and G are good choices for Germany.

The P-47 would be a wiser choice for an American ground-attack plane, or the Corsair. Both could carry bombs, and both were able to smash 'soft' targets to pieces. The P-38 would not be able to take as much ground fire as either of these planes.
There's so many US planes that could carry the ordance to deliver effective strikes against armoured forces. But I would go for those most survivable, and that would be the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO. The P-47D going into battle with two 500-lbs bombs under the wings would be a deadly machine to enemy armour, and the eight M2 .50 cal machine-guns would tear apart the soft-skinned targets. While the armour and air-cooled engined provided a lot of survivability for the plane and pilot.

My overall choice, however, is the Fw-190F.

 

[lesofprimus]

The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war.

I agree 99% cause the Il-2 was extremely effective as well..

The Fw-190F and G, while not carrying massive cannons or rockets

Ummm.... Panzerblitz???

A lot of Fw190 F-8's were fitted with 24 2.16 in (55 mm) R4/M rockets, or 14 220 lb (100 kg) RBS B/F21 rocket bombs, or two clusters of 3 9.84 in (280 mm) WGr.28 rockets, or Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets in 2.16, 3.07 and 5.12 in (55, 78 and 130 mm) calibers...

For the British, the Typhoon... And the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO

Agreed 100%...

 

[plan_D]

I didn't think the Fw-190F-8 used the rockets much, well not least compared to the simple SC 250 under the fuselage and four SC 50 bombs under the wings. They also trialed the SG 113A 77mm on the F-8, right? You know more about it than me.

 

[Bullockracing]

I am pretty sure that the Hurribomber could outperform the Il-2, given the comments in this thread regarding it's handling characteristics.

I have read comments in books from Russian pilots who have used the 37mm cannon on the P-39 to hit vehicles. Not as a planned sortie, but more as targets of opportunity.

The P-38 had the hard points to carry rockets, and the 39mm cannon had the punch to poke holes in light armor that the .50 cal didn't. If one round bounces off, so will the rest of the rounds behind it. On light armor, a .50 cal spray will do nothing other than make the vehicle commander duck under the hatch. A 37mm will punch holes in things that a .50 will not. No particular distaste for the P-47, but given the option of which one I think has the capability to do more damage to light armor, I would go with the P-38, just for the cannon.

 

[plan_D]

You stated; "I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons..."

This is not a 'Hurribomber' as the Hurricane to which you refer (Hurricane IID) could not carry bombs. The Hurricane IID while probably being more agile than the Il-2 was still nowhere capable enough to handle itself in a dogfight.
The 'Hurribomber' would be a more effective choice, but there's nothing a 'Hurribomber' can do that the Typhoon can't. And there's plenty the Typhoon can do which the 'Hurribomber' can't.

I'm sure the P-39 was used to strike vehicles, but it would not be an effective tank destroyer. Practically every fighter would have taken shots at ground targets at some point, this does not make them dedicated ground attack machines. The P-39 would be vulnerable to ground-fire, it was best suited as a low-level air superiority fighter.

The P-38 only carried a 37mm cannon in the P-38 and P-38D variants. The first major production P-38, the P-38E was fitted with a 20-mm cannon. And all P-38s that followed kept that armament. I never implied that the P-47 would be destroying armoured vehicles with it's .50cal, that would be the bombs job. While the P-38 could carry bombs and rockets, it's less survivable. The P-47 could do all the P-38 could in the GA role, and was more survivable. The bombs would destroy the armour, and the machine-guns could destroy the soft-skinned targets.
If the USAAF went by the rules of the Luftwaffe, if the enemy was not engaged with one's own forces, you would attack the soft-skinned targets as a priority. Making the P-47 more suited for the task.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The vast majority of P-38s carried a 20mm AN-M2 (Hispano II essentially), not a 37mm.

The only 37mm armed P-38s were those of the first few production batches, namely the 29 original P-38s and the subsequent 36 P-38Ds.

From the P-38E onwards the USAAF replaced the 37mm cannon with the 20mm.

The 23mm Madsen was installed on some of the prototypes (23x106mm, 175 gram shell, firing at 400 rpm), but abandoned as it had a low rate of fire and poor reliability, which is saying something after the trouble the USAAF had getting 20mm cannon to work properly.

 

[lesofprimus]

The P-47D carried 10 5" HVAR rockets, which demolished MANY a german tank... It was extremely armored and it's big *** radial could absorb massive damage and still get the pilot home...

The P-38 was not intentionally used as a tank destroyer.... Rockets were the preferred method for the Allies in the tank destruction department...

The 190F-8 excelled in tank busting duties with the Panzerblitz rockets, and in being the better platform than the others mentioned, deserved the top nod.... The Il-2 Type 3M had 2x 37mm high velocity cannon and provisions for 32x 3.2" (82mm) RS-82 rockets that made mincemeat out of many German armoured formations, and with adequte fighter cover, cut great swathes across the German lines...

Those 2 aircraft pretty much top the list of Tank Busters, with a couple of possibles (Me-262)....

 

[plan_D]

The Fw-190F is far above because of it's survivability , even when operating without fighter escort. The Il-2 was armoured and armed to the teeth, but unlike the Typhoon, Fw-190 and P-47 it needed heavy fighter escort to survive.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ill agree with you on that. I think the top 3 are definatly the P-47, Typhoon, and Fw-190. The Il-2 was good as well though.