lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I would not rate the P-47D and Tiffy as a better tank killer than the Il-2..... Better all around craft for sure, but not in the designated tank buster role..
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
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
Thanks for the correction on the Hurribomber, pD.
See, I did catch some flak with that post! I guess I am more interested that a relatively sluggish aircraft like the Il-2 would be considered a peer to much higher-performance fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and the P-47. If I had one of each of the three aircraft for a ground attack squadron, the Il would be left behind every time, considering that if my unit was attacked by fighters, the survivability of the Il would be lower than that of the Tiffie or the Jug. Ground fire is a constant, and speed and maneuverability are your friend to avoid it, which the Il is lacking in comparison.
See, I did catch some flak with that post! I guess I am more interested that a relatively sluggish aircraft like the Il-2 would be considered a peer to much higher-performance fighter-bombers like the Typhoon and the P-47. If I had one of each of the three aircraft for a ground attack squadron, the Il would be left behind every time, considering that if my unit was attacked by fighters, the survivability of the Il would be lower than that of the Tiffie or the Jug. Ground fire is a constant, and speed and maneuverability are your friend to avoid it, which the Il is lacking in comparison.
- Thread starter
- #603
Erich
the old Sage
read the story with the facts during Normandie of both the Jug and Tiffie. the outlook was quite grim for both even with rockets as hot shot contenders for the best tank killer. Certainly the Il-2, Ju87G and Hs 129 or the prime sports in this thread. MT was another story as the RAF/US fighters shot up loads of wheeled transport and Locos
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
So I guess the question should be does the performance advantage offered by the fighter-bombers like the Tiffie/Jug outweighs the destructive capability of the Il-2, Ju-87G or Hs 129 when balanced against the need for fighter escort?
Anyone care to weigh in on this?
Anyone care to weigh in on this?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
No it does not outweigh the destructive capabilities....
Bullockracing
Airman 1st Class
So pretty much an unescorted Tiffie or Jug is more cost-effective than a Il-2/Ju87G/Hs129 with a fighter escort it seems. Would you all agree?
I would say yes, because the P-47 or Tiffy can defend itself better.
Bullock, hello!
Well, possibly...
What exactly is the definition of "more cost-effective" here?
If strictly referring to the number of planes scrambling for ground attack missions (namely fuel consumption, ammunition spent and, perhaps, potential losses) then it´s probably more cost-effective to unleash 100 Typhoons that will require no escort (100 planes only) than sending 100 Stukas or IL-2s which might require a few dozens of fighters to provide escort. (say, a total of 120-130 planes).
100 planes vs. 130 planes? 100 is -apparently- more cost effective. Ok.
Kind of a tricky game that we have here.
The problem, however, might rise to the surface when we know of the investigations carried out by the RAF and USAAF. As the allied armies advanced further into Germany, German tanks and vehicles found either destroyed or abandoned across battlefields underwent thorough inspection.
This particular problem can have a direct impact on the cost-effective issue you are commenting. Let´s see:
The Typhoons, just like the P-47s in the ground attack mode hardly hit any tanks, vehicles or any other motorized items the Heer deployed in battles.
When targets were large concentrations of troops and vehicles Typhoons and P-47s of course did not have that much trouble in hitting the mark.
A VERY different thing happened when they Typhoons attacked Panzer and other motorized formations in motion though: hits were as scarce as water in the Sahara is; and not just that Bullock, losses were far greater for the attackers -Typhoons or Jugs- than the losses caused to German armor during such attacks. (!!)
Incredibly as it might sound, and when the outcome of allied ground attack missions is now known, USAAF and RAF pilots attacking German armor created what can be one of the wildest overclaiming precedents -in direct contest with B-17 and B-24 gunners.- They claimed the destruction of number of tanks and vehicles that simply did not exist in the order of battle of the Heer for the entire Normandy campaign.
Erich has posted priceless information in the forum regarding this issue; Niklas Zetterling is another good source.
So, launching formation after formation of Typhoons to attack enemy armor and motorized units will have as result that they will fail to accomplish the task, in any possible degree. by not inflicting sufficient losses to regard the German formation as "depleted", much less to ensure complete destruction of the enemy force.
There´s however one thing they can certainly attain: to cause critical delays to German panzers trying to reach frontlines (as it was achieved during the war).
So, one mission of Stukas (including that dozen or dozens of escort fighters) can ensure a far greater level of destruction of enemy tank/motorized formations than Typhoons or Jugs can come close to attain flying 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11 missions.
In conclusion:
Depending on the mission and enemy forces present, a flight of Stukas, whether scorted or unescorted, will be overwhelmingly more efficient in either causing massive damage or complete destruction of the enemy target, while a flight of Typhoons or Jugs, even if numerically superior to the flight of Stukas, will fail to cause enough damage, if any...
My opinion on which kind of deployment could be the more-cost effective.
As additional comments:
Chances are you´ve heard of the G-6/R6 version of the Bf 109, which had one MG 151/20 cannon under each wing -in a gondola-; virtually universally depicted as either "easy prey" or "no match" for allied fighters as a consequence of the additional weight and drag of that configuration.
Well, the Typhoons in ground attack roles using non-guided rockets had a set of rails under each wing -where rockets were positioned-; from the comments I´ve collected in past years, German guncamera included, it´s very clear the rails under the wings of Typhoons were far more problematic to the British pilot than the under-wing pods in the Bf 109 G-6/R6 were to the German pilot -there are large numbers of victories against USAAF fighters attained in that particular version of the 109, but that´s an ingredient for other discussions.
So, in addition to the fact they were not good in the ground-attack mode Bullock, the Typhoons with underwing rocket-rails were not efficient if intercepted by Fw190s or Bf 109s, even after having fired their rockets.
Cheers!
Well, possibly...
What exactly is the definition of "more cost-effective" here?
If strictly referring to the number of planes scrambling for ground attack missions (namely fuel consumption, ammunition spent and, perhaps, potential losses) then it´s probably more cost-effective to unleash 100 Typhoons that will require no escort (100 planes only) than sending 100 Stukas or IL-2s which might require a few dozens of fighters to provide escort. (say, a total of 120-130 planes).
100 planes vs. 130 planes? 100 is -apparently- more cost effective. Ok.
Kind of a tricky game that we have here.
The problem, however, might rise to the surface when we know of the investigations carried out by the RAF and USAAF. As the allied armies advanced further into Germany, German tanks and vehicles found either destroyed or abandoned across battlefields underwent thorough inspection.
This particular problem can have a direct impact on the cost-effective issue you are commenting. Let´s see:
The Typhoons, just like the P-47s in the ground attack mode hardly hit any tanks, vehicles or any other motorized items the Heer deployed in battles.
When targets were large concentrations of troops and vehicles Typhoons and P-47s of course did not have that much trouble in hitting the mark.
A VERY different thing happened when they Typhoons attacked Panzer and other motorized formations in motion though: hits were as scarce as water in the Sahara is; and not just that Bullock, losses were far greater for the attackers -Typhoons or Jugs- than the losses caused to German armor during such attacks. (!!)
Incredibly as it might sound, and when the outcome of allied ground attack missions is now known, USAAF and RAF pilots attacking German armor created what can be one of the wildest overclaiming precedents -in direct contest with B-17 and B-24 gunners.- They claimed the destruction of number of tanks and vehicles that simply did not exist in the order of battle of the Heer for the entire Normandy campaign.
Erich has posted priceless information in the forum regarding this issue; Niklas Zetterling is another good source.
So, launching formation after formation of Typhoons to attack enemy armor and motorized units will have as result that they will fail to accomplish the task, in any possible degree. by not inflicting sufficient losses to regard the German formation as "depleted", much less to ensure complete destruction of the enemy force.
There´s however one thing they can certainly attain: to cause critical delays to German panzers trying to reach frontlines (as it was achieved during the war).
So, one mission of Stukas (including that dozen or dozens of escort fighters) can ensure a far greater level of destruction of enemy tank/motorized formations than Typhoons or Jugs can come close to attain flying 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 11 missions.
In conclusion:
Depending on the mission and enemy forces present, a flight of Stukas, whether scorted or unescorted, will be overwhelmingly more efficient in either causing massive damage or complete destruction of the enemy target, while a flight of Typhoons or Jugs, even if numerically superior to the flight of Stukas, will fail to cause enough damage, if any...
My opinion on which kind of deployment could be the more-cost effective.
As additional comments:
Chances are you´ve heard of the G-6/R6 version of the Bf 109, which had one MG 151/20 cannon under each wing -in a gondola-; virtually universally depicted as either "easy prey" or "no match" for allied fighters as a consequence of the additional weight and drag of that configuration.
Well, the Typhoons in ground attack roles using non-guided rockets had a set of rails under each wing -where rockets were positioned-; from the comments I´ve collected in past years, German guncamera included, it´s very clear the rails under the wings of Typhoons were far more problematic to the British pilot than the under-wing pods in the Bf 109 G-6/R6 were to the German pilot -there are large numbers of victories against USAAF fighters attained in that particular version of the 109, but that´s an ingredient for other discussions.
So, in addition to the fact they were not good in the ground-attack mode Bullock, the Typhoons with underwing rocket-rails were not efficient if intercepted by Fw190s or Bf 109s, even after having fired their rockets.
Cheers!
- Thread starter
- #609
Erich
the old Sage
I've got a personal from a friend/vet that flew P-47's with the 406th fg in Normandie before getting shot down by AA. It's pretty plain the Jug couldn't destroy armor except for a lucky hit by bombs . . . . now what did I do with it
I would think (maybe others here can verify) while Allied fighter bombers might not of destroyed alot of tanks, I think that it would of been very demoralizing for the Germans to see.
Think about it, your airforce is never around, you get attacked at will. Friends still get killed, still no fighter protection from your airforce. This goes on day after day, having to dive for cover, strafed, bombed at will. I would think it would very demoralizing more than anything for the German troops.
Think about it, your airforce is never around, you get attacked at will. Friends still get killed, still no fighter protection from your airforce. This goes on day after day, having to dive for cover, strafed, bombed at will. I would think it would very demoralizing more than anything for the German troops.
As much as most people believe, the most important target for the ground-attack aircraft is not the tank but the tank's support. The Allied aircraft, Typhoons, Thunderbolts and Lightnings were more effective in their area of expertise because they weren't striking at tanks. Attacking the soft supply trucks, or the locomotives carrying supplies slowed the German advance or retreat by depriving them of the fuel and supply they needed to move and fight.
In the exact same way that the Fw-190F/G was used in the GA role, the Allied GA aircraft would be used against the support, not the army. The German tactic was to attack the support when the enemy was on the move, and attack the enemy itself when combat was engaged.
In the exact same way that the Fw-190F/G was used in the GA role, the Allied GA aircraft would be used against the support, not the army. The German tactic was to attack the support when the enemy was on the move, and attack the enemy itself when combat was engaged.
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I dont know where that comment came from either....
- Thread starter
- #616
Erich
the old Sage
the Jug and Stang were nasty Loco killers, have talked with many whom bagged them besidies the kills from 55th fg P-38's and other 9th AF groups. soft skin vehicles are not a real prob to flame up as photos and many cine films illustrate
- Thread starter
- #617
Erich
the old Sage
a little story from F.B. of the 55th fg, who destroyed some 25 locos and 1 Me 262A
Major Ryan was leading the 343rd Squadron which was leading the 55th
Group and I was leading his second section of 8 aircraft. While watching
Giebelstadt Airdrome as we approached I saw these two take off and call
them into Ryan and requested permission to attack which was granted. My
old friend Don Penn was leading the 38th Squadron joined in quietly and
we got seven of the enemy aircraft as they were taking off and forming up
for a mission. Lt. O'neil broke formation on his own and just as I
started to fire he pulled up in front of me nearly getting himself
killed. He got some hits on the 262 and it showed a little fire in the
left engine which I later learned was from too rapid increase of the
throttles which flew out burning fuel as the engines had no fuel
controllers. O'neil would be killed breaking out of formation to do his
own thing a short time later. As for locomotives I preferred an attack
from the side or quartering from behind, but a head on would work ok with
the altitude being what ever you were flying at the start depending upon
how much flak you were getting at the time. We always went after the
loco first and then finished with the cars. One had to be careful with
the cars because they might be carrying explosives and blow up in your
face and maybe knocking you out of the air as sometimes happened.
Frank
Major Ryan was leading the 343rd Squadron which was leading the 55th
Group and I was leading his second section of 8 aircraft. While watching
Giebelstadt Airdrome as we approached I saw these two take off and call
them into Ryan and requested permission to attack which was granted. My
old friend Don Penn was leading the 38th Squadron joined in quietly and
we got seven of the enemy aircraft as they were taking off and forming up
for a mission. Lt. O'neil broke formation on his own and just as I
started to fire he pulled up in front of me nearly getting himself
killed. He got some hits on the 262 and it showed a little fire in the
left engine which I later learned was from too rapid increase of the
throttles which flew out burning fuel as the engines had no fuel
controllers. O'neil would be killed breaking out of formation to do his
own thing a short time later. As for locomotives I preferred an attack
from the side or quartering from behind, but a head on would work ok with
the altitude being what ever you were flying at the start depending upon
how much flak you were getting at the time. We always went after the
loco first and then finished with the cars. One had to be careful with
the cars because they might be carrying explosives and blow up in your
face and maybe knocking you out of the air as sometimes happened.
Frank
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
As I have found out many times while strafing Locos while playing IL-2.......
Erich, Hunter368 and Primus:
Note I did not include locomotives and train cars on my list, you agree on this?
I have seen the footage of locos and train cars getting hit too; trains are large targets and unless protected by tunnels, there is no way to conceal them. So if there is good weather trains are in trouble when attacked by enemy fighters, what´s new about this?
Not the same can be told about AFVs, for the German panzertruppe became masters in the art of camouflage in France during 1944; an antire armored column would "dissapear" from sight in seconds when alerted of the presence of enemy planes.
I digress: neither Typhoons nor Jugs were successful in hitting panzers, armored vehicles or trucks.
German armored units such as the 21 Pz. Div., Panzer Lehr and 12 SS.Pz.Div, as well as the s.Pz.Abt. 503 engaged the enemy during the Normandy campaign. Note that if the versions of all those frenzied Typhoon and Jug pilots returning to base after those "successful ground attack missions" have had just a few grams of accuracy, then the allied armies advancing further into France would have faced absolutely no German armored units, at all.
Now that there were times some of these units arrived late to critical points in the front -as a consequence of air attack- is true; that their panzers, armored vehicles and support trucks got hit heavily is FALSE.
Note I did not include locomotives and train cars on my list, you agree on this?
I have seen the footage of locos and train cars getting hit too; trains are large targets and unless protected by tunnels, there is no way to conceal them. So if there is good weather trains are in trouble when attacked by enemy fighters, what´s new about this?
Not the same can be told about AFVs, for the German panzertruppe became masters in the art of camouflage in France during 1944; an antire armored column would "dissapear" from sight in seconds when alerted of the presence of enemy planes.
I digress: neither Typhoons nor Jugs were successful in hitting panzers, armored vehicles or trucks.
German armored units such as the 21 Pz. Div., Panzer Lehr and 12 SS.Pz.Div, as well as the s.Pz.Abt. 503 engaged the enemy during the Normandy campaign. Note that if the versions of all those frenzied Typhoon and Jug pilots returning to base after those "successful ground attack missions" have had just a few grams of accuracy, then the allied armies advancing further into France would have faced absolutely no German armored units, at all.
Now that there were times some of these units arrived late to critical points in the front -as a consequence of air attack- is true; that their panzers, armored vehicles and support trucks got hit heavily is FALSE.
Udet,
I will partly agree with you and partly disagree. I agree that using a fight bomber (that does not have presion guided missiles or bombs at the time) to attack small armored units was not truly effective as it is today. Yes you would get some tank kills but few. You would have to nearly have a direct hit with a bomb to kill a tank. In Hans Ulrich Rudel autobiography he said you needed to land a bomb within (can't remember for sure off the top of my head) about 25 feet (I have the book in a box right now it could alittle more or less but that is close to the range) for a tank kill to be achieved. For a F/B to do that it would be hard. Their .50 or 20mm guns would have little to effect on a tank. So I agree with you that although F/B did achieve some tank kills they were not a efficient weapon vs the tank.
Now that being said. They were very effective vs softer targets, like trucks, open topped APC, horses (which were used alot still), men, trains etc. Yes air crews exaggerated their ground kills but it is no different then any other part of war. The "fog of war" causes incorrect numbers to be reported, but they did not do so anymore than anyone else in WW2. But their effects were no less real, meaning although they didn't kill everything they claimed they did kill alot of vehicles never the less.
Here is what Hans Ulrich Rudel has been credited with for ground kills:
519 Russian Tanks
1 Battleship
1 Destroyer
70 Landing Craft
800+ Motorized Vehicles
150+ Artillery -, Pak and anti-aircraft positions
Plus 9 air kills.
Do you think all those were "real" kills? I don't think so, but his effectiveness was still huge.
Quotations from Hans Ulrich Rudel :
"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!"
"Lost are only those, who abandon themselves!"
In his post-war manuscript about the attack at Mortain von Gersdorff, the chief of staff of 7. Armee, wrote that the majority of the equipment losses had been caused by enemy air power. You will see the effect by is not little, most of those air losses were from Allied F/B. Here is the losses:
I will partly agree with you and partly disagree. I agree that using a fight bomber (that does not have presion guided missiles or bombs at the time) to attack small armored units was not truly effective as it is today. Yes you would get some tank kills but few. You would have to nearly have a direct hit with a bomb to kill a tank. In Hans Ulrich Rudel autobiography he said you needed to land a bomb within (can't remember for sure off the top of my head) about 25 feet (I have the book in a box right now it could alittle more or less but that is close to the range) for a tank kill to be achieved. For a F/B to do that it would be hard. Their .50 or 20mm guns would have little to effect on a tank. So I agree with you that although F/B did achieve some tank kills they were not a efficient weapon vs the tank.
Now that being said. They were very effective vs softer targets, like trucks, open topped APC, horses (which were used alot still), men, trains etc. Yes air crews exaggerated their ground kills but it is no different then any other part of war. The "fog of war" causes incorrect numbers to be reported, but they did not do so anymore than anyone else in WW2. But their effects were no less real, meaning although they didn't kill everything they claimed they did kill alot of vehicles never the less.
Here is what Hans Ulrich Rudel has been credited with for ground kills:
519 Russian Tanks
1 Battleship
1 Destroyer
70 Landing Craft
800+ Motorized Vehicles
150+ Artillery -, Pak and anti-aircraft positions
Plus 9 air kills.
Do you think all those were "real" kills? I don't think so, but his effectiveness was still huge.
Quotations from Hans Ulrich Rudel :
"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!"
"Lost are only those, who abandon themselves!"
In his post-war manuscript about the attack at Mortain von Gersdorff, the chief of staff of 7. Armee, wrote that the majority of the equipment losses had been caused by enemy air power. You will see the effect by is not little, most of those air losses were from Allied F/B. Here is the losses:
Attachments
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
