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
I think he was commenting on your eloquent and charming manner of speech!riseofnations
Recruit
- 9
- Jun 24, 2006
The Stuka was of course vulnerable to enemy aircraft but if you were solely to consider its ability to detroy tanks then you cant overlook what it achieved in this role
Tony Williams
Airman 1st Class
It might be more accurate to say that you can't overlook what Rudel achieved in the Ju 87G - that's what its reputation is based on. Even though his claimed score was almost certainly considerably overstated, he was still highly effective. I haven't heard that any other of the 87G pilots came close.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
The second was Anton Hübsch with "just" 110 tanks destroyed.
- Thread starter
- #785
Erich
the old Sage
I had a tank killer thread at least for pilots somewher on these forums, now where did I put that ........ ?
Tony Williams
Airman 1st Class
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Relatively few Hs 129s were shot down by enemy fighters. I even recall the Romanians losing only about three of theirs by the hands of Russian fighter planes after an entire year of operations.
Also, the G-R engines were quite sufficient. Of course when having to carry a 75mm gun it's another thing. In fact, the Hs 129 carried a small load. A single 37mm gun would have been excellent for it (IMO). Meanwhile the Ju 87 could keep up its traditional role as an interdiction bomber.
Another plus for the Hs 129 is its low cost. Even though I would still see it proven, the Hs 129 was apparently cheap or easy to build.
Kris
Being that you are only couple years older than myself......no.
I am more saying that I have not heard that term used since my Dad died 2.5 years ago, he used some good ones. He had been a carpenter for more than 40 years, he had some good ones.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Matt308
Glock Perfection
TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2
Tony Williams is "the" guns and ammunition writer for Janes..
TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2
© Anthony G Williams
This summary is based on material from 'Flying Guns: World War 2' by Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony G Williams
Amended 24 June 2004
The advent of highly mobile tank warfare at the start of World War 2 prompted a search for ways of destroying tanks from the air, with variable success. There was a preference in some quarters for using fighter-bombers armed with rockets or bombs, but while these were effective in general ground attack, including disrupting supplies to armoured units, they proved largely ineffective in directly knocking out tanks for the reasons spelled out in 'Flying Guns: WW2':
" The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."
Experience showed that the best way of knocking out tanks was to use a cannon powerful enough to penetrate the armour. This article examines the weapons used and takes a retrospective look at an 'ideal' airborne anti-tank armament.
The Guns
A wide variety of airborne anti-tank guns was fielded by three nations: the USSR, Germany and the UK. The USA developed one, but did not use it. This section describes their characteristics, but the armour penetration figures need to be regarded with caution because of the varying standards of measurement used in different countries. The variations not only include the usual parameters of striking distance and angle, but also the quality of the armour and the definition of 'penetration'. Also, some figures resulted from ground tests, others allowed for the extra velocity imparted by the speed of the aircraft.
The USSR fielded two guns in the anti-armour role, and tested a third. The 23mm VYa and 37mm NS-37 were developed specifically for aircraft and used in both the air combat and anti-tank roles. The NS-45 was a version of the NS-37, with the cartridge case necked out to 45mm. It was tested in air combat and proposed for various anti-tank aircraft, but not adopted.
The VYa was a gas-operated, belt-fed gun (a scaled-up 12.7mm Berezin) chambered for a powerful 23x152B cartridge. It is credited with penetrating 30mm at 100m and 25mm at 400m (striking angle unspecified). This was adequate against light tanks but not enough to reliably penetrate medium tanks.
The NS-37, unusually for the USSR, used a short-recoil mechanism and was belt-fed. It was a particularly slim weapon, with a compact mechanism, suitable for fitting between the banks of a liquid-cooled vee-engine to fire through the hollow propeller hub. The powerful 37x195 ammunition is quoted as penetrating 48mm / 500m / 90 degrees, enough to pose a threat to the side or rear armour of virtually any tank. The 45x185 cartridge of the NS-45 increased this to around 58mm.
All of the Soviet guns used conventional full-calibre steel shot, fitted with a windshield to improve the ballistic coefficient. This is rather surprising, as they used the much more effective tungsten-cored projectiles in ground anti-tank guns.
Germany fielded several different guns in the anti-tank role. The first was the 30mm MK 101, which used powerful 30x184B ammunition. This was later supplanted by the MK103, which used an electric-primed version of the same cartridge, with the same performance. The MK 101 used a short-recoil design, and in its anti-armour role was fed by a 30-round drum. The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were adaptations of ground anti-tank guns with long-recoil mechanisms, and saw little use. These were the BK 5 (also briefly used for air combat in the anti-bomber role) which was a PaK 38 fitted with an autoloader and a 22-round magazine for its 50x419R ammunition. It is unclear whether this saw action in the anti-tank role. More famously, the PaK 40, which fired massive 75x714R cartridges, was used in two versions; a semi-automatic one with a 10-round vertical magazine, and the fully-automatic BK 7,5 with a 12-round rotary magazine. This could penetrate 132 mm / 500 m / 90 degrees (104 mm / 500 m / 60 degrees) when used on the ground, so was clearly capable of dealing with the toughest tank. Both BK 5 and BK 7,5 fired the normal APCHE projectiles, which were more destructive and reliable in their penetration than the Hartkernmunition rounds, being less affected by unfavourable striking angles or add-on armour plates.
The British fielded only one airborne gun in the anti-tank role: the Vickers Class S. This was designed around the naval 40x158R AA case, with special armour-piercing loadings. As such, it was much less powerful than the Army's 2 pdr anti-tank gun, but the attack speed of the aircraft helped to provide a penetration quoted as 50-55mm (range and striking angle not specified). This was a long-recoil gun which was fed by a 15-round drum (a sixteenth round could be carried in the chamber). A 30-round drum and a belt-fed version were developed but not adopted. The same fate befell an interesting adaptation to use the Littlejohn squeezebore shot. The AP projectiles fired were full-calibre steel shot, without even a ballistic cap.
The British developed other weapons for this purpose. The 6 pdr (57 mm) Molins gun was intended for this role, but used only by Coastal Command. The 47mm Class P gun was not ready until after the war.
The USA did fit one 37 mm gun to its aircraft - the M4. However, this fired low-powered 37x145R ammunition and was not very effective against tanks, being intended for air combat. Much more impressive was the M9, which was a belt-fed development of the Army's M1 long-recoil AA gun and fired powerful 37x223SR cartridges. Special AP loadings were developed for this gun but it was never used in action.
Airborne anti-tank guns
see link
He has his own forum.. and is quite happy to answer questions
Tony Williams is "the" guns and ammunition writer for Janes..
TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2
© Anthony G Williams
This summary is based on material from 'Flying Guns: World War 2' by Emmanuel Gustin and Anthony G Williams
Amended 24 June 2004
The advent of highly mobile tank warfare at the start of World War 2 prompted a search for ways of destroying tanks from the air, with variable success. There was a preference in some quarters for using fighter-bombers armed with rockets or bombs, but while these were effective in general ground attack, including disrupting supplies to armoured units, they proved largely ineffective in directly knocking out tanks for the reasons spelled out in 'Flying Guns: WW2':
" The ineffectiveness of air attack against tanks should have caused no surprise because the weapons available to the fighter-bombers were not suitable for destroying them. Put simply, the heavy machine guns and 20 mm cannon were capable of hitting the tanks easily enough, but insufficiently powerful to damage them, except occasionally by chance. The RPs and bombs used were certainly capable of destroying the tanks but were too inaccurate to hit them, except occasionally by chance."
Experience showed that the best way of knocking out tanks was to use a cannon powerful enough to penetrate the armour. This article examines the weapons used and takes a retrospective look at an 'ideal' airborne anti-tank armament.
The Guns
A wide variety of airborne anti-tank guns was fielded by three nations: the USSR, Germany and the UK. The USA developed one, but did not use it. This section describes their characteristics, but the armour penetration figures need to be regarded with caution because of the varying standards of measurement used in different countries. The variations not only include the usual parameters of striking distance and angle, but also the quality of the armour and the definition of 'penetration'. Also, some figures resulted from ground tests, others allowed for the extra velocity imparted by the speed of the aircraft.
The USSR fielded two guns in the anti-armour role, and tested a third. The 23mm VYa and 37mm NS-37 were developed specifically for aircraft and used in both the air combat and anti-tank roles. The NS-45 was a version of the NS-37, with the cartridge case necked out to 45mm. It was tested in air combat and proposed for various anti-tank aircraft, but not adopted.
The VYa was a gas-operated, belt-fed gun (a scaled-up 12.7mm Berezin) chambered for a powerful 23x152B cartridge. It is credited with penetrating 30mm at 100m and 25mm at 400m (striking angle unspecified). This was adequate against light tanks but not enough to reliably penetrate medium tanks.
The NS-37, unusually for the USSR, used a short-recoil mechanism and was belt-fed. It was a particularly slim weapon, with a compact mechanism, suitable for fitting between the banks of a liquid-cooled vee-engine to fire through the hollow propeller hub. The powerful 37x195 ammunition is quoted as penetrating 48mm / 500m / 90 degrees, enough to pose a threat to the side or rear armour of virtually any tank. The 45x185 cartridge of the NS-45 increased this to around 58mm.
All of the Soviet guns used conventional full-calibre steel shot, fitted with a windshield to improve the ballistic coefficient. This is rather surprising, as they used the much more effective tungsten-cored projectiles in ground anti-tank guns.
Germany fielded several different guns in the anti-tank role. The first was the 30mm MK 101, which used powerful 30x184B ammunition. This was later supplanted by the MK103, which used an electric-primed version of the same cartridge, with the same performance. The MK 101 used a short-recoil design, and in its anti-armour role was fed by a 30-round drum. The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were all adaptations of ground guns. The first was the 37 mm BK 3,7, a modified version of the FlaK 18 AA gun firing the same 37x263B ammunition. This meant that it was bulky, heavy and slow-firing by comparison with the NS-37, for example. It also remained clip-fed, with a maximum capacity of just 12 rounds. It mainly fired Hartkernmunition ammo, capable of penetrating up to 140 mm / 100 m / 90 degrees although this was halved at a striking angle of 60 degrees.
The remaining German guns were adaptations of ground anti-tank guns with long-recoil mechanisms, and saw little use. These were the BK 5 (also briefly used for air combat in the anti-bomber role) which was a PaK 38 fitted with an autoloader and a 22-round magazine for its 50x419R ammunition. It is unclear whether this saw action in the anti-tank role. More famously, the PaK 40, which fired massive 75x714R cartridges, was used in two versions; a semi-automatic one with a 10-round vertical magazine, and the fully-automatic BK 7,5 with a 12-round rotary magazine. This could penetrate 132 mm / 500 m / 90 degrees (104 mm / 500 m / 60 degrees) when used on the ground, so was clearly capable of dealing with the toughest tank. Both BK 5 and BK 7,5 fired the normal APCHE projectiles, which were more destructive and reliable in their penetration than the Hartkernmunition rounds, being less affected by unfavourable striking angles or add-on armour plates.
The British fielded only one airborne gun in the anti-tank role: the Vickers Class S. This was designed around the naval 40x158R AA case, with special armour-piercing loadings. As such, it was much less powerful than the Army's 2 pdr anti-tank gun, but the attack speed of the aircraft helped to provide a penetration quoted as 50-55mm (range and striking angle not specified). This was a long-recoil gun which was fed by a 15-round drum (a sixteenth round could be carried in the chamber). A 30-round drum and a belt-fed version were developed but not adopted. The same fate befell an interesting adaptation to use the Littlejohn squeezebore shot. The AP projectiles fired were full-calibre steel shot, without even a ballistic cap.
The British developed other weapons for this purpose. The 6 pdr (57 mm) Molins gun was intended for this role, but used only by Coastal Command. The 47mm Class P gun was not ready until after the war.
The USA did fit one 37 mm gun to its aircraft - the M4. However, this fired low-powered 37x145R ammunition and was not very effective against tanks, being intended for air combat. Much more impressive was the M9, which was a belt-fed development of the Army's M1 long-recoil AA gun and fired powerful 37x223SR cartridges. Special AP loadings were developed for this gun but it was never used in action.
Airborne anti-tank guns
see link
He has his own forum.. and is quite happy to answer questions
He posts here from time to time. Allways has good info.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
And a friendly and helpful guy.
And a good writer. Did you know that he wrote a novel which can be downloaded for a small price?
Kris
And a good writer. Did you know that he wrote a novel which can be downloaded for a small price?
Kris
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
This is a seriuos contender, specially if the Pzg40 30 mm amo is used.
Tony Williams
Airman 1st Class
The Mk 103 installation was a failure and never saw action, except perhaps on a trial basis. The recoil proved too heavy and disturbed the aim, so it was very inaccurate.
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Funny, one might think that the wings wich were enough strong to ram a bomber would suit for this cannon.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
