Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

The optimum fighter-bomber tank buster should use disposable weapons which hinder performance very little with mountings that add little drag. The fighter should have high performance and good protection and damage resistance.

The Panzerblitz II (varient of R4M) and HVAR weapons were both excellent for this. Both were accurate weapons which were mounted on small racks which had minimal effect on performance. The Fw 190 used it well, likewise the F4U could carry 8x 5" HVAR. Though it didn't do so (to my knowledge) the P-47D should have been able to carry a similar HVAR armament. (much better than the 6x 4.5" rockets carried in the highly performance degrading 3x cluster Bazooka tubes -M10 rocket launcher-) The P-38L could carry 10x 5" HVAR or even up to 12x (rather poor) M10 4.5" rockets, but the liquid cooled engines (albeit 2 of them) would still be too vulnerable compared to the single R-2800 or BMW 801 of the others IMO. Though the F4U also had vulnerable oil cooler which would be a disadvantage.


The Hs 129 may have been better with some decent engines. With some 1,000 hp class engines and it's moderately low wing loading it would have been fairly able to evade fighters. (I prefer the 30mm and 37mm cannon as thy still leave decent performance, unlike the 75 mm gun...) The centerline mounting was good as well. (I'd say the single cannon is better than the Stuka's or Il-2's 2x cannon of similar caliber) It was probably the best dedicated ground attack a/c, but needed to be developed better.

The fact that there are 2x engines and both are radials is very good for survivability, along with strong airframe and good pilot protection. (and no vulnerable rear gunner to be machine gun fodder for enemy fighters)


There were still other relatively low priority radial engines that could have given the 129 sufficient performance (albeit all at larger diameters than the tiny 14M, weight would be a bit more too) The Gnome-Rhône 14N, Bramo 323, BMW 132, and maybe some others would fit the bill.

Agree with all u posted KK... In the Poll thread about this subject, I voted for the 190 Panzerblitz II for the obvious reasons...

Good post...

A plane like the FW190 cannot be overrated enough. It could take off as a tank buster, do its job, then change socks and come out as a fighter or fighter-bomber. What a magnificent bird it was!!

kool kitty89 said:

But bact to the topic at hand, the Il-2 was a good attack plane with incredible damage resistange and pilot protection. The liquid cooled engine was no more volnerable than a radial in this case due to the placement of the radiator and the amount of armor. Hoever, the rear gunner was of limited value with a decent armament but very volnerable, and most importantly the ship had a volnerable belly mounted oil cooler that could be easily disabled by rifle caliber bullets. (which a radial engine requires as well)

As a tank buster I'd say it was probably better than the Stuka though. (though the Stuka was more maneuverable it was lacking in other areas, and when weighed down with heavy cannons it's performance was definately worse and much more volnerable, but it was a dive bomber first and foremost and decent in this role, but having a radial engine would hae helped)

The Il-10 was excelent, fast, no more iolcooler volnerability, better all around performning, and more capable than the Il-2 in all respects, but it came a bit late to be useful.

Click to expand...

Again the IL-2...

If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.

Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.

These stories about the incredible damage resistance of the IL-2s seem confusing when knowing a bit on the casualty rate of such plane. Like the pilots of JG 2 and JG 26 did in the Channel/Low Countries/France with the Spitfires during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943, when RAF pilots got slaughtered in humilliating fashion, the German fighter pilots in the Eastern Front feasted with the IL-2.

Pilots from units like II. and III./ JG 3 or I., II. and III./JG 52, or JG 51 shot down IL-2s like turkeys taking very low casualties in return [ridiculously low in many cases].

In the very first day of operations of JG 3 for Unternehmen Zitadelle, meaning July 5th, 1943, the pilots of the Geschwader shot down 43 IL-2s; one should also add the IL-2s destroyed in the same day by pilots of the gruppen of JG 51, JG 52 and JG 54 flying in the same area [and those lost to Flak].

During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.

And how come the IL-2 is a better tank buster when compared with the Stuka? That the USSR belongs in the victors club will not mean their devoted ground attack plane was a better tank buster than the one utilized by the defeated side.

The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.

Need examples? See the air battles in the Kuban bridgehead during 1943 where large formations of Stukas of Fliegerkorps I flew in operations; they never came close to take the losses the IL-2s did, say, in the opening day of Zitadelle.

Udet said:

Again the IL-2...

If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.

Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.

These stories about the incredible damage resistance of the IL-2s seem confusing when knowing a bit on the casualty rate of such plane. Like the pilots of JG 2 and JG 26 did in the Channel/Low Countries/France with the Spitfires during 1941, 1942 and the first half of 1943, when RAF pilots got slaughtered in humilliating fashion, the German fighter pilots in the Eastern Front feasted with the IL-2.

Pilots from units like II. and III./ JG 3 or I., II. and III./JG 52, or JG 51 shot down IL-2s like turkeys taking very low casualties in return [ridiculously low in many cases].

In the very first day of operations of JG 3 for Unternehmen Zitadelle, meaning July 5th, 1943, the pilots of the Geschwader shot down 43 IL-2s; one should also add the IL-2s destroyed in the same day by pilots of the gruppen of JG 51, JG 52 and JG 54 flying in the same area [and those lost to Flak].

During the summer of 1943 when JG 52 became the only complete Geschwader operating in the East, the German boys of the Geschwader continued to chalk up air victories, with the IL-2 as the main dish.

And how come the IL-2 is a better tank buster when compared with the Stuka? That the USSR belongs in the victors club will not mean their devoted ground attack plane was a better tank buster than the one utilized by the defeated side.

The only theatre of the war where the Stuka remained operational in significant numbers throughout the entire conflict was precisely the Eastern Front, fulfulling its role: ground attack plane. With much less armor than the IL-2 the Stuka proved to be a highly survivable plane in the Eastern Front.

Need examples? See the air battles in the Kuban bridgehead during 1943 where large formations of Stukas of Fliegerkorps I flew in operations; they never came close to take the losses the IL-2s did, say, in the opening day of Zitadelle.

Click to expand...

Welcome back, Udet. Where you been?

Agree with you on the Il-2; IMO, it was overrated. IIRC, Hartmann scored a majority of his victories against Il-2's. His preferred tactic was to approach them from below behind take out the ventral oil cooler; almost a guaranteed kill.

lesofprimus said:

Agree with all u posted KK...

Click to expand...

I'll second that notion and while I consider the matter "water-under-the-bridge", upon reflection I do think that Les could've handled it better (just my opinion).


...MOVIN' ON...



Elvis

While I had go back to the last page to remember what Elvis is talking about, upon reflection, I think that ur a fu*kin ******* whose "last jab at Les" (ur opinion) gets u a nice little infraction...

U shoulda kept ur fu*kin mouth shut and moved on... Instead, u decided to ignore the other posters and myself with ur last gasp....

I dont give a rats ass what u think I could or couldnt have handled better, in any facet of my life, let alone a fu*kin message board such as this... No one here gives a sh!t what u care about, ur opinion of, or ur interpetation of, ANYTHING related to this message board....

One more run of the mouth about anything here and ur gone... I have no time to screw around with the likes of ur type here, so its short and sweet....

Shut ur fu*kin yap or I'll do it for u....

U already had a 9 point infraction, so I was nice and gave u another .5 instead of bannin ur ass...

Dan,

Being happy and married is making you soft, couple years ago you would booted a guy like Elvis after his second comment to you. LOL Good to see you back Dan, hope all is well with you, your son and wife.


Elvis,

Just stop talking, drop it or your next post most likely will be your last here.

Udet said:

Again the IL-2...

If there was a prize deserved by such plane that would be something like the "Best refugee strafing plane" as it occurred during late 1944 and 1945, when millions of civilians fled across the Baltic States and Poland, fleeing the advancing Red Army. Nobody will ever know the number of civilians that were murdered by soviet pilots.

Not a very demanding target: huge columns of civilians moving across vast portions of land...in many places there were dozens of thousands of them at the time and even more...even the hastily trained soviet pilots would hit them. Easier to kill than Panzers.

Click to expand...

Some of your postings look politically biased.

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion.
And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis.

Click to expand...

Are u fu*kin high or just stoopid???

I guess all those Polish, Hungarian, Rumanian etc etc civilains exterminated by the Russians' push to Berlin were accidents???

stasoid said:

Some of your postings look politically biased.

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion.
And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.

Click to expand...

Wrong, you are soooooo wrong its not even funny.

Udet, I was just comparing the planes by capabillities not tactics used or what they acomplished. (or commited...)

In some ways it was better than the Stuka, but in others not so, but hell the Stuka was designed as a dive bomber too.

I would have liked to have seen a radial engined stuka, that would've been interesting to compare.


But I still prefer the Hs 129 as a dedicated attack plane, granted it could have used some better engines, but even so performance was on par or better than the Il-2 or Stuka. The twin engines were certainly an advantage, and I personally think the lack of a rear gunner is better off. (debatable, but the gunner was really of limited value, vulnerable, and the whole set up added weight and excess material) For a dive bomber the defensive armament makes more sence...


For some reason the Hs 129 reminds me a little of the A-10...

If you look at the characterisics of the a/c just a bit more power could have given the 129 a chance aganst enemy fighters. (depending on the AT cannon carried) Even if you considder some extra weight gain (more than just the engine's weight) power loading would be in the same range as some fighters with the previouly mentioned engines, as would wing loading. (though the airfoil would affect things too, I dont know about it)



And Elvis, just stop making comments like that... PLEASE, You have intersting, intelegent info and oppinions on this forum which you've expressed in a respectful/polite manner (for some reason you hven't demonstrated either in this thread ) and I'd hate to see you go for such a stupid reason...
In truth you mishandeled that situation too, and a Mod has the luxury to do so while we lowly members do not. (I mean no offence to either side here, I just don't want this to end badly...) Mod's (and admins) are here for an important reason, and they got there for a reason too, the tough ones no less so.
Making snide remarks (even mildly, though mild can escalate to more...) doesn't help anyone. Even if it's not a mod being argued with that kind of stuff can ruin things, look at what happened to the ETO fighter 1939-42 thread...

KK:

I understand. But at least i wanted to comment a bit further on the alleged incredible resilience to damage of the IL-2.

Knowing the German style of mismanaging their dwindling resources [both human and material] during the war, the ground-attack planes department too observes anomalies consequence of their messy managerial methods.

Why to continue having the Stuka (G version) and the Henschel Hs 129 in operations during the second half of the war when knowing both planes are utilized for ground-attack missions...but more importantly when assessing the overall situation of Germany during 1944?

And the mess did not stop there...the brilliant Focke Wulf Fw 190 too was deployed in the ground-attack mode (F-8 version) as the war progressed.

If we were to address the fact one of the three planes was better than the others at specific types of missions we should also consider this significant fact: YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT ALL, YOU CAN NOT COVER IT ALL. Go for one of the three birds and produce it in the biggest numbers possible.

A little standardization would have been good; uniformity in their processes related to allocation and administration of budgets, raw materials, aircraft production premises and laborforce....something the Germans never really learned during the war.

This is neither to attack nor critize any of those 3 planes, in one way or another all three were excellent when used in ground-attack missions; i´m strictly referring to the consequences of their business practices.

Neither the Ju 87 Gs nor Hs 129s existed in numbers sufficient to inflict even heavier losses to the Soviet armored forces.

And what about the Focke Wulf 190 F-8? Superb in the ground-attack mode, but the Fw 190s were also required in larger numbers in the Reich´s skies. If we assume the Fw 190 F-8 would have been the definitive choice, the materials, premises and laborforce utilized to produce the Ju 87 Gs and Hs 129s are now used to produce more Panzerblitz.

Why not picking only one of these three planes? Things would have been easier in virtually all aspects: a more homogeneous program for producing only one type of ground-attack plane, spare parts, armaments, and the training programs for ground crews and pilots. Perhaps a bigger number of ground-attack planes with properly trained crews would have been available for operations in this scenario.

Even the ancient Hs 123 continued serving in ground-attack units during 1944, mainly in night harrassment missions.

There were some organizational efforts made by the Luftwaffe command when some of the Stukageschwadern (St.G) were reorganized into Schlachtgeschwadern (SG), but such measures represented mere designation matters and did not cover any of the aspects i am referring to in the posting.

Thus some elements of StG 1 became SG 1, others from StG 2 "Imelmann" became SG 2, etc, etc.


SoDstitch, hello: well, i have not been away all that much, but most of my recent participations here have occurred on threads dealing with ladies in bikinis and jokes!

stasoid said:

Some of your postings look politically biased.

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis. Accidents could take place during the war but it wasnt an official policy. There is simple statistics supporting that: german civilian casualties were around 2mln, almost one half (800.000) were killed in Allied air raids. Now, compare that with some 17mln soviet civilians dead as a result of German invasion.
And for RAF "Terror Bombing" was an official doctrine during WWII as you know.

Click to expand...

So, what is your basis (i.e facts) to support your thesis that USSR 'never targeted' civilians?

As a tangential question, what are your thoughts about sitting on the Danube for two months while the Warsaw uprising was systematically wiped out by Gestapo and SS? And any particular thoughts about the Soviet citizens that Stalin exterminated before the war started?

Are you perhaps 'politically' biased?

stasoid said:

In fact, the Soviets never targeted civilians deliberately in contrast to the Allies or Nazis.

Click to expand...

Are you smoking crack???!!!!

You dont actually believe that do you?

You should come over here and speak to my wifes grandmother and she can tell you stories of civilians being lined up in the streets and killed by Soviet soldier. You should listen to the story of how she was raped by one when she was 7 years old... 7 years old!

Want some facts:

Winter War between Soviets and Finland
Soviet soldiers and partisans attacked civilian areas on multiple occasions. In 2006 photos were released, showing the civilian dead.

Soviet Invasion of Poland 1939
Soviet Policy included "Ethnic Cleansing"

Between 1939 and 1941 1.5 Million Poles were deported to Labor Camps in the Soviet Union. The majority did not return.

100,000 (estimation) Polish Prisoners of War were executed by the Soviet Army.

Germany 1945

Aprox. 2 Million German civilians killed (many by cold and lack of food) by Soviet Soldiers.

There were mass killings and mass rapings (read above my statement about my wifes grandmother).

Information below is from wikipedia but it is no secret that it is pretty accurate:

"Fleeing from the advancing Red Army, more than two million people in the eastern German provinces of (East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania) died, some from cold and starvation, in the post-war ethnic cleansing, or killed when they got caught up in combat operations. The main death toll, however, occurred when the refugee columns were caught up by units of the Red Army. They were overrun by tanks, looted, shot, murdered; women and girls were raped and afterward left to die (see also: Prussian Nights).[25][26][27] In addition, fighter bombers of the Soviet air force penetrated many kilometers behind the front lines and attacked columns of refugees.[25][26]

Those who did not flee suffered by taking the burden of Red Army's occupying rules: Murder, rape, robbery, and expulsion. For example, in the East Prussian city of Königsberg, in August 1945 there were approximately 100,000 German civilians still living there after the Red Army had conquered the city. When the Germans were finally expelled from Königsberg in 1948, only about 20,000 were still alive (see also expulsion of Germans after World War II)."

A far cry from Lenin's image for the country. He was by no means perfect either, and he may have agreed to the integation of the Red Terror (an idea originally suggested by Stalin as well iirc), but I dout he'd ever condone the atrosities committed under Stalin's rule. (Lenin's ideas and ideals may have been the closest to ever get Comunism to work) I do wonder how things would have gone had Lenin lived longer...


But one thin that's really ironic is thier images, which one looks more sinister compared to reality of their actions:





But we're gettin way off topic. (and I personally don't like to get into the moral, phylosphical, and political aspects too deeply in these discussions, it's certianly interesting but it tends to get way off topic, and cause very heated debates and can escalate to worse...)

Kool Kitty: that this abomination was mummified and that´s still being kept in Moscow makes me feel like vomitting. But oh well, several other superb criminals of war such as Spaatz, "Civilian Bomber" Harris and Eisenhower are honoured as heroes.

Also on July 5th, 1943 in the Kursk salient:

JG 51 destroyed 10 IL-2s
JG 52 destroyed 17 IL-2s
JG 54 destroyed 17 IL-2s.

I thought they removed Stalin's body and buried it, though Lenin's is still there.

His body was preserved in Lenin's Mausoleum until October 31, 1961, when his body was removed from the Mausoleum and buried next to the Kremlin walls as part of the process of de-Stalinization.

Click to expand...

Guys
this thread is just too big to read all of the posts, so please pardon me if i am about to cover old ground

You guys all seem to favour the gun armed bombers. ive seen elsewhere some scathing attacks by some of you about the lower effectiveness of the FFAR, but if that is the case, why were FFARs more or less adopted as the standard Fighter Bomber equipment after the war for dealing with ground targets. Larger calibre cannon (37mm and above) virtually disappeared didnt they, after the war. Wouldnt this be due to the inherent superiority of FFAR

If i am right (and i am not suggesting that yet), wouldnt the western FBs like the P-47 etc be a better choice than the stukas, given their much greater level of survivability???? I guess Im saying that in the post war wash up, it appears that FFARs were judged to be more effective than big guns on planes