Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (1 Viewer)

[buzzard]

I think that the P-47 was the most effective tank-killer. The Typhoon was unreliable, and demanded a huge amount of maintenance. It was also more susceptible to battle damage, and the exhaust gases leaking into the cockpit didn't help much either...

The Il-2/10, Ju 87 and the Hs 129 were all easy meat in the presence of enemy fighters. the Jug may have been at a disadvantage vis a vis the German fighters down on the deck, but it could still acquit itself quite well, and by the summer of '44, the caliber of the average LW pilot was no match for the Americans.

Fast, tough, reliable, and armed with 8 .50s, 500 lb bombs, rockets, and napalm, the Jug was the best.

Incidentally, I've read that due to a design flaw in the Tiger's air vents, many Tiger crews were slaughtered by .50 cal. bullets ricocheting around the crew compartment. Can any Panzer buffs confirm this?

JL

 

[Tony Williams]

Incidentally, I've read that due to a design flaw in the Tiger's air vents, many Tiger crews were slaughtered by .50 cal. bullets ricocheting around the crew compartment. Can any Panzer buffs confirm this?

Another baseless legend...

The Typhoon and P-47 were both great fighter-bombers, well able to destroy a range of ground targets, but they were both quite useless at the specific task of tank destroying. The reason was the same in both cases: their guns weren't powerful enough to knock out tanks (except very rarely, by chance), and the rockets and bombs they carried were far too inaccurate to hit a tank (except occasionally, by chance).

When the British Operational Research teams examined Panzers left on the battlefield immediately after various 1944 battles in Northern France, they discovered that very, very few of the knocked-out tanks had been hit by air attack. On average, the Typhoon and P-47 units claimed about ten times as many tanks as they actually destroyed.

To consistently knock out tanks from the air in WW2 required one of two different tactics: one was to saturate the area with bombs dropped by vast fleets of heavy bombers (this did work in Normandy, but was very inefficient). The other was to fit large-calibre high-velocity guns, which were far more accurate than rockets. The Hurricane IID and IV were very good at this, but the 40mm guns weren't powerful enough to deal with Tiger tanks. The Ju 87G was effective in Rudel's hands at least, the Hs 129 was probably the most accurate, but suffered from poor performance.

 

[buzzard]

While it's true that Allied fighter-bomber pilots made grossly exaggerated claims, this hardly makes the P-47 (and others) 'useless' in the anti-tank role. Numerous accounts by the panzertruppen tell a very different story...

Tanks are not aircraft or ships. They do not crash or sink when damaged. A knocked-out tank that is not totally destroyed can often be recovered and put back into action. the Germans were masters at this. Even after the saturation bombing of the heavies, many of the damaged and overturned tanks were rapidly put back into action. I agree that the effects of the rockets have been over-hyped, but the 500lb bombs used by the Jug did not require a direct hit to knock out a tank. And IIRC, most of Rudel's kills were made with bombs much smaller than that...

Napalm was an extremely effective weapon against the WWII tanks, and had it not been in such short supply, it would have made the Jug even more effective. Certainly more so than the sitting duck Hs 129. In any case, even the heavy cannon armament of the Henschel and the Ju 87-G was not a guarantee of success. They still had to hit the areas of vulnerability to ensure the complete destruction of the tank.

The BOR teams were on the battlefield after the enemy had been driven off by land forces, so it's not surprising that most of the tanks they examined were destroyed by the same. And since a force retreating under the harrassment of ground and air attack does not always have the luxury of recovering its damaged tanks, many repairable AFVs were left behind. Do the reports mention how may of the tanks found had been previously damaged and repaired?

"quite useless", indeed

JL

 

[Tony Williams]

I looked into this in some detail for Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45. These are some relevant extracts:

The fighter-bomber pilots pressed home their attacks with great courage throughout the campaign despite the often ferocious light FlaK which caused loss rates far above those experienced by fighter units (one Typhoon squadron suffered 100% casualties in an eighteen-month period). They were confident that any German tank they spotted was as good as dead, and they earned a considerable reputation for tank killing, with substantial claims being accepted. However, British operational research (OR) carried out at the time (but not publicised for obvious reasons) presented a more complex picture.

As the Allies were advancing, intelligence officers were often able to examine a battlefield shortly after an air attack, and what they discovered causes controversy even today. (Much of this section is taken from Ian Gooderson's "Air Power at the Battlefront", which explores this issue in great detail).

The evidence gathered by the OR teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews.

One source estimates that probably no more than about 100 tanks were lost due to hits from air weapons during the entire Normandy campaign. In contrast, the RAF's 2nd TAF (including elements of the Air Defence of Britain which took part in the campaign) and the USAAF's 9th Air Force lost over 1,700 aircraft between them.​

And on the subject of the accuracy of bombs and rockets:

In contrast, one direct hit with a bomb or 60 lb RP meant certain destruction for the heaviest tank. However, their accuracy left a lot to be desired. Even under practice conditions, the hit rate for the RPs against tanks was no better than 5%. This was graphically illustrated by a demonstration put on by Typhoons against a captured Panther tank placed in the middle of an open field, helpfully painted white with large red crosses on it to make sure the pilots could see it. Of the 64 RPs fired (launched in a typical steep dive at ranges of 750-900 m), only three hit the tank. In battle, RP accuracy was considerably worse than this, with the official British calculation of hit probability against a single tank being 0.5% (in other words, 200 RPs had to be fired for each hit). Furthermore, some 20 – 30% of RP warheads failed to explode.​

And:

Bombs were even less accurate than RPs. An analysis of Typhoon bombing attacks revealed that only 50% of bombs dropped landed within 120 m of the target, with an average radial error of 144 m. The absolute minimum safety distance from friendly troops for P-47s dropping bombs was about 250 m. The probability of dropping a bomb close enough to a tank to disable it was extremely small. Napalm bombs were used later to some effect, but were an even greater hazard to any friendly troops in the area.​

 

[Kruska]

Hello TW,

German records show a similar picture regarding attacks of Allied Ground Attack a/c's. The Alarm call; "Tiefflieger" (Low Level a/c attack) horrified many Wehrmacht soldiers to such an extent that even some tank crews fled their tanks upon hearing this, some got subsequently killed (being exposed) and therefore intact tanks were left behind.

Due to the massive destruction of soft/light armored vehicle columns, infantry formations, trains or artillery emplacements the alarm call "Tiefflieger" contributed largely to even panic reactions by many Wehrmacht formations, also due to the reason that the majority of the units deployed against the western allies were of inferior quality and mostly non-combat experienced.

Many undestroyed tanks were simply left behind, because the fuel supply trucks and the repair maintenance crews and vehicles had been destroyed during the attacks. Many tank commanders were inexperienced and simply lost direction, upon receiving information that bridges had been destroyed by allied ground attacks (only very few were able to support a 40t + tank in this period) especially in France, the tank crews were even ordered on many occasions to abandon their tanks.

Even though the a/c themselves were not particularly very successful in the "direct" immediate destruction of tanks, it would still be their overall battlefield contribution that in return caused the Wehrmacht to lose considerable numbers of tanks.

As such the western allies did not really have "tank buster" a/c but as I mentioned in another post, I would refrain from separating/dividing the mission task of Ground Attack into strafing and anti tank role.

As for the question; best Tank Killer I would still forward the Hs129 despite the argument of underpowered engines. It had about the same speed as the IL-2 but was far more maneuverable then the IL2.

I do not have much information, if not to say almost none, but I do not recall that the Hs129 suffered under allied a/c in the North Africa campaign more than a Ju87 or Bf110.

Regards
Kruska

 

[kool kitty89]

THe engines of the Hs 129 were also not that relable and (for radial engines) not very resistant to battle damage, however I agree that the 129 was a good design. (and the engines were a huge imrovement over the Argus ones)

And were still probably tougher than the the Stuka's liquid cooled engine. (which was a good deal slower with cannons than the 129) And the Il2's radiator and engine were placed in such a way and with such armor that they were not at a disadvantage to radial engines. (though the oil cooler was vulnerable, something solved on the much improved Il-10)

In fact I'd say the Il-10 was the best dedicated ground attack a/c of WWII, but it came too late to be of any significant consequence. (and if developed more with better engines I think the Hs 129 would still be better)

The Hs 129 is similar in many ways to the A-10 though, just an interesting note. (the "bath tub" armor plate surrounding the pilot, twin engines, heavily armored canopy heavy caliber centerline armament)

 

[Kruska]

Hello kk89,

NO, No, you got it all wrong: the A10 is similar to the Hs129 not the other way around

Regards
Kruska

 

[kool kitty89]

Well yeah...

I think the best wording would probably have been something like "the A-10 shares some notable feateres with the Hs 129"

But still in interesting note. (particularly the 'bath tub' armor)

 

[Kruska]

Hello kk89,

Yes you are correct about the "bathtub" idea, but somehow I do find more resemblance between the Northrop A-9 and the Hs129 then to the A-10.

The A-10 to me is a very unique a/c which no one had or ever designed to be so extremely effective in supporting CAS. I just loved to watch this destroyer during maneuvers, almost standing in the air whilst making a turn – really incredible
.
Regards
Kruska

 

[kool kitty89]

Yep.

 

[lesofprimus]

Gotta agree with everyone here except buzzard.... The P-47 was NOT a great tank killer, nor was it an accurate one... People uneducated on the topic usually pick either the Tiffy or the Thunderbolt...

 

[parsifal]

I agree that none of the Allied FBs were great tank killers, but they were still excellent ground attack aircraft. An awfull lot of soft skinned vehicles were destroyed by the allied FBs in 1944, which greatly reduced the combat effectiveness and mobility of German mobile formations. For example, I believe Lehr lost more than 100 soft skinned vehicles in its approach to Normandy in 1944, and that its mobility was reduced to about half.

Allied FBs might not have been great FBs in a direct sense, but as part of an all arms team, they were excellent, because they applied indirect inhibitors to the combat formations containing the enemy tanks

 

[Tony Williams]

Definitely: the P-47 and Typhoons were good ground attack planes, as I've said, and scared the daylights out of inexperienced Panzer crews, as has also been said. They made an important contribution to the general disruption of German army effectiveness, including Panzer units. But good tank killers....not.

 

[renrich]

Thanks for your very informational posts, Tony. I suspect that there are a number of myths about WW2 that don't hold up to close scrutiny. Fighter bombers may not have been effective against tanks but they sure were hard on the horses.

 

[plan_D]

It would be more accurate to say that the RAF and USAAF fighter-bombers were effective against the Wehrmacht's armour in a roundabout way. The destruction of communications and supply by the U.S. 9th and 2nd TAF caused severe disruption to the movement of German armour throughout the entire North-West Europe campaign.

I've always said that destroying enemy armour on the field is a last ditch effort; being able to prevent that armour reaching the field is the real success. The amount of tanks abandoned by panic stricken crews, or destroyed on their train journey, or left for lack of fuel, or out of position because of reduced mobility is really uncountable. The Allies should consider themselves lucky to have such brave men flying those vicious and deadly sorties into immense flak barrages on their side. And thankful that the Germans did realise how little affect the fighter-bomber really had on a tank itself.

Interesting note in Panzer Leader is Guderian accusing Rommel of being afraid of the Allied air forces. It seems that Guderian recognised the inability of Allied air power to destroy his armour in 1944... and it's taken 60 years and 20/20 hindsight for most other people to come to the same conclusion.

 

[kool kitty89]

P-47's fitted with HVAR's though would be pretty good. As a dive bomber or with the poor tube launched 4.5" rockets, not so much.

The F4U, being a particularly accurate dive bomber, was better in this, and as it was USN/USMC, it was using HVAR's much sooner than the AAF a/c.

renrich, was the F4U-4 the first production Corsair to have (main gear) dive brakes, or were earlier ones using them.

 

[plan_D]

I'm no expert on Korea but I believe the Allied forces recognised the failures of the current technology when it came to attack armour from the air. It's only logical to attack the supply routes to prevent several tanks from moving and shooting, rather than spending masses of energy on destroying one tank.

 

[kool kitty89]

True. (on the importance of the suply lines)

But the Corsair did perform anti-tank duties in Korea though.



And another nore on the P-47 was it did have some advantages ovet the Corsair in ground attack, considerable less vulnerable oil cooler(s), somewhat more damage resistance with all metal structure (in most circumstances) on F4U-4 and earlier.

However overall the F4U had better overall low-medium altitude performance than contemporary P-47's (particularly in maneuverability, and in climb)
And could carry a heavier payload (on -1D and later models).
And was a very accurate dive bomber. (perhaps the P-47 may have been with dive brakes, but probably not as accurate as the F4U, which was apparantly about as accurate as a SBD)

(use of Napalm and HVAR, are circumstancial advantages of the Corsair in WWII)

 

[JoeB]

I'm no expert on Korea but I believe the Allied forces recognised the failures of the current technology when it came to attack armour from the air.

The fighter bomber aerial weapons, tactics and results in that case were somewhat similar to 1944-45 in NW Europe: rocket/bomb/napalm equipped fighter bombers knocked out a pretty small fraction of what they were credited with, but in that case it was a fairly high % of all the NK tanks knocked out. However it was also similar in that attacks against other motor transport (including direct support vehicles for tanks) were a lot more effective, those support vehicles which quickly mostly wiped out. And, even if the planes overclaimed a lot, tanks moving around in any concentration in reasonable weather in daylight would still be overwhelmed. In sum, large-scale NK armor operations pretty much ceased about a week and a half into the US/UN intervention in the war.

The planes were probably somewhat more effective than Allied WWII fb's, using the HVAR (plus quickly deployed shaped charge versions of same), but circular error probable of such rockets were still pretty big compared to a tank. Napalm was used relatively more often than in WWII v tanks and that was pretty effective.

On other side, the Il-10 was only briefly used by the North Koreans in daylight against airfields and a couple of cases v UN ships: it just couldn't survive against the opposing fighters, and apparently didn't get any opportunities to attack UN tanks.

A lot of the foregoing stuff on WWII is very well gone over, though doesn't hurt to bring it up again. In the same somewhat redundant vein though, it doesn't seem as if there was the same level of operational analysis about the effectiveness of mainly gun-armed tank killing planes on Eastern Front, the type of analysis according to which we can fairly accurately criticize the real accomplishments of western Allied fb's as pure tank killers. A lot more of the German/Soviet accounts seem to come from claims of pilots. OK their heavier guns may been more capable of hitting tanks than rockets or of penetrating them than .50cal/20mm but doesn't mean they didn't also vastly overclaim (perhaps) fooled by the dust stirred up by near misses or by decoy smoke, or attack already dead tanks multiple times (that was clearly a big factor in UN v NK tanks case in Korea).

Joe

 

[buzzard]

I don't have time to make a reply, but I think this link may be of interest in relation to the accuracy of German aerial tank-kill claims.

Tank Busting Aircraft at Kursk - The Dupuy Institute Forum

JL