Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (3 Viewers)

lesofprimus · Dec 5, 2008

Rudels numbers were and are definatly compromised... How much so only Rudel knows... To say that they were "substantially" true just shows ur ignorance...

Propoganda is propoganda, whether its Russian, German, British or American... Rudel was a great Nazi and a great pilot, but he was Goebbels greatest propoganda tool...

Burmese Bandit · Dec 5, 2008

My statement on Rudel's 500 plus tanks is based on research, and also on this logic:

Let's say that Goebbel's propaganda machine DID want to provide hope to the home front and the German Army on the Eastern Front by providing a myth of the Aryan Flyboy superman who killed three (Russian) divisions of tanks all by his lonesome.

If so, why the disparity between Rudel and the next highest scorer, who killed a mere 100 + tanks? We don't see this disparity in the GAF where Erich Hartman with 350+ was closely followed by Barkhorn and others...

Or in the U-boat war where the tonnage claims of the top 5 aces were fairly close, too.

So why only the tank killers? Doesn't add up. Nah, I think Rudel's claims are substantially true.

kool kitty89 · Dec 5, 2008

Propaganda aside, in pretty much all cases, on all sides, claims (and "confirmed kills") tend to be greatly exaggerated (to varying degrees) when compared to official enemy losses.

And in aircraft tank "kills" in particular, a tank may apear to be hit when the round failed to penetrate the armour. (and even when a tank is hit, by cannon, RP, or bomb, they were often just temporarily disabled)

Burmese Bandit · Dec 5, 2008

Yeah, that's true. I believe the system used by the USAF today is mobility Kill, and Total K-kill....right? I think there are more categories than the two I just remembered...

lesofprimus · Dec 6, 2008

We have some experts on this site that confirm what Im saying... Rudels real numbers are far below his 500+... I love what he did with his 87G, the guy was unsurpassed, hellova leader, and most of all a survivor...

Clay_Allison · Dec 28, 2008

I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 28, 2008

I will have to go with the Fw 190F-8 for the same reasons you said. Besides it was a proven tank killer.

lesofprimus · Dec 28, 2008

The P-47 compared to several other tank busters listed here is a poor choice...

Venganza · Dec 28, 2008

Clay_Allison said:
I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

However, while you're lining up for your free kill, ignoring the 12.7mm tracers streaking past you from the IL-2's rear gunner, the Yak or Lavochkin escorting the Ilyusha blast your tail off. I'm talking post mid-1943, not 1941 or 1942 when the escort was poor or non-existent.

Venganza

comiso90 · Dec 28, 2008

Clay_Allison said:
I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

What is your P-47 armed with?

Rockets weren't as effective as a lot of people think and they're far less practical then a cannon.

As a convoy buster and interdiction machine, yes the Thunderbolt was a God along with the Tempest but it wasnt much of a "tank buster" compared to the rest.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 28, 2008

comiso90 said:
What is your P-47 armed with?

Rockets weren't as effective as a lot of people think and they're far less practical then a cannon.

As a convoy buster and interdiction machine, yes the Thunderbolt was a God along with the Tempest but it wasnt much of a "tank buster" compared to the rest.

Agreed

Looking at a realistic point of view, I think the best tank busters are:

Focke Wulf Fw 190F-8

Henschel Hs 129

Junkers Ju 87G-1/G-2 (obviously not great against other aircraft, but as a tank buster very effective).

Hawker Hurricane Mk. IID or Mk. IV

Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik

Clay_Allison · Dec 28, 2008

Venganza said:
However, while you're lining up for your free kill, ignoring the 12.7mm tracers streaking past you from the IL-2's rear gunner, the Yak or Lavochkin escorting the Ilyusha blast your tail off. I'm talking post mid-1943, not 1941 or 1942 when the escort was poor or non-existent.

Venganza

That rear gunner had no protection on the Il-2, my first burst would probably kill the poor bastard.

If he had escorts, that's different, with escorts the best was probably the Ju-87.

lesofprimus · Dec 28, 2008

If ur an Experten, u attack a Sturmovik from below and aim for his oil reservoir, thus ignoring the little pop gun....

Venganza · Dec 28, 2008

lesofprimus said:
If ur an Experten, u attack a Sturmovik from below and aim for his oil reservoir, thus ignoring the little pop gun....

That little pop gun was a 12.7mm Berezin heavy machine gun with HE shells. However, Clay_Allison is right about the vulnerability of the rear gunner position and Les, the technique you mention would work at a reasonable altitude (say, above 1500 feet or so?), but obviously is impossible at low altitudes (hard to come from below if the IL-2 is at 300 feet - at this altitude, the IL-2 is vulnerable to ground fire, but that's another matter). At more reasonable altitudes, even an experten would have to deal with escorts (again, I'm talking from 1943 on). To be effective, most ground attack planes, tankbusters or not, are going to need effective escorts in any well-defended aerial environment. The list Adler provides is a good list, and all those planes would need escorts, with the possible exception of the 190.

Venganza

Clay_Allison · Dec 29, 2008

Venganza said:
That little pop gun was a 12.7mm Berezin heavy machine gun with HE shells. However, Clay_Allison is right about the vulnerability of the rear gunner position and Les, the technique you mention would work at a reasonable altitude (say, above 1500 feet or so?), but obviously is impossible at low altitudes (hard to come from below if the IL-2 is at 300 feet - at this altitude, the IL-2 is vulnerable to ground fire, but that's another matter). At more reasonable altitudes, even an experten would have to deal with escorts (again, I'm talking from 1943 on). To be effective, most ground attack planes, tankbusters or not, are going to need effective escorts in any well-defended aerial environment. The list Adler provides is a good list, and all those planes would need escorts, with the possible exception of the 190.

Venganza

The 190 was a very good fighter plane, it would not have needed an escort. Fw 190s deserved a ton of respect.

Catch22 · Dec 29, 2008

Clay_Allison said:
The 190 was a very good fighter plane, it would not have needed an escort. Fw 190s deserved a ton of respect.

Not entirely true on the no escort part. If you're talking F-8s, they were much heavier armoured, and they generally were carrying large payloads, and had some of their guns deleted. While they would be able to put up a much better fight than a Stuka or an Il-2, they were not really a match for any pure fighter that was sent up to shoot it down. If you're talking As on the other hand, then no, it would not have needed an escort.

Venganza · Dec 29, 2008

Catch22 said:
Not entirely true on the no escort part. If you're talking F-8s, they were much heavier armoured, and they generally were carrying large payloads, and had some of their guns deleted. While they would be able to put up a much better fight than a Stuka or an Il-2, they were not really a match for any pure fighter that was sent up to shoot it down. If you're talking As on the other hand, then no, it would not have needed an escort.

I agree, Catch22. Clay_Allison is certainly correct about a fighter Fw-190, but the Fw-190F-8 was optimized for the ground attack role, which meant it wasn't optimized for the air-to-air role and might have had a hard time against a P-51D or an La-7, even after dropping its ordnance. As you say, it certainly would have handled itself better in air-to-air than the true bombers like the Ju-87 or IL-2. Adequate escort is still key to maximum efficiency for any optimized attack aircraft in a well-defended environment. Even if it's a capable fighter after expending its ordnance, it would need protection before and during its attack run.

Venganza

Clay_Allison · Dec 29, 2008

Venganza said:
I agree, Catch22. Clay_Allison is certainly correct about a fighter Fw-190, but the Fw-190F-8 was optimized for the ground attack role, which meant it wasn't optimized for the air-to-air role and might have had a hard time against a P-51D or an La-7, even after dropping its ordnance. As you say, it certainly would have handled itself better in air-to-air than the true bombers like the Ju-87 or IL-2. Adequate escort is still key to maximum efficiency for any optimized attack aircraft in a well-defended environment. Even if it's a capable fighter after expending its ordnance, it would need protection before and during its attack run.

Venganza

I'd put my money on the 190 (assuming it has already discharged its ordnance) against the La-7 on the calculated guess that the German pilot is competent and the Soviet pilot is likely to be a 16 year old farm boy who doesn't know his way around a woman, much less a fighter plane.

Catch22 · Dec 29, 2008

Clay_Allison said:
I'd put my money on the 190 (assuming it has already discharged its ordnance) against the La-7 on the calculated guess that the German pilot is competent and the Soviet pilot is likely to be a 16 year old farm boy who doesn't know his way around a woman, much less a fighter plane.

That is entirely false. The La-7 was an excellent aircraft at low levels, and by the time it entered service the roles (though still exaggerated), would have been reversed. The quality of the Russian pilots got better as the war went on, while late in the war the German quality went down due to attrition. Stating that a Soviet pilot is incompetent is just simply wrong. I could understand if we were talking early war, but we're not, as both the La-7 and Fw 190F-8 were late war aircraft.

lesofprimus · Dec 29, 2008

There were many MANY incompetent Russian pilots in 1945 Catch... The numbers that died totally oblivious to what was goin on around them is astounding....

I will agree that the overall quality of VVS pilots towards late44-45 had improved significantly

Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (3 Viewers)

Brigadier General

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Brigadier General

Staff Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Brigadier General

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Brigadier General

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Major

Senior Airman

Staff Sergeant

Major

Brigadier General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads