Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
First war when air power dominated tanks.
That's exactly what it is. I made some of the stuff when in army training. Pour fuel thickener or powdered laundry soap into a container of gasoline and stir it up. In a couple minutes it's ready for use. Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.
I thought flame throwers used diesel fuel as the accelerant?Flamethrower fuel uses less thickener as it must remain liquid to squirt through the hose. Napalm is more like jelly.
That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.Effect of Allied airpower against German armour extended beyond the simple number of vehicles destroyed
Don't forget how much fuel the german armor needed. Kinda hard to run your tank when the fuel truck gets its butt chewed off by a P-47.That always holds true when you lose control of the air. Simple tasks like fetching a container of hot food from the field kitchen, repairing field telephone wire and going to the latrine aren't so simple when everything that moves gets strafed. Being hungry, constipated and out of touch with higher HQ is bad for morale.
For sure the rocket armed Fw 190F was an inferior tank buster. Tests showed that the Panzerblitz was very inaccurate. However, they were more accurate than their allied counterparts due to the extending fins and the high velocity. Yet, the main problem with the Panzerblitz was that it used hollow charged warheads which were too unreliable as they would not impact at a steep angle.one thing 1st isn't Napalm similar to Greek fire if that is the case than it's even much older
Back on the subject. I've been reading all the pages of this thread, skipping the off topic stuff. I was wondering why is the FW190F-8 the best anti tank plane if it uses rockets to do it's job? There is enough proof that (allied) rockets weren't a real threat to German Panzer. So why is the FW rocket armed fighter than such a good tank killer?
Also the bad point of the IL-2 are these plane related or pilot related? I would say any big gun aircraft is probably a better anti armour platform than the rocket armed ones. With an OK training every plane can take out 1 tank a sortie maybe more. The rocket armed planes with their 0.5% hit rate need about 20 sorties per tank (assuming they cary 10 rockets each).
If I'm correct then the German Ju-87 and Hs-129, and IL-2 type 3M suddenly look much better.
Also the fighter bombers en route are very clumsy fighters, so when they encounter opposition they will need to drop their ordinance making them suddenly incapable of killing a tank. I don't know how rocket armed fighter bombers get rid of their rockets, but if they do not get rid of them they are hampered by their weight and drag during self-defence.
Best tank killer of WW2 would probably be the IL-2.
Honourable mention to the following:
JU-87 (Twin 37mm version)
Hurricane IID
Tempest
Typhoon
Beaufighter
Best tank killer?
T-34...