Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (2 Viewers)

[Ramirezzz]

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].

you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.

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.
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.

the organisation, tactics and equipment of the ShAPs in the early 1943 were still unsufficient enough to provide effective teamwork with the fighter regiments of the VVS -that doesn't mean the aircraft as such was bad. I can mention even worser examples than Kuban - just take a look at the horrible losses on the Kalinin Front in 1942, where some of the ShAP's were replaced some two or three weeks after arriving to front.
The key element though was the air superiority - the Stukas performed as bad as Il-2 when the Luftwaffe couldn't achieve any - airbattles over the Dnjepr bridgeheads are just what comes to mind where some of the STGs were decimated by the VVS fighter regiments. So my point is the losses of any aircraft type in a single operation aren't good example to estimate its combat value.
Altough I must admit the early versions of the Il-2 were far away from being of really effective CAS aircraft indeed - in fact, it was underpowered, heavy beast with poor gun and bomb sights.

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.

please keep such insulting comments to yourself - nobody calls Bf-109 or Ju-87a "best refugee strafing plane" ,because of what your beloved Luftwaffe boys did on the Eastern front in much greater scale when it was Russians who retreated back to Moscow and Stalingrad.

 

[kool kitty89]

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

The problem was that the rail launched 60 lb 3" rockes of the RAF and the 4.5" rockets launched from 3-tube launchers ("tripple bazooka") were not very accurate and the launchers put a severe penalty on performance. (albeit not as much as cannon posd would) The HVAR used from "zero length" launchers and the Panzerblitz II (anti tank variant of R4M) were both more accurate and offered much less of a performance penalty, particularly after firing.
For fighter-bombers at least these are the best choice. For the P-47, F4U, or Fw 190.

But for dedicated attac a/c the cannon would be better, particularly in a centerline mounting as in the Hs 129. For a modern comparison look at the A-10. (GAU-8 30mm cannon) Granted this isn't a complete parallel but there are alot of similarities. In fact the Hs 129 is probably the best dedicate attack plane of these. It could have used some better engines though, and better development in general.

For the engined the RLM had forced Henschel to use "low priorety engines" so they firt went to the far too underpowered ~450 hp As 410 engines, and ended up using ~700 hp Gnome-Rhône 14M radial engines, but while much improved this still left somthing to be desired. (particularly at full combat load) As I mentioned on the previous page:
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.

 

[lesofprimus]

Agreed 100% KK...

 

[kool kitty89]

I know les, you said that already. I was just repeating it for parsifal's post.

And parsifal you should read the last 2-3 pages on it there are some good points on this. Also there's also this: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-anti-tank-aircraft-world-war-2-a-12055.html

 

[Udet]

you should know Udet these losses were caused due to the poorly planned and performed operation by the Soviets , in fact the whole idea of the preemptive air strike at Zitadelle was ill - fated from the very beginning.

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.
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.

the organisation, tactics and equipment of the ShAPs in the early 1943 were still unsufficient enough to provide effective teamwork with the fighter regiments of the VVS -that doesn't mean the aircraft as such was bad. I can mention even worser examples than Kuban - just take a look at the horrible losses on the Kalinin Front in 1942, where some of the ShAP's were replaced some two or three weeks after arriving to front.
The key element though was the air superiority - the Stukas performed as bad as Il-2 when the Luftwaffe couldn't achieve any - airbattles over the Dnjepr bridgeheads are just what comes to mind where some of the STGs were decimated by the VVS fighter regiments. So my point is the losses of any aircraft type in a single operation aren't good example to estimate its combat value.
Altough I must admit the early versions of the Il-2 were far away from being of really effective CAS aircraft indeed - in fact, it was underpowered, heavy beast with poor gun and bomb sights.



please keep such insulting comments to yourself - nobody calls Bf-109 or Ju-87a "best refugee strafing plane" ,because of what your beloved Luftwaffe boys did on the Eastern front in much greater scale when it was Russians who retreated back to Moscow and Stalingrad.

May i ask you to elaborate further on your comment St.Gs were "decimated" by VVS fighter regiments? Over the Djneper? When and how many Stukas were lost?

And i do not know if i should know the horrific casualty rate endured by the VVS during the Kurks battles of the summer of 1943 was the consequence of poor planning on the part of the Soviets...what i do know is the Luftwaffe did not stop slamming the VVS wherever they met until the OKL decided to send a significant part of the Jagdwaffe to the West.

I am very sorry but i do not think i will stop calling the so-called "Black Death" the "Top/Best refugee strafing plane of the war", a rigthfully earned reputation.

Also this is hilarious, are you suggesting an exodus similar to that of the millions trying to flee the advancing Red Army during late 1944 occurred in the Soviet Union as the Wehrmacht advanced further into the Bolshevik pond during 1941 and 1942 and that my boys took advantage of that to straf fleeing civilians as standard procedure [like the brave IL-2M flyers did during late 1944]?

How many documented cases you think you might have on my boys strafing Soviet civilians? Notice what you just posted there, that my boys "did on the Eastern Front in much greater scale...". What are those based on? Wait! Don´t tell me...Ilya Eherenburg´s Patriotic/Anti-German pitch?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Also this is hilarious, are you suggesting an exodus similar to that of the millions trying to flee the advancing Red Army during late 1944 occurred in the Soviet Union as the Wehrmacht advanced further into the Bolshevik pond during 1941 and 1942 and that my boys took advantage of that to straf fleeing civilians as standard procedure [like the brave IL-2M flyers did during late 1944]?

How many documented cases you think you might have on my boys strafing Soviet civilians? Notice what you just posted there, that my boys "did on the Eastern Front in much greater scale...". What are those based on? Wait! Don´t tell me...Ilya Eherenburg´s Patriotic/Anti-German pitch?

Actually Udet it is a known fact that from the Polish campaign onward there were plenty of instances of civilians being straffed by German aircraft.

When I get my book back from my friend I will give you the ISBN and you can check it out yourself. There are plenty of pics in it to prove it as well.

Fact is that it was done on both sides, so there is no need to try and church up your "boys"...

 

[parsifal]

The germans certainly strafed refugee columns in the west during the 1940 campaign. moreover it served a legitamte military purpose. Congestion of the road system brought military redeployment and manouvre on the allied side to a virtual standstill.

Even the terror bombings of places like Warsaw, Rotterdam (admittedly a mistake) and Belgrade had purpose. They were factors that brought wavering nations to the peace table

The ultimate terror bombing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can only be justified on that basis.

This is a very sensitive issue, and i dont have the final answer. This is the basic question....when is a target a legitimate military target???

 

[Tony Williams]

Guys
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

Guns are far more accurate than any unguided rockets.

There were two reasons why powerful guns for ground attack went out of fashion (until they were revived in the A-10, the MiG-27 and the Su-25). One was that a plane carrying a big gun was limited in its usefulness to ground attack only, whereas a fighter bomber with RPs could be used for a variety of tasks. Air Forces much prefer to have such flexibility (in contrast, Armies prefer to have dedicated ground attack planes supporting them, but they don't order the planes...). The other reason is that tanks were getting so well-armoured that increasingly big and powerful guns were needed to deal with them. The A-10's 30mm GAU-8/A is effective against tanks mainly because it uses depeleted uranium ammo, which wasn't available for a long time after the war.

 

[parsifal]

Thanks Tony, that does make sense, along with the fact that in WWII super heavy gun armament really adversely affected performance more than the launcher rails for the rockets.

I wonder if there are any records on the numbers of vehicles and trains shot up by rocket equipped FBs in France in 1944

 

[OGGleep]

The A-10 is my favorite aircraft by far. I couldn't imagine being in a ditch in some desert watching 2 circle in for their attack run on my position.

I imagine a C-130 would have the same "crap in my pants" factor only you probably wouldn't notice them until everyone around you starts imploding.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The A-10 is my favorite aircraft by far. I couldn't imagine being in a ditch in some desert watching 2 circle in for their attack run on my position.

I imagine a C-130 would have the same "crap in my pants" factor only you probably wouldn't notice them until everyone around you starts imploding.

Ever notice that the title of the thread is "Best Tank Killer of WW2"....

 

[OGGleep]

Yes someone mentioned the A-10 so I chimed in =)

 

[DauntlessDriver]

Hmmm... how about the Thunderbolt? Or are we talking specifically designed planes here?

If we're talking about specifically designed planes, then my vote couldn't be with the Stuka... good, sound frame, but without any fighters, it was target practice.

I'd have to go with the "Tiffy."

 

[kool kitty89]

The Typhoon wasn't designed for ground attack though, it just happened to fit that role very well, like the P-47.

And the only main problem with the P-47's anti-tank ability was not a design limitation, but the standard weapons. The USAAF's main ground attack rocket was the 4.5" rocket launched from bulky 3x cluster "bazooka tubes" which were inaccurate and performance degrading. The 5" HVAR were much better and could be launched from simple wing racks (Zero length launchers) which had almost no effect on performance, there were eventually fitted to the P-47, particularly the P-47N. The Corsair was using these much earlier though. (the NAVY being the major user of the HVAR)

And the P-47 was included in the Poll as well: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/best-anti-tank-aircraft-world-war-2-a-12055.html

 

[DauntlessDriver]

Ahhhh.... I undershtand now... I zink I'll go take an Adveel!

 

[Mitya]

The best tank killer Il-2 Il-10. И хикакин!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why dont you state your reasons why?

It is hard to start a discussion when someone just states that "said acft is the best".

 

[Mitya]

Why dont you state your reasons why?

Why? Just me. Ok?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Great conversation starter...

 

[Waynos]

I would choose the Typhoon due to its heavy armament of 4 20mm cannon plus rockets or bombs, heavy tough structure (just look at the thickness of those wings, how did Camm think he was designing a replacement for the Spitfire???) and 400mph top speed.

True, it wasn't designed specifically for the role, but if it had been, it should have looked exactly the same