Best WW2 plane for Ukraine today?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thumpalumpacus said:
Maybe a Jagdpanther with an 88 instead? Neither gun will take out a T-72 frontally, but side or rear, the heavier round might could matter?
Click to expand...
The StuG (both types: III and IV) were ine of the deadliest AFVs the Germans had in their inventory.

The heavies got the glory, but the StuG did the lion's share of killing.

Yes, it was armed with a 75mm, but being lightweight and only 7 feet high, it could get into tight places and lay in ambush, catching enemy armor point blank before they knew what hit them.
 

No doubt it was a great AFV and in its role worked well. I just wonder if it would stack up well against T-72s etc. I think they were deadliest because 1) in a defensive role, especially against American and British tanks, the gun was hot even frontally, and 2) the small profile made it easy to lay in ambush, as you mention.

My opinion: workable on the defensive, but I'd still want a heavier gun.

It's a shame the Jagdtiger was so mechanically unreliable, otherwise it could be useful in this what-if. That PAK 44 could dish out some shit.
 
GrauGeist said:
The StuG's main reputation comes from the Eastern Front, where it wreaked havoc on Soviet armor.
Click to expand...

Sure, but armor was different then. No ceramics, not such severe sloping, and so on. KWK40 was a damned good gun, but T-72s had armor designed to defeat 105mm rounds. The -40 could do 4" of armor at 100 yds, not sure that would be sufficient.
 
Last edited:
The StuG would be at a severe disadvantage vs the modern Russian tanks, but it would be quite effective against pretty much every other vehicle in the Russian inventory - assuming it was fitted modern thermal sights. And it could do a reasonable job as an infantry support vehicle with 75mm or 105mm HE rounds.
 
Keep in mind that the StuG also did not engage at long ranges, but closer (as in ambush) ranges.

It could defeat the sloping armor of the T-34 in that mode and I'm sure in a modern setting, a StuG crew would use their 75mm to best advantage against modern Soviet Russian armor.

All modern tanks have their Achielles heels and the StuG will find it.
 
You don't have to kill a tank or its crew to stop it.

Break the track with an HE round or scrub the external optics with HE or MG fire for example.
 
GrauGeist said:
The StuG rarely was mobile, it was the master of ambush.

They'd unleash hell on a Soviet advance, then reposition to best advantage and repeat.
Click to expand...
I've read many stories of StuG commanders describing disappearing into the brush while repositioning after ambushing Russian tanks. As noted, being so short, sometimes only repositioning yards away and then stopping to prevent brush/tree movement was enough to keep safe. Sort of like the E&E technique of piling your team into that one little bush only a rabbit would find roomy…
 
ThomasP said:
Maybe something like these (with modern sighting systems) for anti-drone work.
View attachment 699385View attachment 699386View attachment 699387View attachment 699388
Click to expand...
I don't think those were armoured fighting vehicles. Or armoured at all. Our AFV needs to be able to take direct enemy fire.

I suggest a flakpanzer would work. Flakpanzer - Wikipedia They were known for engaging both ground and air targets.



I also like the M18 Hellcat. Low, light weight, with a gun that can kill anything below a MBT and very high speed. While exposing the crew to small arms fire and grenades, the open top would also allow the crew to field MANPATS and MANPADS. The American lads below and their Ukrainian contemporaries would be cold though, with that same open top.



 
Last edited:

I love both the Tank Chats channel and flakpanzers.
 
Henschel HS 129 B-2 or B-3, and lots of disposable pilots.

Better yet, a whole production line of stringbags that are remote controlled or curtis Jennys. Something cheap that would either make the russians die laughing or maybe soak up a large portion of their air defense missiles. (Even a jenny could carry a 250 pound bomb, after all, and was probably cheaper to build than a modern drone too! Even today if you had the craftsmen you could make up a ton of these things pretty fast. Bolt any engine that would run and had at least 200hp and a Jenny would fly. Only needs to last say, six flights? (meaning built to last that long). Materials would be cheaper than building a comparable drone since there's zero hi tech other than the control interface. Non strategic materials list too. (unless you consider wire and cable strategic).

Best thing to do is swamp their air defense. Which is my beef about sending patriots. A million dollar missile to down a 40,000 dollar iranian drone? I sure HOPE they don't use them for that. Now if you could build a drone for say, 500 bucks that could haul an artillery round (sans propellent, just the warhead) that would be idea. But I'm sure you could make an RC aircraft out of wood and fabric that could motor along for 50 to 100 miles without spending a huge amount, especially if it's unmanned. Use an iphone or something for the main controller or a raspberry Pi or something. I mean, if they shoot it down the warhead will still go off, right? Of course if you really want to get nasty, V1 buzz bombs were cheap to make too. Not all that accurate, but hey, rain enough of them down in the general area and you'd hurt SOMETHING, same with the V2, though the V2 won't qualify as an aircraft, the V1 might as it does have wings! And even a V1 didn't cost a lot to build. But it DID have some range. And accuracy could be improved on the cheap today. Better yet a V1 with a payload, like a Mark 82 or 117 with a GPS kit on it. Get close, lob it out, then either return the V1 or use it and ram something else. All you'd need is a camera and a phone with GPS.

But for WWII aircraft themselves, I'd still go with the HS 129. The B3's had a 75mm cannon (sort of like our C130 in a weird way?). But the B2 was probably the best of the bunch using either the MK 103 30mm cannon or the BK 3.7cm. It might not take out a T60 but the top armor can be go thru like cheese with the A10's guns. With tungsten rounds and enough velocity? Yeah. And unlike the JU87G, the HS129 had plenty of room for additional ammo behind the cockpit.

Now a Mustang wouldn't be a bad bet either, or anything else with a multitude of Browning .50's on it. Or just buy up a ton of old cessna 172's and put bomb racks on them. You can get a 172 or a 152 pretty cheap and the useful load would put at least a 250 pound bomb on centerline. (or hang bombs off a cruise missile?) Either way, you'd need something cheap, rugged and that would run on the fuel available in UA right now. That pretty much nixes any allied fighter since the minimum was 110 and mustangs ran 150 octane fuel. At least the germans only needed 92 or so.

I would DEARLY LOVE, however, watching via video when a squadron of stringbags attacks the Black sea fleet in harbor at Sebestopol. say, 50 old swordfish with torpedos? I doubt they have that many ready AA missiles to fire. But the looks on their faces would really be priceless!
 
Jagdflieger said:
In that case I would opt for a "Flying Tiger" wing taking hold of the A-10 - should be enough to make the Czar crawl back in his weekend-house and feed his horse.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...
Only with uncontested airspace. While the warthog is pretty durable (having seen one tanker drug back home missing half a wing during the gulf war), if you REALLY wanted to make a statement. a full 24 plane squadron of B-52's would do wonders for morale, even if they didn't HIT anything. Just watching that sheer amount of ordnance go off is awe inspiring. (this coming from a B52G flying crewchief during Desert Storm).

Think the russians have bad morale now? Let's hit them like we did during desert storm. every two hours. Nonstop for a 2 week period. (and we were loading vietnam era Mk 82's and 117's during Desert storm too, right out of the magazines on guam)

Of course you'd need a pretty good landscaping crew when they were done, but hey, that's war!
 
Given the Russians are using remote controlled An-12s as a means of sucking up the Ukrainian AA missiles then the above is not as stupid as it may appear to some. The Jenny took a lot of manhours to build though so I would suggest something with a welded steel tube frame fuselage and a large diameter steel tube wing spar like Jim Bede used on his designs. As Beemer says in his Hs 129 post any engine, including liquid cooled, that can swing a large prop at low rpm will do for something that is disposable. Give it a large radar signature and it will only last one flight but it will destroy some SAM's in the process.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Somehow improve the engine performance and add some modern AP rounds and the 75mm armed Henschel Hs 129 might do well in Ukrainian hands.
Click to expand...
The problem with the B3 was a 12 round magazine. 75mm rounds aren't small. Not huge, but for an aircraft, not small. Now a 40mm Bofors? But the B2 wit the BK 3.7cm had plenty of room for ammo behind the cockpit versus the JU87G, which had only what the pod would hold. They originally wanted to uprate those engines to a Junkers Jumo 210. One thing you have to note is FUEL. No american planes will work simply because no 120/150 octane fuel is available ANYWHERE now in any kind of quantity. Germans used 92. Much easier to find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Were any British non-RR ww2-era aeroengines considered for land use?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
MiTasol
Making the best use of Jumo 211 series?
Replies
16
Views
836
mack8
M
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
[ww2] Ever smaller rockets for air fighting?
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
bf109xxl
Modern Jets in WW2/WW1
Replies
4
Views
883
GreenKnight121
Menu
Log in
Register