Early ww2 airborne tank-busters what-if

[tomo pauk]

Basically - in what fashion the countries can have workable airborne tank-busters for the early part of ww2, ie. between 1939 and Autumn of 1942? Usage of existing aircraft and weapons is encouraged. But, if you fancy some other details - like the folding-fin rockets or whatever is ww2 technology - feel free to suggest it. If you think that only a specialized design will cut it, go ahead with suggestion. Copy something from other country, while allowing some time for the specified 'tool' to be produced by the end user.
For survivability, aircraft can rely on speed, and/or maneuverability, and/or on armor protection, whatever you like the best. Crewed by how many crew members you like.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Basically - in what fashion the countries can have workable airborne tank-busters for the early part of ww2, ie. between 1939 and Autumn of 1942?

In my mind the best tank-buster is a fighter that can engage and kill any opposing interceptors, rather than a slower twin-seater like the Ju-87 or IL-2 that relies more on air superiority. My top pick has to the Hawker Typhoon with four 20mm cannons and eight 3" AP rockets. We'll need to advance the 1943 date of the rockets to get within the Autumn 1942 window, but that should be doable. Even without the rockets the Typhoon of 1942 will crack many a panzer.

 

[fastmongrel]

The 37mm 1 1/2 pounder COW (Coventry Ordnance Works) gun was available prewar it fired a 1lb 7oz shell at 1950fps which should be able to deal with most if not all armoured vehicles in 1939/40

Its the 37x190mm round in the middle. Looks like it has greater case volume than the 40x158mm Vickers S gun ammo so could have the velocity bumped up.

A pair of guns could be mounted on a Hawker Henley as the S gun fitted the Hurricane.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Is there any tank of 1939 and 1942 that can withstand a 20mm cannon shell impacting its horizontal armour?

 

[michaelmaltby]

... possibility, 1939
Char B1 - Wikipedia

 

[Hardrada55]

Didn't the Heinkel He 112V6 (which was a 112A series aircraft) sent to Spain and equiped with a 20mm C/30L gun which fired the 20x138 Long Solothurn ammunition effectively destroy a number of armored trains and armored cars?

 

[fubar57]

I could only find mentioned an ammunition rail car, a Republican tank and three Republican armoured vehicles before the aircraft crashed and was written off

 

[tomo pauk]

For the RAF - Hurricane with two 1in (25.4mm) automatic cannon, the Vickers-Armstrong product that was used by Argentinian Navy as AA gun.
link

 

[fastmongrel]

For the RAF - Hurricane with two 1in (25.4mm) automatic cannon, the Vickers-Armstrong product that was used by Argentinian Navy as AA gun.
link

Certainly a powerful weapon but very heavy at 127kg/280lbs. Most likely a very heavy barrel for its AA role.

 

[tomo pauk]

For Luftwaffe - Fw 187 with 9 cyl radial engines and one (or two, if possible) 37mm Flak under the fuselage.
Although, a self-loading cannon using the Kriegsmarine powerful 37mm would've been better. Ditto for the 'automatized' 47mm gun from Czech factories.

 

[A.G. Williams]

Is there any tank of 1939 and 1942 that can withstand a 20mm cannon shell impacting its horizontal armour?

It all depends on the angle of impact.

 

[tomo pauk]

For the USAF - a 37mm piece with proper ammo, hopefully the APCR/HVAP. The 37mm M4 (on P-39 and -63) might've 'climb' from indifferent to half-decent with APCR ammo, although I'd try to introduce the 'Littlejohn' adapter & ammo here. The A-20 should do well with two 37mm AA gun spin-offs in/under fuselage.
For marines, perhaps the F4F with two 1.1 in guns, even better if the 37mm can fit under the wings? Although, the SDB/A-24 with 37mm has a nice ring to it, too.

 

[GrauGeist]

I'd think that the Whirlwind would be a good candidate for a 37mm cannon.

Early war tanks (across the board) were not as heavily armored as they were mid/late war.

 

[A.G. Williams]

For the USAF - a 37mm piece with proper ammo, hopefully the APCR/HVAP. The 37mm M4 (on P-39 and -63) might've 'climb' from indifferent to half-decent with APCR ammo, although I'd try to introduce the 'Littlejohn' adapter & ammo here. The A-20 should do well with two 37mm AA gun spin-offs in/under fuselage.
For marines, perhaps the F4F with two 1.1 in guns, even better if the 37mm can fit under the wings? Although, the SDB/A-24 with 37mm has a nice ring to it, too.

The US 37mm M9 cannon would be a better choice - much more powerful ammunition than the M4, it was a belt-fed and lightened version of the M1 AA cannon. It was fitted to the single P-63D for trials, but not adopted (although it did get used on some PT boats, as did the M4).

 

[Dimlee]

Was not the tank buster concept stillborn? We know today how inaccurate the "anti-tank" cannon fire was. Early unguided rockets were inaccurate as well.
Saying that...
probably twin-engined aircraft with central cannon of high muzzle velocity and armor-piercing ammunition would be the best of the worst, so to say. A proper balance of protection (read - armor weight) and agility is required. Something like Hs 129 but with better engines and cockpit layout and visibility. Speed is not very important since local air superiority is a prerequisite.

Other options. Not sure if they can be regarded as "busters"(my English skills let me down) but anti-tank weapons they are.
1. High-speed fighter bomber with anti-tank bombs/bomblets as the main weapon. Typhoon/Whirlwind/FW-190 with the Soviet PTABs? (PTAB was introduced in 1943 so I'm "cheating" a bit here). Yet again, the actual effectiveness of PTAB is still debated.
2. Accurate dive bomber with 250-500 kg bombs.

 

[tomo pauk]

For the Soviets - a fighter with 37mm cannon firing through the prop, suitably armored. LaGG-3-37 was one such fighter, even if it seems it was more used as a pure fighter, rather than a tank-buster. I'd also remove the HMG, and invest the weight saved in some armor plating.
Not sure whether the P-39 in VVS service could carry the Soviet 37mm, that could've been a neat set-up if possible. Remove the HMGs (and retain the wing MGs) if more space is needed. Same thing for the P-39 + British guns.

 

[P-39 Expert]

For the Soviets - a fighter with 37mm cannon firing through the prop, suitably armored. LaGG-3-37 was one such fighter, even if it seems it was more used as a pure fighter, rather than a tank-buster. I'd also remove the HMG, and invest the weight saved in some armor plating.
Not sure whether the P-39 in VVS service could carry the Soviet 37mm, that could've been a neat set-up if possible. Remove the HMGs (and retain the wing MGs) if more space is needed. Same thing for the P-39 + British guns.

Yep, gotta keep those 30 caliber wing guns, especially to use against tanks. (Sarcasm). At least that 100lbs of armor plate guarding the reduction gear might finally come to some use.

The Soviet 37mm could have been used if the mount was forward of the ammunition magazine, which was the normal place for it. The AAF 37mm cannon was mounted directly on the longitudinal fuselage beams, quite a sturdy and economical situation. Lots of room for more ammunition even with the twin 50cal MGs in the nose.

 

[pbehn]

Purely with hindsight, forget the Defiant, Whirlwind, Lysander and Battle, build lots more Hurricanes and have 15-20 squadrons each with 3 aircraft fitted with 2 x 20mm cannon and 4 MGs trained and solely for ground attack and army co-operation. However IMHO it wasn't the equipment available that was the problem so much as the tactics used.

 

[Shortround6]

Basically - in what fashion the countries can have workable airborne tank-busters for the early part of ww2, ie. between 1939 and Autumn of 1942

For the USAF - a 37mm piece with proper ammo, hopefully the APCR/HVAP.

Basically APCR/HVAP doesn't exist until 1941/42. Yes it was around in prototype form a bit earlier. But the British didn't get into making APCR shot for the 2pdr and 6pdr AT guns until 1943. Germans had little, (if any?) during the first months of Barbarossa.

APCR/HVAP increase the armor penetration by roughly (very roughly) 30%. this varies enormously by range. Better at very close range (thrown rock distance) and less at longer ranges until, with the smaller caliber guns the standard AP shot had better penetration somewhere between 500 and 1000 meters depending on exact gun/ammo. The Squeeze bore guns maintained the better penetration considerably longer.

for a quick method of comparing guns try calculating the Joules of energy per sq cm of target area. As in American 37mm aircraft gun 116,000 joules with a target area of 10.75 sq cm gives 10,790 joules per sq cm.
Hispano gun with a 130gram projectile has 50,000 joules of energy and just 3.14 sq cm of target area and has 15,900 joules per sq cm of target area.
Want to "bust" tanks with a P-39? yank the 37mm and fit a Hispano
For the US 37mm aircraft gun a 30% improvement on crap is still crap.

German 37mm guns on the Stuka had 208,00 joules (APT) so obviously much more energy per unit of target area.
The energy figures are at the muzzle (and gun stationary) so there will be some difference at range.



The Russian 23mm gun in the IL-2 had 77,400 joules for 18.650 joules per sq cm.
The British 2pdr tank and anti-tank had 392,000 joules of energy in one loading and had (at the muzzle) 31,210 joules per sq cm.
The Little John rounds had slightly less total energy but were concentrating it on a much smaller area, diameter of the projectile as it left the barrel was 30mm but the AP core was even smaller.

 

[Denniss]

Soviets used the big-cannon armed fighters in the anti-bomber role - easier to hit and some hits = gone. Not that easy to hit fighters with it