Single Engine Tank-Buster -Tractor or Pusher??
- Thread starter Piper106
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Despite the British reserve for 'Ground attack' types, preferring the less agressive 'Army Co-operation', a spec for a "highly manoeuvrable single-seat low attack aircraft for employment against military forces on the ground , aircraft, invasion craft and shipping" was issued without type number in 1942. The intent was to replace the Hurricane IID and was to be more heavily armed than the Hurri with either 3 x 40mm, 2 x 40 mm and 2 x 20 mm, 4 x 20 mm, 2 x 20 mm and 6 x unguided rockets, or 2 x 20 mm with a single 47 mm. 2 x 500 lb bombs as well as the armament mentioned. Maximum speed was to be at least 280 mph at 3,000 ft and an excellent forward view was essential.
The firms considered for tendering were second line ones and Cunliffe-Owen, Armstrong Whitworth, Boulton Paul, who submitted three very different designs to each other, Miles, Martin Baker and Westland submitted entries. Of those, AW, BP and Martin Baker submitted twin boom pusher designs, the latter naming theirs the 'Tank Buster'.
Ultimately the Air Staff considered that embarking on a new aircraft type was not worth the effort and that the Hurricane IV met the requirement adequately. The eventual use of the Mustang in the Army Co-op role and the advent of the Typhoon met the RAF's need for a ground attack aircraft. So much for existing types being less suitable compared to new purpose built designs. its worth mentioning the biggest proponent for ground attack within the RAF, Arthur 'Mary' Coningham had his own views about the British approach to GA/CAS, neverthelss, he became head of 2TAF and was one of the most respected RAF senior officers of the war - he was one of the few Brits (born in Australia, educated in New Zealand) in charge the Americans would actually talk to during Overlord!
The firms considered for tendering were second line ones and Cunliffe-Owen, Armstrong Whitworth, Boulton Paul, who submitted three very different designs to each other, Miles, Martin Baker and Westland submitted entries. Of those, AW, BP and Martin Baker submitted twin boom pusher designs, the latter naming theirs the 'Tank Buster'.
Ultimately the Air Staff considered that embarking on a new aircraft type was not worth the effort and that the Hurricane IV met the requirement adequately. The eventual use of the Mustang in the Army Co-op role and the advent of the Typhoon met the RAF's need for a ground attack aircraft. So much for existing types being less suitable compared to new purpose built designs. its worth mentioning the biggest proponent for ground attack within the RAF, Arthur 'Mary' Coningham had his own views about the British approach to GA/CAS, neverthelss, he became head of 2TAF and was one of the most respected RAF senior officers of the war - he was one of the few Brits (born in Australia, educated in New Zealand) in charge the Americans would actually talk to during Overlord!
I always liked Coningham,he had learnt his trade in the desert and knew what was needed.His barely disguised disdain for Montgomery can't have helped his efforts to develop CAS post Overlord,at least at a senior level. He was lucky to have more junior airmen,British and American who could get along with their Army counterparts.
Men like Air Vice Marshall Broadhurst (83 Group,2nd TAF) and Major-General Quesada (IX TAC) spring to mind.
Incidentally the Mustangs of the 2nd TAF were withdrawn from their fighter-bombing role in September 1944 to help provide escorts to Bomber Command who had resumed day light operations.
Whether they were viewed as the best escort or worst ground attack option is a moot point. It was probably a combination of both
Cheers
Steve
Men like Air Vice Marshall Broadhurst (83 Group,2nd TAF) and Major-General Quesada (IX TAC) spring to mind.
Incidentally the Mustangs of the 2nd TAF were withdrawn from their fighter-bombing role in September 1944 to help provide escorts to Bomber Command who had resumed day light operations.
Whether they were viewed as the best escort or worst ground attack option is a moot point. It was probably a combination of both
Cheers
Steve
Absolutely. I think he had more influence on the RAF's tactics for CAS than anyone else. He also understood how the relevant communications systems could be organised. His history as a station and then sector commander back in 1940 probably influenced this.
I think importantly he was always able to put the objective ahead of all the petty inter service rivalry that so dogged CAS operations at the time. The more senior the officers the more intense the rivalry. Sometimes it beggars belief.
To think that post war he would be C-in-C Bomber Command!
Cheers
Steve
I agree, a design from the ground up would be more effective, but that takes time and resources, and injects another logistic to keep up with. The P38/47/51 did a pretty good job down low, especially given their limitations inherent in a high altitude design.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I'll hazzard a guess designing a purpose built CAS aircraft would require fewer resources and time then designing B-29, B-32, atomic bombs etc.
The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't have a purpose built CAS aircraft because they didn't want one. It had nothing to do with resources.
The U.S. Army Air Corps didn't have a purpose built CAS aircraft because they didn't want one. It had nothing to do with resources.
- Thread starter
- #48
Well... GregP brought around to his thinking, I'm going away from the pusher design. For a 37/40mm cannon armed tank buster, I'll be taking the Piaggio P.119 or equal.
I say "or equal", because although the Italians are well known for art and beauty, to my eye the Piaggio P.119 is an ugly beast. Cutting the trailing edge away at the wing root doesn't help and the fuselage seems quite portly. Yes, I know building around a 1.4 meter / 55" diameter radial kinda mandates a thick fuselage but still I think I could have been done better.
However that design doesn't work for a 50/57mm cannon version, just cannot imagine a nose big enough to hold weapon that size. Still thinking on that.
I say "or equal", because although the Italians are well known for art and beauty, to my eye the Piaggio P.119 is an ugly beast. Cutting the trailing edge away at the wing root doesn't help and the fuselage seems quite portly. Yes, I know building around a 1.4 meter / 55" diameter radial kinda mandates a thick fuselage but still I think I could have been done better.
However that design doesn't work for a 50/57mm cannon version, just cannot imagine a nose big enough to hold weapon that size. Still thinking on that.
Shortround6
Major General
The U.S. Army Air Corps had "purpose built CAS aircraft". What they did NOT have were cannon armed anti-tank aircraft. NOT ALL CAS aircraft are cannon armed anti-tank aircraft.
Greg's beloved Skyraider was not a cannon armed anti-tank aircraft, in fact it was never a specialist anti-tank aircraft regardless of what it was armed with yet it is one of the greatest CAS aircraft of ALL time.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Killing MBTs with aircraft cannon was mostly a WWII German specialty and even they produced only about 1,000 such aircraft (Hs.129 and Ju-87G). If Germany had produced as many MBTs as USA plus Britain plus Soviet Union then Allied nations might have taken aerial tank killers more seriously.
Shoe was on the other foot during 1970s. Warsaw Pact tanks were more numerous then sand on the seashore. That's why the A-10 had a tank killing cannon.
Shoe was on the other foot during 1970s. Warsaw Pact tanks were more numerous then sand on the seashore. That's why the A-10 had a tank killing cannon.
Although based on the Mustang airframe, the A-36 was purpose built for the USAAC's needs; no other air arm that operated the Mustang used it. I would also argue against the proposition that killing tanks with cannon was mostly a German specialty; 6 Sqn RAF with its cannon armed Hurricanes didn't adopt the can opener as their squadron emblem for nothing (still used today)- a hoard of wrecked Panzers in the North African desert is evidence the Brits took attacking tanks from the air pretty seriously. Although unlike the Germans, the British didn't build a purpose built tank buster, the resources they had were used pretty effectively and, as I stated earlier, there was the attitude that what the RAF already had was sufficient to do the job - and it was; the Typhoon is an excellent example, rather than because it wasn't taken seriously.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Germany did not have all that many tanks in North Africa. So whose tanks were they destroying to create this "hoard of wrecked panzers"?
Dave, I guess it depends what you consider to be 'not that many'. I'm pretty certain Rommel didn't make his advances armed only with Kubelwagens and a handful of halftracks. I'm in the bathroom watching over my daughter having a bath so am not near sources, but of the tanks the Germans did have, 6 Sqn was cause for concern for them.
No. 6 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an interesting read.
BBC - WW2 People's War - My Father's Life in the RAF in 1941-6 and 1950-5
"In 1942, Roy was assigned to No.6 Squadron (known as the "Tankbusters" or "Flying Tin Openers"). The emblem showing a can-opener with wings was painted on the side nose of the aircraft. At that time the squadron was equipped with Hawker Hurricane MK IIDs (powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine) which was developed for low level attack against heavy armour, and had a 40mm cannon attached under each wing (the largest of its type attached to any aircraft at that time). Initial training with 6 Sqn. took place in the Sinai Desert east of Cairo, where new recruits would swoop on dummy tanks (some pilots lost their lives practising these tactics, diving too low crashing into the rocky sandy terrain.) On 23rd Nov 1942 dad had escaped one such crash, I have a photo of the wrecked upside-down Hurricane. They would practise flying at just 10 to 20 feet off the ground and some pilots joked about fixing bayonets to the wings for added effect!
Very few squadrons were equipped with Mk IIDs and although they proved effective, they suffered very high casualties in comparison to other squadrons; this was partly due to low flying tactics and the heavy armament they carried, which slowed them down considerably. They were used specifically for low level tactical bombing against heavy ground armour such as tanks, trucks and large guns, like the German 88mm anti-tank gun. The Hurricane IID was not used as a fighter aircraft, it was a 'Tankbuster' and the German Afrika Korps, for very good reasons, feared them. Not much else could penetrate the thick armoured plating of the German Panzer tanks."
No. 6 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an interesting read.
BBC - WW2 People's War - My Father's Life in the RAF in 1941-6 and 1950-5
"In 1942, Roy was assigned to No.6 Squadron (known as the "Tankbusters" or "Flying Tin Openers"). The emblem showing a can-opener with wings was painted on the side nose of the aircraft. At that time the squadron was equipped with Hawker Hurricane MK IIDs (powered by the Rolls Royce Merlin engine) which was developed for low level attack against heavy armour, and had a 40mm cannon attached under each wing (the largest of its type attached to any aircraft at that time). Initial training with 6 Sqn. took place in the Sinai Desert east of Cairo, where new recruits would swoop on dummy tanks (some pilots lost their lives practising these tactics, diving too low crashing into the rocky sandy terrain.) On 23rd Nov 1942 dad had escaped one such crash, I have a photo of the wrecked upside-down Hurricane. They would practise flying at just 10 to 20 feet off the ground and some pilots joked about fixing bayonets to the wings for added effect!
Very few squadrons were equipped with Mk IIDs and although they proved effective, they suffered very high casualties in comparison to other squadrons; this was partly due to low flying tactics and the heavy armament they carried, which slowed them down considerably. They were used specifically for low level tactical bombing against heavy ground armour such as tanks, trucks and large guns, like the German 88mm anti-tank gun. The Hurricane IID was not used as a fighter aircraft, it was a 'Tankbuster' and the German Afrika Korps, for very good reasons, feared them. Not much else could penetrate the thick armoured plating of the German Panzer tanks."
Last edited:
GregP
Major
The Piaggio is interesting, but was never developed. I wonder what it COULD have been? Certainly had the pedigree to be a good handling attack plane with adequate performance. There weren't a lot of dedicated tank killers and a CAS aircraft doesn't have to be a tank specialist to be effective.
My favorite Skyraider could put some hurt on a tank, and with 4,000 pound of ordnance in addition to the cannons, could CERTAINLY blow up a tank. They did in Viet Nam. The 20 mm cannons could cause damage to most tanks ... and not much to others depending on armor and the sheer weight of the parts. I guarantee that a big enough bomb can split any tank. Skyraiders could carry a big enough bomb.
However, if the thread is just about dedicated tank busters, and not general attack planes, then the list is VERY short and there are almost no players other than the dedicated tank busters. If we get to design a tank buster for WWII around a real aircraft availble or designed in WWII, I'd put tank-buster armament on a Skyraider and kick some tanks into treadless scrap heaps. It could do the job and still be able to do other jobs. The trick, for me at least, would be to pick the correct cannon for tank attack, not picking the right aircraft.
My favorite Skyraider could put some hurt on a tank, and with 4,000 pound of ordnance in addition to the cannons, could CERTAINLY blow up a tank. They did in Viet Nam. The 20 mm cannons could cause damage to most tanks ... and not much to others depending on armor and the sheer weight of the parts. I guarantee that a big enough bomb can split any tank. Skyraiders could carry a big enough bomb.
However, if the thread is just about dedicated tank busters, and not general attack planes, then the list is VERY short and there are almost no players other than the dedicated tank busters. If we get to design a tank buster for WWII around a real aircraft availble or designed in WWII, I'd put tank-buster armament on a Skyraider and kick some tanks into treadless scrap heaps. It could do the job and still be able to do other jobs. The trick, for me at least, would be to pick the correct cannon for tank attack, not picking the right aircraft.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
German KwK38 and Soviet VyA-23 could damage armored vehicles. I wouldn't count on Hs.404 cannon (i.e. USA M2) hurting armored targets.
By the time Skyraider was in service folding fin rockets were widely available. Not to mention cluster bombs. Hence aerial tank killers no longer require a powerful cannon.
I suspect most Desert Storm (i.e. 1991) fixed wing aircraft tank kills were accomplished with guided weapons such as Maverick missile. Are statistics available showing how many tanks were killed by weapon type?
By the time Skyraider was in service folding fin rockets were widely available. Not to mention cluster bombs. Hence aerial tank killers no longer require a powerful cannon.
I suspect most Desert Storm (i.e. 1991) fixed wing aircraft tank kills were accomplished with guided weapons such as Maverick missile. Are statistics available showing how many tanks were killed by weapon type?
Shortround6
Major General
Why?
Because they were British or American?
Muzzle energy of a 20mm Hispano round with 128-130 gram projectile=50,300 joules.
Muzzle energy of a German KwK38 round with 147 gram AP projectile=46,500 joules.
Muzzle energy of a German KwK38 round with 101 gram AP projectile=48,000 joules.
I am having a hard time figuring out why the German gun (never carried in an airplane) is a tank killer while the Hispano seems to be the equivalent of a marshmallow gun?
GregP
Major
Good question SR.
Below, the Q-factor is the Soviet Quality Factor (.5mv^2 * rate of fire (rps)/gun weight) and M is the Mass Factor (Mas output per second / gun weight)
The Soviet Volkov and Yartsev (VyA) 23 had a Q factor of 10.3 and an M (mass per sec/weight) of 26.6.
The Hs.404 had a Q-factor of 10.1 with the heavier projectile and an M of 28.5.
For the KwK38 I can get all the data except the weight of the gun, so I can't calculate Q and M.
The Q and M of the Hs.404 and VyA 23 seem to indicate they are just about equal.
Do you know the weight of the Kwk 38 L/55?
Below, the Q-factor is the Soviet Quality Factor (.5mv^2 * rate of fire (rps)/gun weight) and M is the Mass Factor (Mas output per second / gun weight)
The Soviet Volkov and Yartsev (VyA) 23 had a Q factor of 10.3 and an M (mass per sec/weight) of 26.6.
The Hs.404 had a Q-factor of 10.1 with the heavier projectile and an M of 28.5.
For the KwK38 I can get all the data except the weight of the gun, so I can't calculate Q and M.
The Q and M of the Hs.404 and VyA 23 seem to indicate they are just about equal.
Do you know the weight of the Kwk 38 L/55?
parsifal
Colonel
And the claim that 20mm British cannopn could not damage armoured vehicles is just palpably untrue. During the Korean war, RAN Sea Furies were credited with the destruction of 8 T-34s during their 3 months on active operations. Not many, i am the first to asmit, but then 20mm guns of any description are going to be hard pressed in the anti-armour role. Impossible, certainly not.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
