The Best Anti-Tank Aircraft of World War 2....

Best Anti-Tank Aircraft in World War 2...


  • Total voters
    189

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

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion German troops called the IL-2M "Black Death". The silly nickname was surely the direct consequence of an efficient bolshevik propaganda job.

"Black Death"? Dying or getting killed in a war is, per se, something "black" enough in my view. For some odd reason the bolsheviks seemed to believe dying due to IL-2M attack should be "blacker" than dying, say, due to an artillery barrage or the rifle fired by a young guy herded from Kyrgyzstan to the front.

The top speed of the IL-2Ms and Stukas was nearly identical by the way...and do not forget the Stuka had a non-retractable landing gear which added to the drag factor.


Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.

I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.

I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.

Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.

Yup, that the soviets continued producing large number of planes during the whole war is completely true, but the human factor represented their main problem: they never recovered from the hammer delivered by the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942, nor had the timeframe and springboard to produce pilots with adequate training. They went through emergency after emergency, even if such emergencies were of different nature during the several phases of the war in the east.

From June 22nd 1941 until the end of the 6th Army in Stalingrad, it was mainly and mostly about survival, with some of the most crushing and horrifiying losses of men and material in the history of wars. Keyword here: SURVIVAL.

The first half of 1943 was a time when nobody could yet be sure of the outcome in the east; the Wehrmacht was far from being defeated, so the survival issue could not yet be erased from the soviet list of critical issues when the soviets were now confronted with a new emergency: the western allies had landed in North Africa (late 1942)...an emergency of political nature.

The political emergency in Moscow became increasingly critical in the same year: when the battle of Kursk was raging (summer 1943) the western allies landed in Sicily. Also there was the allied build up in southern England to launch Overlord.

During 1944, when the soviets launched "Bagration", and after its succesful termination -enduring losses as catastrophic as those of the Germans during such operation- they could finally remove the survival issue from their lists of concerns, but the political one remained critical and would only worsen.

The western allies had successfully landed in Normandy and were steadly advancing toward Germany. So the soviet command was hard pressed to advance as fast as possible using all material and human resources at their disposal.

They never had the time to properly train their pilots!

The Pokryshkins and their lucky pupils made very rare exceptions.

If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.

Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.

The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.
 
Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.

I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.

I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.

Adrian - I agree your thesis up to a point.

The point would be that the Ju 87 did not fly in the same threat environment as the B-24 and B-17. The mission was different, but at no time did the VVS ever match the local air superiority that LuftFotte Reich have over Germany in late 1943 to early 1944.

Taking the contrast even farther, even the B-29 would be obsolete against the Me 262 as it was in Korea for daylight mission against the MiG.


Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.

I do believe you. In my clumsy way I tried to contrast the effectiveness of the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in the East up to the end of the war versus their 'no factor' in the West.

I am aware of two situations in which Stukas encountered US fighters en masse - once in the East on July 25, 1944 near San River - when Jim Brook's 307th FS/315 FG spotted Rudel's Gruppe and virtually wiped out 2. and .3 squadrons, with Rudel's 15 Stuka's jettisoning their bombs and slipping away.

IIRC this was the worst single day for Rudel's Gruppe's in the east and it was inflicted by 15th AF, not VVS.

The second was one my father was involved in on June 6, 1944 when the 355th caught and wiped out 15 SG103 Stuka's on the way to the beach head. I am not aware that Ju 87s ever ventured into Western airspace again.


If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.

I certainly believe that, and offer the two examples above as rationale to support your statement

Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.

Once again we are in violent agreement.. and we could point out that they (contemporary German fighters) made life interesting for contemporary Allied Jabos.. and the reverse applied to the FW 190F.

But the F was effective in the West in contrast to the Ju 87 - and it was a very capable fighter in defense at low altitudes - which I think was the reason I ultimately picked that one. I would like my chances one on one better in that aircraft with a Tempest and Lightning being 'good enough' for me... but perhaps more vulnerable to infantry fire on the deck. And I liked its Fighter role better than a P-47D on the deck


The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.

I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.

I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority?

Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France

and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.

Which scenario has higher loss percentages?

Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17?

It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944

So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support?

Regards,

Bill

PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.
 
Bill,

During BoB the Bf-109 could only loiter for 15min over the UK before having to go home, that's why He-111, Ju-87 Ju-88's got pounded the way they did, they didn't have escorts. The Bf-109 did very well on its on though, acquiring itself a ~2:1 kill ratio.


I can agree with you and Dan on the FW-190F-8 though, I'd certainly choose it if I wanted to accomplish my mission with great success and then come home afterwards. However as a dedicated AT a/c nothing really beat the Hs-129 Ju-87, both proving extremel effective in the role when air cover was available.
 
I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

Bill, also i do not think of any significant improvements that could make the Stuka better than it was; there were some improvements made to the Stukas during war though. When the war commenced, the main version was the B. When the D version entered service there were some modifications made to the oil cooler and also featured a more aerodinamic shape, plus a new engine (Jumo 211-J), new propeller, plus extra armor and better defensive armament with the MG 81 Zwilling installed.


The only way to give Stukas higher survability would have been to have a larger number of JGs deployed in France and/or Low Countries for 1944. This, in my view, could have been attained had the Germans heeded my advice (8) ): disband all ZGs by the end of 1943 and most of the KGs -do not launch the futile Steinbock raids in the beginning of 1944!!-, convert the biggest number possible of bomber pilots to fighter pilots and revamp the aviation industry for producing single-engine fighters mainly. Also this would have saved them fuel enough to put the necessary number of single engined fighters in the air.


Agree with you: what changed was lack of fighter cover effectivenes. This is also the reason why i do not see the Stuka becoming obsolete. What happened was this dramatic change that clearly showed the conditions for proper combat deployment of the Stuka had ceased to exist in Western skies.



This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.


Already stated why i would not consider the Stuka obsolete, even if this line of reasoning is sound.

For example, the level bombing carried out by the fleets of B-24s and B-17s was everything but accurate (The claim the Norden bombsight could put bombs into pickle barrels could perhaps be the wildest and boldest marketing statement ever made by any manufacturer in history).


Many times it would take them several missions flown against the same target to effectively destroy it or to at least cause severe damage. When this was happening during the time there were no long range escorts you have to add the horrendous losses the bomber guys were enduring. Could we assume the fleets of B-17s and B-24s were not capable of fully performing their prime task?



I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority?


Excellent question there. With parity in air-superiority i am sure the Stuka can be as devastating as one can think. Surely they´d be taking some losses but with the proper presence of German fighters at least i´d expect them to be withing the sustainable range.

I recall reading somewhere of perhaps the rare cases when Stukas (of StG 2) had the chance to effectively dive and scream on U.S. troops in North Africa -Tunisia- in early 1943 flying in an airspace that was highly contested at the time, meaning the Luftwaffe had no air superiority attained, and the effect was devastating on US soldiers.


Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France

As i said, in this scenario the Stukas have a greater chance to reach their assigned targets and successfully perform their task.



and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.

Which scenario has higher loss percentages?


I couldn´t think of an answer to this Bill. As i said with parity in air-superiority the Stukas can reach targets and have them pounded, not without losses for sure. With fewer escorts for the timeframe you suggest i see a number of B-17s and B-24s still reaching their targets, taking losses as well, but here i would digress on the accuracy of bombing methods: level bombing was highly inaccurate while the dive bombing method of the Stukas ensured a greater accuracy.

I should not continue comparing Stukas against B-17s/B-24s. Too different things. But, there is an episode of the war, in Normandy, around St. Lo, where the fleets of heavy bombers were used to attack enemy troops, namely the elements of the powerful Panzer Lehr that was causing serious losses to the advancing U.S. forces. "Operation Cobra" was called. The very first time they attacked enemy troops was ridiculous, not only the Norden bombsight could not put bombs into pickle barrels, they bombed their own soldiers which got killed and wounded by the hundreds, including a Lt. General of the US Army killed by friendly bombs. It took them several days of attacks to effectively hit the enemy forces.

I know this is off-topic for the thread points to tank-killer planes, not that we´d see the B-17s of B-24s deployed in such role, but it was in my view necessary to get this into the discussion in an attempt to counter the notion of the Stuka becoming obsolete.

So, all in all, the bombing method of the Stuka was way more accurate. So if friendly fighters are present in the area in sufficient numbers, even with losses acknowledged due to enemy action, i see the Stukas hitting in a more effective way.





Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17?

It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944

So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support?


Well, it depends Bill...in an airspace where the enemy has a powerful presence of very capable fighters flown by competitive pilots and can not expect a sufficient number of my own fighters flying around, i´d go for the Fw 190 F hands down...but, if, on the contrary, the airspace even if contested, has a strong presence of my own fighters -not to speak of a scenario of complete air-superiority attained by my air force- i do not hesitate: lets dive and scream.

If it is true we had lived other lives before, chances are i was a Stuka pilot, possibly died during the war.




PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.

Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!) :lol:

Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!
 


Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!) :lol:

Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!

Briefly, here is the background.

Three sqaudrons of Rudel's Ju 87's were covering Model's retreat from Konev.

I did some more checking including Rudel's Stuka Pilot. His 15 ships were not attached to the other two squadrons, according to his statements on pages 148 and 149.

The Frantic III force was 76 P-38's from 82nd FG plus 56 Mustangs from 31 st FG plus some ships from 5th PRU. The mission was to attack Mielec Poland to destroy LW manufacturing and repair facilities. The two Fighter Group force along with the bombers from 15th AF landed at Poltava on July 22

On the 25th the two fighter forces were briefed to attack Mielec. It turns out that Mielec was also a base for Rudel's Gruppes. They found a motorized Wermacht column near the base and the 307th FS attacked Model's troops. Shortly after the strafing attack the 307FS encountered the 40+ Ju 87s attacking the Russian army and bounced them near Jaroslaw. They overflew Rudel and caught his other two squadrons.

Rudel's account places "300 Mustangs" in the attack. In fact there were a.) never more than two Groups of Fighters involved in any action for any Frantic Mission. On this day 16 Mustangs of the 307FS split up into two sections of eight, one flying top cover. The eight ship attack section claimed 20, were awarded 17, with Brooks, McElroy and Didear getting three each.

One flight each of the 308 and 309 FS caught 6 more scattering from the original bounce point.

What I find interesting is that even a pilot like Rudel would claim "Three hundred Mustangs" attacked when a.) only 56 were within 800 miles of that site, and only 24-30 actaully were involved in the fight. I have never fully understood this 'order of magnitude' overestimation - but then I was never there.

This is a common thread from many Luftwaffe accounts in the period when there were relatively few Mustang Groups combined in 8th, 9th and 15th AF


In Rudel's book he recalls this mission as the only time he jettisoned his bombs.

The soviet hosts at Poltava did not believe the claims until the reports filtered back from their front line units and much vodka was apparently consumed that night.

The final score for the missions flown between 22 and 25 July resulted in 40 air awards plus acknowledgement from Russians of nearly the same destruction of aircraft on the ground plus many vehicles shot up on the roads.

General Strothers made a formal offer to General Permonoff to arrange US tactical air support - but offer never acknowledged after that.

When you get squared away with an email address I will send you the article Jim Brooks wrote about this specific mission in the North American Retirees Bulletin, Fall 1944. Interestinly (for me) it also has an article written by Al White (NAA B-70 Test Pliot) about the Frantic VII mission my father led.

And yes they (wolfies) have 'diplomatic immunity' simply because of 'silent disobedience' which they practice with great skill and enthusiasm. They are far smarter and more agile than I am. We took 12 of 13 out for a long walk to our north creek and they bounced a covey of quail, chased a deer which went over the vineyard game fence (designed to keep deer out but 'failed design', tromped around in the vineyrad, and in general raised merry hell.

Hope you get over here so they can practice their begging on you!

Adrian, which one would you have picked as 'best'??
 
:idea: hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.:!:
 
No, it doesnt deserve mention in any thread besides Night Fighters....

OMFG, it had a cannon in the prop??? Which prop, the left or right hand one??? The first, second or third propeller blade???? (Its called a propeller HUB u Meatball)

WOW, amazing...... I guess it was the best tank killer with that cannon in the prop....
 
Bill Hello:

Sorry...for one moment i kind of forgot about this thread.

Thanks again for providing further detail on Rudel´s units meeting with USAAF fighters. Very interesting.

Now your question: as best i´d definitely pick the Stuka. When either air force enjoyed nearly complete air superiority the Stuka proved its full worth as perhaps the ultimate aerial method of destruction, and no other plane deployed in the tank-killing role came close to match the record of the Stukas.

With this i´d be referring to the Ju 87 D; even if the G-1 fitted with the 37mm cannons too proved successful tank killers.

Many people have said to me "but it was a very difficult thing to hit a moving tank with the bombs the Stuka was to launch during the dive". Perhaps. But who says it was necessary to put the bomb through the turret hatch of a tank to either destroy it or to a least knock it out, or to at minimum put the tank crew out of commission?

See some shocking evidence (already posted on another thread i opened):


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA09htDvr9s

Again i´d referr to the "Operation Cobra" launched by the USAAF to hit the elements of the Panzer Lehr around St. Lo during 1944. It took them nearly 2 days to finally hit the German units, not before killing, vaporizing and wounding a large number of their own soldiers. This operation involved more than 350 B-17s flying in an environment of nearly complete air superiority...and they simply could not find the mark, and when they finally managed to hit the Germans, losses of equipment due to the carpet bombing were not as disastrous as allied literature enjoys portraying. Yes, there was an allied break-through after the carpet-bombing, but a significant number of Panzer Lehr tanks and vehicles were still in service. Furthermore, from reports of some Panzer Lehr commanders it was clearly stated very few tanks were destroyed by the bombs of B-17s.


And do not forget that for this operation, there were also USAAF fighters involved attacking ground targets...that given the nature of the target (Panzer Lehr) a significant number tanks and other AFVs were around.

Had such a task been assigned to Stukas, and with air superiority similar or identical to that enjoyed by the allies over Normandy, it would have taken them Stukas half a morning to exterminate the enemy target, with way less resources invested. How do i substantiate this assertion? Very simple: consider the advance of the US/British armies through Normandy in mid 1944. Again and again, they enjoyed nearly complete air superiority and they had a seriously nasty time in gaining extra yards through their sector. How come? See the same case now for Germany: the advance of the Wehrmacht was utterly crushing and overwhelming even in weeks where the enemy air force was not yet annihilated (First months of Barbarossa in the USSR, or Poland, or France, or the Balkans, even in North Africa during the first months of Rommel). Hence the evidence the Stuka did not require anything like "complete air superiority" to successfully and brutally fulfill assigned missions.


Had the U.S. developed a plane similar to the Stuka, i can think of them having a more convincing and sound advance through Normandy during 1944.



So all in all, the Stuka is the best.

I have German guncamera footage of Fw190s and Bf 109s dealing with RAF fighters Tempests/Typhoon fitted with those aluminium rails under the wings for installing rockets...they seemed easy victims as well and exploded in huge fireballs.

None of the Allied planes deployed in the ground attack mode destroyed as many enemy tanks as the Stukas did; reading Niklas Zetterling´s works on the matter can be of great help to understand how overrated the P-47s, Typhoon and Tempests are when referring to anti-tank missions.

Huge delays caused to German armored units marching to the front were the main effects ever attained by those allied planes trying to hit German columns.


On another approach -off topic-, having read and studied a good deal on the Normandy campaign, Opeation Cobra being the issue here, helped me training my views Germany could have fared a far more wiser and more efficient aerial war against the 8th and 15th AFs.

The fact a formation of more than 300 B-17s was sent on combat mission to an area clearly identified and detected where enemy elements were blocking the allied advance (St. Lo sector), flying in skies that to a great extent were secure, meaning their side enjoyed nearly complete air superiority, and they could not find the mark, and when they finally did, other than severe disruption and negative impact on morale the Panzer Lehr was not put out of action speaks of the great inaccuracy in USAAF bombing methods.

(Even when fighting in the horror of Stalingrad, where positions held by soviet soldiers in many cases were no more than 50 meters away from German infantry units, when the Stukas were called and vectored to hit the target, there is no single report indicating the Stukas ever hit their own men, flying in a far more complicated battle environment; yup, given the distances and dimensions of that urban fight German troops too had to duck when the Stukas dived, but i have not come across one single report indicating Stuka bombs ever hit Wehrmacht elements even within a bloody city).

Instead of devoting the bulk of the Luftwaffe to Reichsverteidigung, a considerably larger number of German fighters could have been alloted to effectively support German ground forces in the west.

Fighting with almost zero air-support the German soldiers proved their excellence and preparedness on the battlefield. Think of a scenario where they can enjoy aerial cover.
 
You make good points Adrian. At the end of the day it largely depends on air superiority and the mission a tank killer had to perform (and when - in the timestream of the war)

And you will get no argument from me to consider the B-17 in this role - lol.

Regards,

Bill
 
Bill and Soren and Dan:

Why would you think the RAF/USAAF failed so miserably when performing the ground support role in Normandy?

The fact they had to call B-17s to deal with enemy armored units should be regarded as sufficient argument to counter the allied tales of P-47s, Typhoons and Tempests "wiping out" entire German armored columns.

My idea is that if the fighter-bombers of both RAF/USAAF had indeed been successfully performing their ground attack missions the bizarre idea of calling B-17s would have never been considered.

Niklas Zetterling´s works not only came to shatter this generally accepted allied versions....he also pointed to the fact losses of planes and pilots endured by both RAF and USAAF during those missions were way higher than losses inflicted on Panzer units.

I will understand the notion of different doctrines, but how come a military power such as the USA failed to acknowledge and recognize the brutal effectiveness of the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe symbiosis when on the offensive?
 
Bill and Soren and Dan:

Why would you think the RAF/USAAF failed so miserably when performing the ground support role in Normandy?

The fact they had to call B-17s to deal with enemy armored units should be regarded as sufficient argument to counter the allied tales of P-47s, Typhoons and Tempests "wiping out" entire German armored columns.

My idea is that if the fighter-bombers of both RAF/USAAF had indeed been successfully performing their ground attack missions the bizarre idea of calling B-17s would have never been considered.

Adrian - I need top be careful in how I position this argument. First, I am not sure what the criteria was/is for 'success' of the RAF/USAAF or even LW role in ground support.

I am pretty sure the Brits and Americans did not view the Fighter Groups as 'an artilliary barrage' but rather 'point or interdicting fire'. I rather think the Luftwaffe had the same view for the Ju 87 - namely an accurate and deadly system to destroy hard points and armor beyond the range of artilliary fire.

I am happy to be wrong.

But for the sake of argument, I would never believe squadrons of P-47s could pulverize a several square mile area and blugeon trrops (and armor) into submission. Theri highest and best use for me would be in the 'interdicting' role and full time hrassment of supply lines including light armor and trucks, plus the odd Tiger.

If we wish to take this to the extreme, only one US weapon system was Ever designed (effectvely) to destroy armor efficiently - the A-10 'Hog'


Niklas Zetterling´s works not only came to shatter this generally accepted allied versions....he also pointed to the fact losses of planes and pilots endured by both RAF and USAAF during those missions were way higher than losses inflicted on Panzer units.

Adrian - I am looking around to see if anyone in this dialogue is in disagreement - so far, No... lol.

I believe the Jabos true effectiveness was the harrassment of infantry and road and rail traffic - limiting manuever options for the Wermacht. If you have to wait for dark to manuever you have lost a lot of offensive capability. If you HAVE to move in daylight in columns or en masse - you are at great risk in these environments.

You aren't arguing with a passionate defender of the notion that Tempests, Jugs and Typhoons were Tiger Killers.. but I AM a great believer in their role as interdictors and punishers of ground troops. There was a serious reason that the Battle of the Bulge was initiated and fought for 9 days in terrible weather.


I will understand the notion of different doctrines, but how come a military power such as the USA failed to acknowledge and recognize the brutal effectiveness of the Wehrmacht/Luftwaffe symbiosis when on the offensive?

I don't think they underestimatedthe symbiosis. I do believe they cut out the effectiveness of the Ju 87 in that equation however... at least in the West from 1944 forward.

It might be an interesting thread to see what the worst days were for Ju 87 units... but June 6 with 355th FG at Normandy and Frantic III (July 25th?)with 31st FG in Romania are two possibilites. In both cases the units were severely punished and totally in effective.

I am not aware of another significant excursion of Ju 87s in the West after those two disasters..

Given a choice - I'll take the A-10.. BTW I get to fly the simulator at Davis Monthan AFB when we have the 355th FGA there in April. I am so looking forward to it.
 
Udet,

Here's something interesting about the American use of B-17's for bombing:


Interview with German FallschirmJäger veteran Heinz Puschmann who served at Cassino, Normandy and again in Italy:

"How did you view the Americans compared to the British?

Different; a different style altogether.

In what respect?

Because when the British fought, the same as the New Zealanders – they'd fight even if they didn't have air support. The Americans – if they didn't have air support, they wouldn't go. That was the same at Casino. When I was talking to that New Zealand captain we were saying that when the British planes came over, we ran for cover. When the German planes came over, the British ran for cover but when the American planes came over, everyone ran for cover!! Two thirds up the hill at Casino were Ghurkhas the Ghurkhas were nearly wiped out by the bombing. They missed Clark's (?) headquarters, they bombed so far back. When the British bombers came, they hit their target. It was different altogether.
"
 
Udet,

Here's something interesting about the American use of B-17's for bombing:


Interview with German FallschirmJäger veteran Heinz Puschmann who served at Cassino, Normandy and again in Italy:

"How did you view the Americans compared to the British?

Different; a different style altogether.

In what respect?

Because when the British fought, the same as the New Zealanders – they'd fight even if they didn't have air support. The Americans – if they didn't have air support, they wouldn't go. That was the same at Casino. When I was talking to that New Zealand captain we were saying that when the British planes came over, we ran for cover. When the German planes came over, the British ran for cover but when the American planes came over, everyone ran for cover!! Two thirds up the hill at Casino were Ghurkhas the Ghurkhas were nearly wiped out by the bombing. They missed Clark's (?) headquarters, they bombed so far back. When the British bombers came, they hit their target. It was different altogether.
"

Well, there is an objective statement.

I always knew American soldiers were gutless wonders Soren but it takes a pure bozo to make a blanket statement like that!.

Ask the same Prussian Gentleman if he was around Monte Defensa when the 1st Special Service Force kicked hell out of a couple of German battalions off the hill after scaling the 'unscalable' cliff.

How about Mussolini Canal when those same troops plus 2nd Battalion of 504PIR stopped the Germans dead in their tracks at Anzio every time they tried to break through.

What about St.Vith and Bastogne and Stavelot in the Bulge when there was zero air cover.

Why do you have to bring this kind of crap into this forum?
 
Wow! Easy there! I'm not the guy who said this, a veteran FallschirmJäger did out of his experience fighting the Americans at Casino. Also he never called the Americans gutless, he just said they wouldn't go unless they had air-support, something which isn't surprising considering who was holding the castle. (The green devils)

The American soldiers didn't demand air support to go anywhere, there are plenty of examples of that, and the Americans displayed just as much courage as all the others.

Now cool down Bill, it wasn't meant as a blow against the Americans, just an addition to what Udet said about the inaccuracy of US bombing.
 
To know which aircraft is the best tank killer, you would first have to know which anti tank weapon system is the best.

According to William/Gustin's book "Flying Guns" anti tank guns like the MK 103 with Hartkern ammunition had the highest succes rate. Armour piercing was almost as good as the modern GAU-8 carried by the A10.

Special anti tank bombs as the Soviet PTAB with hollow charge were, according to the Soviets, the best way to take out medium tanks.

Rockets used by Typhoons and P47's seemed to have been less succesful against heavy armour. According to British reports out of a 223 Panthers destroyed in 1944 only 11 were taken out with rockets. The tactical fighters on the western front seem to have been more succesful taking out support vehicles and hampering enemy supply lines. Furthermore most air to ground rockets had a hit probability of less than 10 percent (including British RP and German panzerblitz and panzerschreck).

If a big gun (30 or 40mm) would be the best, you need a stable gun platform. Take for instance a Hurricane IID with two 40 mm Vickers class S versus the Henschel HS 129 with one MK 101 or Mk 103. The first has a hit ratio of about 26 percent, the second a hit ratio of about 60 percent. The Henschel was a very stable gun platform because of its twin engine configuration. The Ju 87G was also quite stable because of its rigid thick wings.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back