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

[Fokker D21]

Some forum members claim that a good anti tank plane should also include a reasonable chance of survival against other fighters. However a special purpose anti tank plane or even a fighter in the anti tank role will most likely always be at a disadvantage against a pure fighter.

Besides the biggest treat is anti aircraft fire and not enemy fighters for a ground attack fighter. Therefore good armour and redundant (reserve) systems are more important.

A twin engine airplane would be my favorite. I choose the Henschel 129. The only drawback it had were the not entirely reliable engines.

 

[drgondog]

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.

Out of curiosity, what are the comparisons between Hartkern ammo and the inert plutonium AP round for the A-10?

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 88G was also quite stable because of its rigid thick wings.

Why would a 'rigid, thick wing' have anything to do with stick fixed and/or stick free Neutral points with respect to Cg?

A 'rigid' wing would be of some benefit to reduce elastic deformation of the outer wing in high g mauever, and perhaps an 'early stall' but why else would it benefit stability as a gun platform?

 

[Fokker D21]

It has not so much to do with CG, but with heavy vibrations and recoil of such large cannons like the BK 37 which can have a great impact on the wings. The Ju 87 G with its stronger wings and heavier weight would be better suited for large guns than a smaller Hurricane.

Mounting the gun in the fuselage (or below) would however be a better choice. No harmonisation, a higher effective range and a more rigid mounting possible.

I made an error in my previous post, I meant the Ju 87, not the 88. My deepest apologies.

 

[Adolf Galland Fighter ace]

Like the Stuks mtself, just a workhorse and a great anti Armour platform from start to finish, it did pave the way for Blitz warfare so I amoung many other good ones give it my vote.

OT

Soren
Great OOB sig

 

[road_apple1861]

Im going to have to go with the P-47 thunderbolt, had a good airframe and could pack a punch

 

[kool kitty89]

Fitted with 5" HVAR's from "Zero length launchers" yes (like the Corsair used), but with the 3-tube 4.5" "Bazooka tube" M10 launchers not so much. These were much less accurate, less effective, and the launchers put a much greater performance penalty.

As RG Lunatic mentioned a long time ago on the other thread, Napalm was found to be very efective weapon against tanks, albeit gruesome.

Cannons are still the best, but put a heavy performance penalty and wing mountings are both inaccurate and put an even greater penalty on performance. THe Hs 129 was probably the best dedicated craft in that case, but development could have gone a bit better. (better engines especially)

 

[Burmese Bandit]

My vote was for the FW 190 F-8 (yes I'm a wurger fan) for the reasons already stated by wurger admirers above.

A question, though. Didn't the powerful recoil of the NS-37 distort the wing of the Il-2 so much that accurate shooting was problematical? (A problem not at all found in the thick and strong gullwing of the Ju 87 AFAIK)

 

[lesofprimus]

Ive heard the same thing before concerning the NS-37 of the IL2 as well Bandit... I believe theres some truth to it, but dont think it was problematical, just slightly more difficult to get the rounds on target...

 

[kool kitty89]

Also remember that the NS-37 fired a considerably more powerful cartridge than the Ju 87's BK-37 and did so at a much higher rate of fire.

In any case the Hs 129's centerline mounting would be the best for both stability and accuracy.


How do you guys think the US HVAR compare to the German Panzerblitz II (PB-2)?
Both were obviously superior to the preceding (USAAF) 4.5" rocket and while the British RP-3 had comperable performance to the HVAR and offered a HEAT warhead, it was mounted on the (unnecessary) bulky rocket rails rather than the "zero length" or "stub" launchers adopted by the USN (later USAAF) and only post war by the British. (I don't know if the RP-3 was fitted to US a/c on stub mounts durring the war)

The HVAR was considerably larger than the PB-2, I believe the velocity was similar (the standard R4M being somewhat higher), though the PB-3 had a HEAT warhead while the HVAR didn't have this until after the war. I believe the PB-2 was mounted in a similar fassion to the R4M with wooden racks of 12 under each wing. The HVAR was mounted on the "stub" launchers, 4 under each wing on the Corsair and 5 on the P-47.

The HVAR were launched in pairs, but I don't know about the PB-2. (the R4M were all luanched at once)

There was also a smaller 2.25" rocket similar to the HVAR, but I don't have much info on that other than it was mounted on the Hellcat.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

I have seen some reports on the accuracy, or let's say lack of it, of all WW II rockets...except for the R4M which I believe was more accurate due to its spin stabilization.

Who has comparision tables on average dispersion of rocket salvoes by different types of rockets at different ranges on the shooting range? And actual pilots reports on the accuracy of rockets in combat conditions?

 

[kool kitty89]

The R4M used folding fins for stabilization, albit with 8 fins rather than the usual 4. (4 fins also used in the post war FFAR interceptor rockets of the US)

 

[Burmese Bandit]

And were those R4M fins straight, or offset to create spin? I would like to know as I thought (perhaps wrongly) the R4M fins were offset.

 

[kool kitty89]

I found some refrences to spin stabilization, but none mentioning the fins. It would seem that the fins added spin as I found a refrence on the US 70mm FFAR which used folding fins used to for spin stasbilization. (again, 4 rather than the R4M's 8 )

Edit: I'm still not entirely sure on it. And on the post war US FFAR the spin rate was found to be insuficient for decent accuracy at range. (velocity was double that of the R4M and thus possible range is much farther) Possibly the 8x fins impared greater spin to the R4M than it did the FFAR.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Dang...I think I've got my facts tangled again (wouldn't be the first time). Am I correct in thinking that of all the air to air and air to ground rockets of WW II, the R4M was the best of a fairly inaccurate bunch?

 

[dennis420b]

The Hs-129b with any of the gun packages was just mean. It is exactly what you want in that situation.

 

[lesofprimus]

Almost, the engines that they provided for the 129's power plants were severely underpowered...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The 129 was certainly underpowered. More powerful engines and she would have been a true tank killer, ground support aircraft.

For me she is one of the most interesting and favorite aircraft though.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The 129 was certainly underpowered. More powerful engines and she would have been a true tank killer, ground support aircraft.

For me she is one of the most interesting and favorite aircraft though.

 

[dennis420b]

Could they have fit BMW's in place of the french power plants? And, did they ever consider a different power plant? Lord knows they considered almost every gun option possible. I love this plane but have very limited info on, other than the basics. Were they employed in wings, or more like the JU-87-G's? Who were the greatest exponents? Did Rudel ever comment on or evaluate them? Sorry for all the questions.

 

[Shortround6]

Could the have fit BMW's in place of the french power plants?

Probably not.

The French engines were low powered because they were small.

Less than a meter in diameter, under 420kg and just about 19 liters in displacement.

And since they were replacing the Argus 410 V-12s used on the prototypes that were 450hp, 11.9 liter engines of 315kg weight one has to wonder just how much stretch was left in the design?

Using BMW 132 9 cylinder engines would have upped take off power to 900-1000hp but also upped engine weight to 530kg and increased engine diameter by over 400mm causing an even more restricted view from the cockpit.
Using the BMW 801s (already in short supply for everything else) gives you a much heavier engine. Larger engines also need larger heavier propellers and installations.