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

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.
 

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?
 
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.
 
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)
 
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)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
dennis420b said:
Could the have fit BMW's in place of the french power plants?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
German multiengine jet bomber best immune to Allied interception
Replies
0
Views
943
Vahe Demirjian
  • Poll
Which aircraft was the better Russian bomber?
Replies
5
Views
4K
GrauGeist
  • Poll
Best Lookin' Spitfire Mark?
Replies
4
Views
2K
CatTheCool
Menu
Log in
Register