The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2.

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by I-16_SpB, Mar 19, 2005.

  1. I-16_SpB

    I-16_SpB New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ofcourse, it`s russian Il-2 "flying tank" :) [/img]
     
  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Naw - the IL10 was most certainly better :lol:
     
  3. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    Mossie MkXVIII or the Tempest
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Actuall - I like the F7F Tigercat :D

    [​IMG]

    It never saw combat (other than possibly attacking japanese subs) but they were stationed at Guam and flying patrols before the war ended. They were being saved for the assault on Japan but were actually ready for combat in the Spring of '45.

    1 x 2000 lbs bomb on the center station, 2 x 1000 lbs bombs on the inner wing stations, 8 x 5" HVAR's on the outboard wing stations, 4 x 20mm (200 rpg) in the wing roots and 4 x .50 BMG's (300 rpg) in the nose, and almost 400 lbs of armor in a 400 mph package (5.2 mins to 20K too!) is pretty hard to beat!

    =S=

    Lunatic
     
  5. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    mossie i'd say..............

    or hell even the lanc :lol:
     
  6. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    The Il -2 did it´s job for most of the war. It took terrible losses, but I´m sure it did succeed in knocking out more axis military equipment and personal than any other plane.
     
  7. Concorde247

    Concorde247 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LONDON
    Home Page:
    torn between Two: - Typhoon, Tempest
     
  8. DAVIDICUS

    DAVIDICUS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A-26B Invader

    [​IMG]

    Eight .50 cal's in the nose.
    Six .50 cal's in the wings.
    Two .50 cal's in the upper turret locked forward. (The plane in the picture has had its dorsal and ventral turrets removed.)
    THAT"S SIXTEEN FIFTY CALIBER MACHINE GUNS ON TARGET!

    PLUS

    Rockets or 2,000lbs. of bombs mounted under the wings.

    PLUS

    4,000lbs of bombs carried internally.
     
  9. hellmaker

    hellmaker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Ploiesti
    How about the Stuka or the Mitchell... They were hard to take down... The Michell had a hard shell, was manuvrable enough...It was the choice in the surprise atack against japan...
    The Stuka, though quite slow, it was considered terrifing by the english... The sound it made during a dive sent chills up human spines...
     
  10. Concorde247

    Concorde247 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    LONDON
    Home Page:
    The Stuka was a good weapon providing it had the advantage of air superiority however, the RAF blew the hell out of the stuka during the battle of britain, which is why it was hastily withdrawn from the battle after only a short time. The Hawker typhoon tempest were quite a handfull, And if either went against a stuka, then its bye, bye Stuka!!
     
  11. hellmaker

    hellmaker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Ploiesti
    Indeed...It would ahve been weak... But in the circumstances of a surprise attack(such as the Blitzkrieg) the Stuka has been used effectively and it's small size in comparison to regular bombers had made it perfect for small hidden aerodroms, being easily conceild beneath camuflage... It could operate from small landing strips close to the front...
     
  12. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    but is no match for decent fighter opposition.........
     
  13. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    Or indeed any fighter opposition, PZL-P11s were hacking them out of the sky in 1939
     
  14. the lancaster kicks ass

    the lancaster kicks ass Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
  15. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Which is why my vote is for the F7F tigercat, which was a match for enemy fighters and by far the superior groundpounder.

    =S=

    Lunatic
     
  16. cheddar cheese

    cheddar cheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    20,349
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    WSM, England
    And also was the first carrier fighter with tricycle undercarraige I believe.
     
  17. Gnomey

    Gnomey World Travelling Doctor
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Messages:
    41,790
    Likes Received:
    519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Doctor
    Location:
    Portsmouth / Royal Deeside, UK
    Home Page:
    Out of those that actually saw combat I would say the Invader; well armed with a good load. Of them all the F7F Tigercat seems (statistically) to be the best and a good package, so I would properly saw the Tigercat.
     
  18. DAVIDICUS

    DAVIDICUS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I thought the Tigercat had a 2,000lb bomb load capacity and not 4,000lbs. I also seem to recall that it had a really slow cruise speed too. (Something like 225mph) Perhaps I'm mistaken.

    The only combat Tigercats ever saw were as water tankers for fire suppression by the forestry service many, many years ago (unlike the A-26 which saw active combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam in addition to current use as a water tanker today)


    What ... me biased towards the A-26?
     
  19. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    But both only saw limited use in the closing months of WW 2 (the A-26 saw a little more). The P-47 would be a better choice in my eyes, it proved to be very reliable and it succed in its role (as the Il-2).
     
  20. mosquitoman

    mosquitoman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,990
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    student
    Location:
    Saffron Walden/Sheffield
    Home Page:
    The Tigercat say some service in Korea, the jet nighfighters were too fast to get the Po-2 biplanes known as bedcheck charlie's (they were sent over with their engine out of tune so it woke everyone up). Therefore they brought in the Tigercats to make mincemeat of them
     
Loading...

Share This Page