Your Favorite Attack Aircraft of WW2, all sides welcome

[CharlesBronson]

There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs.

The underwing canons in the Ju-87 Gustav was not the infantry Pak 36 but the army antiaircraft gun 3,7 cm Flak 18.

The case in the Pak 36 is 250 mmm long and it is rimmed. The case of the 37mm Flak was 263 mm long and rimmles, more suitable for automatic fire.

BK 3,7 ( Flak 18 ) 37mm Anti-Tank Cannon
Weight of weapon: 272 kg (600 lb)
Length of weapon: 3626 mm (11 ft, 10.75 in)
Length of barrel: 2112 mm (6 ft, 11.75 in)
Muzzle Velocity: 795-860 m/sec (2610-2820 fps) 1170 m/s ( Panzergranate 40)
Rate of Fire: 150 rds/min
Weight of the complete round: 3.22 lb (AP-T, tungsten-carbide core), 3.12 lb (HE-T)

------


I going to vote for the FW-190F...but is not in the poll, so I go for the HS-129 B-2 with 37 mm gun.

 

[NAVAIR]

The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair

Although used as a ground attack aircraft in WW2 and Korea, I knew pilots who flew in both conflicts and they didn't have high regards of the Mustang in that role due to vulnerability to ground fire. Mike Alva (Col. USAF Ret.) told me when his unit started conducting sweeps in the Mustang he lost half his squadron...

I had a college instructor who flew the -51 in Korea; he said the same thing and preferred the F-80

I agree, the P-51 (F-51) was vunerable to ground fire. But, that's all that was available that could reach the combat area from Japan and remain on station for an extended period. F-80s had virtually no loiter time.

When interviewed, captured Chinese and North Korean soldiers pointed to the AD-4 as the most terrifying allied aircraft. It carried an enormous load of bombs and rockets and would loiter over the battlefield for hours. Of all the aircraft utilized for close support and interdiction in Korea, none was as feared by the communists as the Skyraider. Known to the enemy troops as the "Blue Plane", the sight of a flight of Skyraiders sent a wave of terror through the ranks.

My regards,

Navair

 

[NAVAIR]

There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs.

The underwing canons in the Ju-87 Gustav was not the infantry Pak 36 but the army antiaircraft gun 3,7 cm Flak 18.

Of course you are correct. Faulty memory on my part. I was thinking Pak 36 when it should have been Flak 36, and the Flak 18.

Thanks for correcting that.

My regards,

Navair

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair

Although used as a ground attack aircraft in WW2 and Korea, I knew pilots who flew in both conflicts and they didn't have high regards of the Mustang in that role due to vulnerability to ground fire. Mike Alva (Col. USAF Ret.) told me when his unit started conducting sweeps in the Mustang he lost half his squadron...

I had a college instructor who flew the -51 in Korea; he said the same thing and preferred the F-80

I agree, the P-51 (F-51) was vunerable to ground fire. But, that's all that was available that could reach the combat area from Japan and remain on station for an extended period. F-80s had virtually no loiter time.

When interviewed, captured Chinese and North Korean soldiers pointed to the AD-4 as the most terrifying allied aircraft. It carried an enormous load of bombs and rockets and would loiter over the battlefield for hours. Of all the aircraft utilized for close support and interdiction in Korea, none was as feared by the communists as the Skyraider. Known to the enemy troops as the "Blue Plane", the sight of a flight of Skyraiders sent a wave of terror through the ranks.

My regards,

Navair

My brother was in Viet Nam 67-69 with the 82nd Airborne. He told me when he called in airstrikes it was always a relief when he and the guys he was with heard recip engines....

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

You have pidgeon-holed the role of attack aircraft as tank busting

i have done nothing of the sort, i was talking about the hurricane Mk.IID, a tank buster, that is why i only spoke if it busting tanks, however it's ability to bust tanks makes it a better attack aircraft than the fighter bombers people are listing, simply because it is an attack aircraft not a fighter bomber..........

 

[plan_D]

This subject is wide-open, anything that could fly and carry guns could be an attack aircraft in NAVAIRs scope. The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents.

The Mosquito could carry more ordance than your list, NAVAIR, and it didn't need to fight it's way out. It was too fast for the German fighters - that was it's sole purpose, to be in and out before the enemy could react.

The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep. The P-47 would have to rely on it's solid build to smash it's way out, as it was only a real dogfighter high up.

The Spitfire could even be included, after all, the Spitfire 21 would maul any fighters in the area and go down to perform interdiction against the ground with it's four Hispano 20mm.

 

[mosquitoman]

By the end of the war, all combat aircraft with the exception of heavy bombers could be classed as attack aircraft so it depends what the attack job is. If it is knocking out a bridge, tank busting, trains, artillery emplacements, airfields etc. Each jo has different requirements

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair

No I just call it like I see it. If the kitchens too hot, get out.

I understand what you were trying to post but dont talk about an aircraft fighter qualities in a ground attack thread. The debate is how it did as a ground attack. That is what you said: The Typhoon was a failure as a fighter. I responded that this is not a fighter thread. Again I call it like I see it!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

to be honest i wouldn't call fighter-bombers attack aircraft simply because they're fighter-bombers noty attack aircraft! the IL-2 is an attack aircraft, the tiffy is a fighter bomber, the Hs-129 is an attack aircraft, the P-47 is a fighter bomber, that's just the way i see it........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I would pretty much agree with you on that.

 

[Gnomey]

I would pretty much agree with you on that.

Me too.

 

[CharlesBronson]

A picture just to make my point about the HS-129.

Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer checking his 23th tank kill mark in the tail of his Henschel Hs-129 B-2.

Ruffer was promoted to Hauptmann and eventually destroyed more than 80 russian tanks before being finally killed by the soviet AAA in 16th July 1944.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Henschel was a good design and a good aircraft it just had shitty engines. If they had put some DB's in there she would have been great.

 

[cheddar cheese]

Or Jumo's. Either way it would have worked.

 

[NAVAIR]

This subject is wide-open, anything that could fly and carry guns could be an attack aircraft in NAVAIRs scope. The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents.

The Mosquito could carry more ordance than your list, NAVAIR, and it didn't need to fight it's way out. It was too fast for the German fighters - that was it's sole purpose, to be in and out before the enemy could react.

The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep. The P-47 would have to rely on it's solid build to smash it's way out, as it was only a real dogfighter high up.

The Spitfire could even be included, after all, the Spitfire 21 would maul any fighters in the area and go down to perform interdiction against the ground with it's four Hispano 20mm.

This might be more productive if you weren't completely wrong....

P-51s were poor performers on the deck??!! Geez, someone should have told the Luftwaffe as they were of the opposite opinion. P-51C/Mustang III: 368 mph at sea level with 67 in/HG and 397 mph at 75 in/Hg or 25lb boost for Brits (150 octane avgas used after 5/44). P-51Ds were extremely potent down low... Please, do some research before posting nonsense. Take a look at how fast the Mustang was:

Much more data is available at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Mosquitos were 40-70 mph slower than the P-51D on the deck... Again, do some research. Typical of the FB Mk.IV: 312 mph (unloaded) at sea level, 378 mph at 13,200 feet. Fast for a bomber, but slow by fighter standards. Let's look at the late-war NF Mk.30: 338 mph at sea level, 424 mph at 26,500 feet. To avoid interception, Mosquitos had to fly high. Down low they were not difficult to chase down.

Invest in some reliable sources, because virtually everything you stated is incorrect.

As to the Spitfire F Mk.21, only 150 were built and they didn't deploy until about 30 days before the surrender. Might as well reference the P-47M, which was built in similar numbers and offered better performance than the Spitfire F Mk.21..... Oh, and it deployed before that model Spitfire did.

My regards,

Navair

 

[plan_D]

The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days.

And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...

It's all well and good that you've spent years reading up on aviation of World War II and how they performed. And discussed with your fellow historians in some university lounge about what coffee to drink, then about aircraft, then about the young new girl called Mariah that you'd "Oh so love to take to Starbucks to write a haiku with over maple nut crunch coffee while wearing a beret," - all nice ...but if you can't read someones post. Then why?

Again, where did I say the P-51 was slow? At any altitude?

And after you've read that, remember ...calm down, you'll live longer.

 

[NAVAIR]

The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days.

And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...

First operational sortie for the Spitfire F Mk.21 was April 10, 1945. Read the 91st squad ops sheet below. Go towards the bottom... first operational sortie for Spit F Mk.21 was? That's right, 4/10/45. Who needs a calender when you have the record in front of you? Research, Research!

You said, "The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents."

And....

"The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep."

First statement is baloney. Second statement is subjective.... Any aircraft caught low and slow would be in trouble. Mustangs were fast enough and handled well enough to be among the toughest to beat, even if caught under less than ideal circumstances. Also consider that P-51s usually operated in squadron strength... Anything German encountered was in deep bandini.

My regards,

Navair

 

[plan_D]

Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "deploy" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before.

The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190?

And, of course, the P-51 is operating in squadron strength. Safety in numbers, can't leave home without it.

By the way, the last post was better. At least you were attacking something I actually said.

 

[NAVAIR]

Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "deploy" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before.

The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190?

And, of course, the P-51 is operating in squadron strength. Safety in numbers, can't leave home without it.

By the way, the last post was better. At least you were attacking something I actually said.

From the DOD's Military Leadership Handbook...

Deployment:

(1) Act of positioning combat assets, battalions and smaller units in width or depth, or both, to increase readiness for impending or contemplated action. Postioning of units declared combat ready.

(2) In naval usage, the change from a cruising approach or contact disposition to a disposition for battle. Structuring naval forces for immediate engagement.

(3) In a strategic sense, the relocation of land naval and air forces to desired areas of operation.

(4) Designated location of troops and/or military units as indicated in a troop or jump-off schedule.

So, within the context of the above, both of us can find something to support an argument. I concur that use of the term "deployment" may too ambiguous. But the fact remains that Spitfire F Mk.21s were a non-factor in WWII. As for me, I'd rather be flying a Spitfire LF Mk.XVI or LF Mk.IX for low level attack missions, those things were monsters down in the tree tops.

At the risk of drifting even further off topic, I will briefly discuss the P-47-190 match-up.

As to the P-47 not being good on the deck... I disagree. In a fight between the typical Fw 190 of the 1944-45 period and and its counterpart P-47, I'd pick the Thunderbolt. This means the Fw 190A-8 vs the P-47D-28. Deck speeds are similar (351 mph for P-47, 355 for 190). Acceleration and climb are also similar. However, the 190 rolls faster. It needs to because the P-47 has a slightly lower wing loading at 47-48 lb per sq/ft vs 49-50 lb per sq/ft. Plus, the P-47 has a very useful flap system that has a maneuver setting that really aids in turning. on the other hand, the 190's flaps generate lots of drag and little gain in lift by comparison. The fact is that the P-47 can turn tighter circles and scrub speed faster while doing so, which tightens the turn even more. If we could find a 190A-3, then I might concede an edge to the 190, but A-3s were long since used up.

Bf 109s (say a G-6 or G-14 model) would be a greater threat than the 190. Better turn, climb and acceleration than both the P-47 and the 190.

Probably the best way to verify this would be via a simulation. However, you would have to have one with a correct physics model. Warbirds doesn't. Neither does IL-2/FB. Too gamy. The best flight physics in a combat sim can be found in Aces High. NASA Engineers from Dryden think so. In Aces High, the P-47D (either a -25 or a -40) holds the edge over the 190A-8. Not by a huge margin though, so the better pilot can still prevail.

So, I would say that the P-47D was able to match the 190 down low, and was better should the fight deteriorate into a turning contest. If we use the P-47M, the 190 is hopelessly out-classed. Nonetheless, while the P-47M was a much bigger factor than the Spit21s (it equipped the entire 56th FG), it was still a very minor player in the ETO (destroyed about 200 aircraft in air and ground combined).

My regards,

Navair

 

[book1182]

OK you two wimps, break it up!!! Let's get back to the aircraft. No body has said anything about the FW-190F. I think this was the ground attack version of a the very successful fighter. I would have loved to been in one of those. It would have to be up there with the Typhoon in the category of aircraft that could also dog fight.

What do you all think?