The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2. - Aircraft of World War II

I-16_SpB · 03-19-2005, 05:22 PM

Ofcourse, it`s russian Il-2 "flying tank"

[/img]

03-20-2005, 01:59 AM

Naw - the IL10 was most certainly better

mosquitoman · 03-20-2005, 06:19 AM

Mossie MkXVIII or the Tempest

03-20-2005, 12:20 PM

Actuall - I like the F7F Tigercat

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

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-20-2005, 02:14 PM

mossie i'd say..............

or hell even the lanc

delcyros · 03-20-2005, 04:07 PM

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.

Concorde247 · 03-20-2005, 05:26 PM

torn between Two: - Typhoon, Tempest

DAVIDICUS · 03-20-2005, 11:36 PM

A-26B Invader

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.

hellmaker · 03-21-2005, 04:32 AM

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...

Concorde247 · 03-21-2005, 07:51 AM

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superiority however, the RAF blew the hell out of the stuka during the battle of britain, which is why it was hastily withdrawn from the battle after only a short time.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!!

hellmaker · 03-21-2005, 09:30 AM

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...

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-21-2005, 12:34 PM

but is no match for decent fighter opposition.........

mosquitoman · 03-21-2005, 12:35 PM

Or indeed any fighter opposition, PZL-P11s were hacking them out of the sky in 1939

the lancaster kicks ass · 03-21-2005, 12:39 PM

true...........

03-21-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

but is no match for decent fighter opposition.........

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

03-19-2005, 05:22 PM	#1
I-16_SpB Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1	The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2. Ofcourse, it`s russian Il-2 "flying tank" [/img]

03-20-2005, 06:19 AM	#3
mosquitoman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield Posts: 2,991	Mossie MkXVIII or the Tempest __________________ When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life

03-20-2005, 02:14 PM	#5
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	mossie i'd say.............. or hell even the lanc __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

03-20-2005, 04:07 PM	#6
delcyros Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg) Posts: 1,753	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. __________________ ---delcyros---

03-20-2005, 05:26 PM	#7
Concorde247 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: LONDON Posts: 519	torn between Two: - Typhoon, Tempest __________________

03-20-2005, 01:59 AM	#2
Anonymous Guest Posts: n/a	Naw - the IL10 was most certainly better

03-20-2005, 12:20 PM	#4
Anonymous Guest Posts: n/a	Actuall - I like the F7F Tigercat 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

03-20-2005, 11:36 PM	#8
DAVIDICUS Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 879	A-26B Invader 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. __________________ . -=DAVIDICUS MAXIMUS=- .

03-21-2005, 04:32 AM	#9
hellmaker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ploiesti Posts: 194	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...

03-21-2005, 07:51 AM	#10
Concorde247 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: LONDON Posts: 519	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!! __________________

03-21-2005, 09:30 AM	#11
hellmaker Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Ploiesti Posts: 194	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...

03-21-2005, 12:34 PM	#12
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	but is no match for decent fighter opposition......... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

03-21-2005, 12:35 PM	#13
mosquitoman Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Saffron Walden/Sheffield Posts: 2,991	Or indeed any fighter opposition, PZL-P11s were hacking them out of the sky in 1939 __________________ When you realise that the light at the end of the tunnel is actually an oncoming train, you know it's time to run for your life

03-21-2005, 12:39 PM	#14
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	true........... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode