Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by CurzonDax

Okay, I is confuzed. So are you saying that because the modeler was German he/she messed up the Swastika on purpose? I do have a very basic knowledge of the anti-Nazi laws in Germany, which may have changed since them. Please explain.

:{)

No that is not what I am saying at all. I also am very aware of the laws of Germany because I was born and raised here in Germany. I just feel that if you are going to portray something with a historical sense, you should keep it as realistic as possible. Do not cover up teh swastika or mess it up because it was the symbol of the Nazis.

I am a WW2 German militaria collector and I do not remove the swastikas from my uniforms and equipment because of what it was used for. It is historical and needs to stay the way it is and be appreciated for the historical value that it has.

[SpitTrop]

Top 3 are Typhoon, P-47 and Il-2 Shturmovik. Of the 3 the Typhoon was reckoned to have the most firepower to bring to bear on a tank; 4x20mm cannon and 8x60lb rocket projectiles. More than the broadside from a destroyer!

[lesofprimus]

Top 3 are Typhoon, P-47 and Il-2 Shturmovik

To leave the Ju-87G's off that short list is damn near criminal, but I will agree with you concerning the firepower of the Tiffy....

However, we are talking armour busting, not ground strafing, so those 20mm are basically used to sight in the main tank busting armament, those sweet-ass 60 pounders...

If they could've only mounted 37mm pods on the Typhoon...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I go with the:

1. P-47
2. Tiffy
3. Ju-87G Stuka

[lesofprimus]

I dont think the P-47D was a better tankbuster than the Il-2 Type 3M with 2 X 37 mm NS-37 cannon....

I dont think rockets were better than cannon for tank busting...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ah thankyou I forgot the Il-2. Damnit. I would actually rate the Il-2 as the best tank killer overall anyhow. It was a tank and not very maneuverable or fast but she could pound out them tanks and relatively speaking was difficult to bring down.

[lesofprimus]

Difficult to knock down, TILL the Germans found its weak spot.... Then they started falling like leaves....

They put a rear gunner in there for a reason....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is true as well, Im just speaking in relative terms to an aircraft.

[lesofprimus]

Then I agree 100%...

[Gnomey]

Yeap. My top four would be:
IL-2
Tiffy
JU-87G
P-47D

[cheddar cheese]

Or Il-10...

[Erich]

ah but the P-47 and Tiffy were not so great German panzer killers, I posted some quite eluminating information quite lengthy actually on the Normandie campaign which clearly showed the US/RAF tanks kills were something to really seriously adresse............not good; it must be in some back pages or ?

the Il-2 proved to be a better MT killer than tanks. In fact it was a ground support weapon better suited to quick fast attacks by T-34's.

Still the Ju 87G's and the Fw 190F-8 did the work unparalled and sadly we still do not have much written about any German ground attack units nor their historical functions

hmmmmm, guess I am do to place some more German crew bios eh ?

E

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Looking foward to it. That is another aircraft that I forgot too though the Fw-190F-8.

[Udet]

Gentlemen:

The problem with the IL-2 can be approached following two patterns:

(1) Problems with the design itself. A slow, clumsy flying armored pig, uncapable of surpassing the top speed of the Stuka which had, for instance, a non-retractable undercarriage.

Also manouvering was horrible in the soviet design. One can understand the kind of nightmare dozens of thousands of USAAF airmen endured -and the countless psychiatric cases such missions produced- when they had to fly in those real large metallic tubes with wings, carrying several tons of bombs inside, knowing that you were slow and that manouvering was simply impossible: "what you will do is simple: fly straight ahead and learn to handle those .50 cals".

But when one knows manouvering was about impossible for a single-engined plane, which unlike the Stuka could retract its undercarriage, then perhaps you might consider re-thinking your views on the IL-2.

To make the long story short, the IL-2s never did come nowhere near in destroying the number of panzers claimed by the soviet department of mythology. The tale, however, does not end there. These soviet guys also portray the IL-2 as an "extremely efficient" destroyer of German fighters as well. (!)

In fact, and as Mr. Primus pointed out, the IL-2 got fitted with a rear-gunner, which of course provided the model with a minimum level of self-defense abilities.

That particular characteristic has been totally, overwhelmingly overhyped and overinflated. You can read things -hogwash- like "the rear gunner in the IL-2 came in as a nasty surprise for German fighters". I´d respond to that piece of jewelry "no ****!".

That some German fighters were indeed shot down by IL-2 defensive fire? Sure! So were RAF fighter pilots by Stuka rear gunners. The issue will of course follow a pretty similar fashion as in the case of panzers allegedly destroyed by IL-2s in huge numbers: they never excelled in that department.

The problem will rise to the surface quite pretty soon here though: if the massive boxes of four engined heavy bombers, each machine fitted with up to 10 .50 cal machine guns were doomed against the swarms of Bf 109s and Fw 190s, one can only wonder what made those mythologists believe the IL-2 could tangle with German fighters homing in for the kill.

The answer is simple: with or without a rear-gunner, the IL-2s are losers against fighters.

Yes, it was heavily armored, but there were other -more important- problems for German fighter pilots intercepting formations of IL-2s. Sometimes the IL-2s flew at very low altitude. Intercepting at such low altitude is always a dangerous task, but the danger of flying so low also affects the intercepted part and not just the intercepting side.

I have guncamera footage when you can clearly see many German pilots had a thing for aiming directly at the cockpit. At certain distance, the MG 131 on top of the cowling of 109s and 190s, and of course their cannons, did not have trouble to kill the pilot, sending the IL-2 to bite the ground.

Some films are even disturbing: images of rear-gunners turned into human torches jumping from their positions.


(2) Problem number two gentlemen: the kind of crews which flew the IL-2. This is the ultimate issue.

Hastily trained crews virtually uncapable of achieving anything significant, unless they got launched to the battle in massive numbers, as it was in fact done during 1944.

The very well trained crews of both the RAF and USAAF had a very rough time in hitting any German panzers. The question: what made these soviet propaganda boys believe their ground-attack crews were that good, or even better than those of their western allies?

I have met veterans who survived flying the IL-2 in the furnace of 1944. Horrible mutilations and stories. Accidents when landing were the rule. Crashings when approaching the battle zone at very low altitude were very common as well. One of them told me that he saw this crashings in absolutely all the missions he flew -by the way, a not very high number of missions: no more than 15, until his plane got blown out of the air by a Bf 109.

The nearly 1 ton of armor in the model was in fact very helpful against light weapons, when they were greeted by enemy troops from the ground. Not against Flak, much less against German fighters.

They told me that the greatest successes of the swarms of IL-2s were against large concentration of enemy troops, supplies and vehicle lines. Those were the occassions when they indeed inflicted horrible damage to the Germans.

Whenever they saw German panzers manouvering on the battlefield and the IL-2s appeared, hitting anything could be some sort of a dream. I asked abouth the so-called "circle of death" portrayed as some sort of "brilliant" tactic to approach German panzers from the rear, where their armor was thinner. Hogwash.

Many guys even resorted to smash their planes against German motorized columns!

The IL-2 will certainly have the Gold Medal for the most shot down plane of the war.

It is most unlikely the soviets could produce the number of IL-2s they did without the vital aid of Lend Lease.

As conclusion dear gentlemen, the combination of these 2 problems: a mediocre design and hastily trained crews makes the IL-2 an unlikely candidate to get the award of the best tank-destroyer.

It made a contribution to the soviet war effort; it was not a good tank-destroyer though.

[delcyros]

From what I have studied, neither the Fw-190 nor the P-47 have a chance to defeat any tank´s armour if it is in closed condition by guns. Their guns simply lack the penetration capabilities to do so. The Tiffy is on the barely edge to do so. Under some circumstances it will defeat f.e. Pz-III/Pz-IV armour at very close distance (sides only) on most it will not. The Ns-37 equipped Il-2, some Yak-9T with NS 37 (not US 37mm guns), the Hs-129 with MK 101/103 or BK 5.0/BK 7.5, the Ju-87 with BK 3.7cm and hypothetically the Me-262 with BK 5.0 cm are so far the only planes to put main battle tanks reliably out of action with their guns only. So either you put emphasis on bomb ordenance for tank busting or we start to realize that such specialized tank busting planes are better suited than our beloved Tiffy. Focke Wulf and P-47. My vote goes to the Il-10.