Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[KraziKanuK]

Yes Erich some 36000 Il-2 produced.

One has to be careful with what the Trinity, Udet, Huck and Kurfurst, have to say.

I assume you know that by the second half of 1943 the USAAF thought of perhaps bringing the bomber offensive to an end, due to the enormous losses.

The USAAF NEVER considered stopping the bombing raids. They considered going to night bombing as the British did. What they ended up doing was bombing targets within escort range.

Christer Berstrom of Black Cross/Red Star series of books:

"22 June 1941 - 1 July 1942, the Il-2 loss rate was a terrible 7.7 % (one lost in every 13 sorties)."

"Through 1944, a total of 4,100 Il-2s were lost in combat - compared with the 8,800 at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 47 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year."

"U.S. 8th AF: Through 1944, total of 3,497 heavy bombers were lost in combat - compared with the 1,686 heavy bombers at hand on 1 January 1944, i.e. the yearly loss was 207 % of the number of aircraft available at the beginning of the year."

Was the Il-2 loss rate that terrible in comparison?

posted by Denes Benard, author of many aviation books, on another board:

Year--Total Losses--Losses to enemy action--% of strength at hand
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1941--1,100--600--73.3 (54.5% of all losses)
1942--2,600--1,800--34.2 (69.2% of all losses)
1943--7,200--3,900--45.0 (54.1% of all losses)
1944--8,900--4,100--46.6 (46.1% of all losses)
1945--3,800--2,000--27.3 (55.6% of all losses)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 23,600--12,400--70.3 (52.5% of all losses)

.............................
as of 31 May 44

In Russia

Luftlotte 1

Stab/JG 54
I/JG 54
II/JG 54

Luftlotte 4

IV/JG 51
Stab/JG 52
I/JG 52
II/JG 52
III/JG 52
I/JG 53
III/JG 77
part II/JG 301

Luftflotte 6

Stab /JG 51
Stab Staffel/JG 51
I/JG 51
III/JG 51

393 pure day fighters (FBs not counted)
-----------

Luftflotte 3 (France, Belgium, Holland)

Stab/JG 2
I/JG 2
II/JG 2
III/JG 2
Stab/JG 26
I/JG 2
I/JG 2
III/JG 26

168 pure day fighters
--------------------------


Luftflotte Reich
Stab/JG 1
I/JG 1II/JG 1
III/JG 1
Stab/JG 3
I/JG 3
II/JG 3
III/JG 3
I/JG 5
II/JG 5
Stab/JG 11
I/JG 11
II/JG 11
III/JG 11
10./JG 11
Stab/JG 27
I/JG 27
II/JG 27
III/JG 27
IV/JG 27
II/JG 53
III/JG 54
I/JG 400

648 pure day fighters

So Udet is correct that most of the LW's fighters were used to combat the heavy bombaers, BUT Luftflotte 3 had less than 1/2 of what was on the Russian Front to defend France, Belgium, Holland.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by davparlr

It must have been like the Sherman tank. It was no problem for a Sherman to defeat a Panther or Tiger, all you did was attack it with enough Shermans and you were going to get it! To heck with loss rate.

Well when you put it that way, I will have to agree with you then.

[Udet]

Mr. Kanuk:

I will get back to you later on this.

Mr. Krazy, there is something in your postings that reminds me of Carlitos Jiménez Botella, Gennadiy Afanasevich Masulin, Viorel Simion, Plamen Apostolov, Chuck "Big Mac & Fries" Jackson, Syoma Svyatoslavich Akayev and of -the very famous- Frank Mboma.

[Erich]

a little different scenario sort of ...........

Loco buster with the Ju 88C-6

Udo Cordes

Oberleutnant
born 22.07.1921 in Dortmund

RK on 25.05.1943 as Leutnant after 150 combat missions and 41 locomotive kills

While Cordes is one of the most successful bomber pilots ("Der Lok-Töter") he is mentioned in this book as he was in combat with II./SG 2 "Immelmann" at wars end.

In spring 1942 he arrived at the Ostfront and flew successful missions with 4./KG 3 (shortly also with 6./KG 3) for what he was awarded the DKiG. In January 1943 he was transferred to the 9.(Eis.)/KG 3 under the leadership of Hptm. Fach. Here he developed his own attack tactics against the supply trains of the Soviet's, which he used to destroy 41 locomotives, 19 trains of which were 2 tank wagons and 3 ammunition. Under the worst weather conditions he shot up 5 locomotives on 08.03.1943 and under similar circumstances 6 locomotives and a complete fuel train on the 16.03.1943. Furthermore he destroyed until the KC award 11 tanks, 2 flak emplacements and achieved 2 aerial victories.

1944 until the disbandment in March 1945 he was Staffelkapitän of the 14.(Eis.)/KG3 where he achieved further successes. From 01.04.1945 until wars end he was with the Stabsschwarm of II./SG 2 (since 23.2.1945 (?)) as Adjutant) flying Fw 190. On 23.04.1945 he was shot down but took to his parachute to save his life. His last combat mission was on the 07.05.1945 near Dresden against Soviet tanks. On the 10.05.1945 he was POW with the Soviets who released him on the 02.11.1949.

In all he flew 296 combat missions as bomber and attack pilot and besides others destroyed 81 locomotives.

by the way Hauptmann Fach coverd in a magazine article shot up 63 Soviet locos with the Ju 88C-6 modified armament of 3 mg's and 3 2cm weapons

E ~

[Erich]

back on topic, concerning A. Korol I am now in touch with his Bordfünkers son from 1945. Hopeful this chap can add some interesting bits on Soviet tank popping soon from his fathers flugbuch and or his impressions

[Bullockracing]

I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons for the Brits, the P-39 for the Russians, the 190 with the 30mm underwing pods for the Germans, the Americans get the P-38 (surprise!).

No kidding, I would actually prefer to generate a sortie (as a CO) that would be a success as a mission with these aircraft. The traditional ground attack planes stereotyped for a tank-killing mission are under-performers compared to my picks, and generally (as mentioned before) really can't stop a heavy tank anyway.

I'm currently braced for impact on this one....

[plan_D]

The Hurricane IID/IV were no more survivable than the Il-2. While carrying the Vickers-S 40mm cannon the Hurricane was slowed down to such levels that it would be an easy target for the enemy fighters, and it was less armoured than the Il-2.
However, the Hurricane IV could carry rockets with four Hispano 20mm cannon. This would make it effective against the lighter tanks and any 'soft' targets. These Hurricanes had a lot of success in North Africa and South-East Asia, but were of little use anywhere else. No. 6 Sqdn. did keep it's cannon equipped Hurricanes up until the end of the war however, moving right up through Italy and the Balkans from North Africa.
For the British, you're better off taking the Typhoon. It can go into the combat zone, and leave the combat zone much quicker.

The P-39 was not suitable for tank busting duties. And it was never used in that role by any air force that used it. It's a common myth that the Airacobra was used in CAS with the VVS, but it just a myth that appeared after a misunderstanding of the Russian language.
The only "reports" I have heard of the P-39 being used to knock out tanks were from the American press reports about the Airacobra in North Africa. But this was the same "report" that stated the P-39 was prevailing over the Bf-109 in the theatre. Hardly something I take as a serious report.
Airacobra's were used in the ground attack role in most theatres however, when the oppurtunity arose. In most cases it was a low-level air superiority fighter that covered the advancing troops. The only place the P-39 was specifically sent to attack enemy ground or naval positions was in the PTO and CBI. It found a short-lived, but successful, role as a dive-bomber against Japanese shipping.
For the Soviet Union I would stick with the Il-2/Il-10. While unable to leave the battlefield quickly, it is an effective killing machine. The tactics surrounding it's survival, and it's fighter cover needed to be improved.

The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war. They had excellent armour values to protect their under-belly from low-calibre AA rounds, and retained the performance to handle themselves against enemy fighters. While not carrying massive cannons or rockets, these machines used properly could inflict massive damage on an enemy formation with proper tactics.

"Our task was to do all we could to delay the thrusts, to give the German ground forces time to improvise defensive positions to stop the rush. Wherever there was a hole in the front, it was our job to try to plug it. Our Focke-Wulfs were armed with two 13-mm machine-guns and two 20-mm cannon, which we used for strafing attacks. The bombs we used during these operations were mainly the SC 250 and SC 500 and also SD 2, SD 4 and SD 10 bomblets carried in large numbers of containers.
"When we found enemy units moving forwards unopposed, as a matter of policy we concentrated our attacks on the soft-skinned supply vehicles; these were relatively easy to knock out with machine-gun and cannon fire and we knew that without frequent replenishments of fuel the tanks spearheading the advance would not get far. If the enemy armoured units were actually in contact with our ground forces, however, then the tanks themselves were our main target."

Leutnant Werner Gail, III/SG 3 based at Idriza in August 1944. The unit was operating the Fw-190F.

Most ground attack planes would aim for the supply columns, and supply trucks. This made dedicated tank destroyers quite pointless in my opinion. But what sets the Fw-190F and G apart is the 5mm armour protection along the bottom of the plane, under the pilot and engine. Along with extra 6mm armour around the engine cowling.

Attacking enemy armour used a general tactic of approaching at 300 MPH, at 30 feet, and drop the bomb when the tank disappeard from view. This would either bounce the bomb into the tank, or smash straight into it. A one second delay would let the Fw-190 escape before the bomb and, hopefully, the tank explode. Then the Fw-190 would proceed to attack any soft-skinned targets with it's machine-gun or cannon, or if need be become a fighter. The Fw-190F and G are good choices for Germany.

The P-47 would be a wiser choice for an American ground-attack plane, or the Corsair. Both could carry bombs, and both were able to smash 'soft' targets to pieces. The P-38 would not be able to take as much ground fire as either of these planes.
There's so many US planes that could carry the ordance to deliver effective strikes against armoured forces. But I would go for those most survivable, and that would be the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO. The P-47D going into battle with two 500-lbs bombs under the wings would be a deadly machine to enemy armour, and the eight M2 .50 cal machine-guns would tear apart the soft-skinned targets. While the armour and air-cooled engined provided a lot of survivability for the plane and pilot.

My overall choice, however, is the Fw-190F.

[lesofprimus]

Originally Posted by planD

The Fw-190F and G ground-attack aircraft were probably the most effective GA planes of the war.

I agree 99% cause the Il-2 was extremely effective as well..

The Fw-190F and G, while not carrying massive cannons or rockets

Ummm.... Panzerblitz???

A lot of Fw190 F-8's were fitted with 24 2.16 in (55 mm) R4/M rockets, or 14 220 lb (100 kg) RBS B/F21 rocket bombs, or two clusters of 3 9.84 in (280 mm) WGr.28 rockets, or Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets in 2.16, 3.07 and 5.12 in (55, 78 and 130 mm) calibers...

For the British, the Typhoon... And the P-47 in the ETO and Corsair in the PTO

Agreed 100%...

[plan_D]

I didn't think the Fw-190F-8 used the rockets much, well not least compared to the simple SC 250 under the fuselage and four SC 50 bombs under the wings. They also trialed the SG 113A 77mm on the F-8, right? You know more about it than me.

[Bullockracing]

I am pretty sure that the Hurribomber could outperform the Il-2, given the comments in this thread regarding it's handling characteristics.

I have read comments in books from Russian pilots who have used the 37mm cannon on the P-39 to hit vehicles. Not as a planned sortie, but more as targets of opportunity.

The P-38 had the hard points to carry rockets, and the 39mm cannon had the punch to poke holes in light armor that the .50 cal didn't. If one round bounces off, so will the rest of the rounds behind it. On light armor, a .50 cal spray will do nothing other than make the vehicle commander duck under the hatch. A 37mm will punch holes in things that a .50 will not. No particular distaste for the P-47, but given the option of which one I think has the capability to do more damage to light armor, I would go with the P-38, just for the cannon.

[plan_D]

You stated; "I would go with the Hurricane with the 40mm cannons..."

This is not a 'Hurribomber' as the Hurricane to which you refer (Hurricane IID) could not carry bombs. The Hurricane IID while probably being more agile than the Il-2 was still nowhere capable enough to handle itself in a dogfight.
The 'Hurribomber' would be a more effective choice, but there's nothing a 'Hurribomber' can do that the Typhoon can't. And there's plenty the Typhoon can do which the 'Hurribomber' can't.

I'm sure the P-39 was used to strike vehicles, but it would not be an effective tank destroyer. Practically every fighter would have taken shots at ground targets at some point, this does not make them dedicated ground attack machines. The P-39 would be vulnerable to ground-fire, it was best suited as a low-level air superiority fighter.

The P-38 only carried a 37mm cannon in the P-38 and P-38D variants. The first major production P-38, the P-38E was fitted with a 20-mm cannon. And all P-38s that followed kept that armament. I never implied that the P-47 would be destroying armoured vehicles with it's .50cal, that would be the bombs job. While the P-38 could carry bombs and rockets, it's less survivable. The P-47 could do all the P-38 could in the GA role, and was more survivable. The bombs would destroy the armour, and the machine-guns could destroy the soft-skinned targets.
If the USAAF went by the rules of the Luftwaffe, if the enemy was not engaged with one's own forces, you would attack the soft-skinned targets as a priority. Making the P-47 more suited for the task.

[Jabberwocky]

The vast majority of P-38s carried a 20mm AN-M2 (Hispano II essentially), not a 37mm.

The only 37mm armed P-38s were those of the first few production batches, namely the 29 original P-38s and the subsequent 36 P-38Ds.

From the P-38E onwards the USAAF replaced the 37mm cannon with the 20mm.

The 23mm Madsen was installed on some of the prototypes (23x106mm, 175 gram shell, firing at 400 rpm), but abandoned as it had a low rate of fire and poor reliability, which is saying something after the trouble the USAAF had getting 20mm cannon to work properly.

[lesofprimus]

The P-47D carried 10 5" HVAR rockets, which demolished MANY a german tank... It was extremely armored and it's big *** radial could absorb massive damage and still get the pilot home...

The P-38 was not intentionally used as a tank destroyer.... Rockets were the preferred method for the Allies in the tank destruction department...

The 190F-8 excelled in tank busting duties with the Panzerblitz rockets, and in being the better platform than the others mentioned, deserved the top nod.... The Il-2 Type 3M had 2x 37mm high velocity cannon and provisions for 32x 3.2" (82mm) RS-82 rockets that made mincemeat out of many German armoured formations, and with adequte fighter cover, cut great swathes across the German lines...

Those 2 aircraft pretty much top the list of Tank Busters, with a couple of possibles (Me-262)....

[plan_D]

The Fw-190F is far above because of it's survivability , even when operating without fighter escort. The Il-2 was armoured and armed to the teeth, but unlike the Typhoon, Fw-190 and P-47 it needed heavy fighter escort to survive.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ill agree with you on that. I think the top 3 are definatly the P-47, Typhoon, and Fw-190. The Il-2 was good as well though.