Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

Erich · 05-24-2006, 05:52 PM

the Jug and Stang were nasty Loco killers, have talked with many whom bagged them besidies the kills from 55th fg P-38's and other 9th AF groups. soft skin vehicles are not a real prob to flame up as photos and many cine films illustrate

Erich · 05-24-2006, 05:57 PM

a little story from F.B. of the 55th fg, who destroyed some 25 locos and 1 Me 262A

Major Ryan was leading the 343rd Squadron which was leading the 55th
Group and I was leading his second section of 8 aircraft. While watching
Giebelstadt Airdrome as we approached I saw these two take off and call
them into Ryan and requested permission to attack which was granted. My
old friend Don Penn was leading the 38th Squadron joined in quietly and
we got seven of the enemy aircraft as they were taking off and forming up
for a mission. Lt. O'neil broke formation on his own and just as I
started to fire he pulled up in front of me nearly getting himself
killed. He got some hits on the 262 and it showed a little fire in the
left engine which I later learned was from too rapid increase of the
throttles which flew out burning fuel as the engines had no fuel
controllers. O'neil would be killed breaking out of formation to do his
own thing a short time later. As for locomotives I preferred an attack
from the side or quartering from behind, but a head on would work ok with
the altitude being what ever you were flying at the start depending upon
how much flak you were getting at the time. We always went after the
loco first and then finished with the cars. One had to be careful with
the cars because they might be carrying explosives and blow up in your
face and maybe knocking you out of the air as sometimes happened.

Frank

lesofprimus · 05-24-2006, 06:10 PM

As I have found out many times while strafing Locos while playing IL-2.......

Udet · 05-24-2006, 06:19 PM

Erich, Hunter368 and Primus:

Note I did not include locomotives and train cars on my list, you agree on this?

I have seen the footage of locos and train cars getting hit too; trains are large targets and unless protected by tunnels, there is no way to conceal them. So if there is good weather trains are in trouble when attacked by enemy fighters, what´s new about this?

Not the same can be told about AFVs, for the German panzertruppe became masters in the art of camouflage in France during 1944; an antire armored column would "dissapear" from sight in seconds when alerted of the presence of enemy planes.

I digress: neither Typhoons nor Jugs were successful in hitting panzers, armored vehicles or trucks.

German armored units such as the 21 Pz. Div., Panzer Lehr and 12 SS.Pz.Div, as well as the s.Pz.Abt. 503 engaged the enemy during the Normandy campaign. Note that if the versions of all those frenzied Typhoon and Jug pilots returning to base after those "successful ground attack missions" have had just a few grams of accuracy, then the allied armies advancing further into France would have faced absolutely no German armored units, at all.

Now that there were times some of these units arrived late to critical points in the front -as a consequence of air attack- is true; that their panzers, armored vehicles and support trucks got hit heavily is FALSE.

Hunter368 · 05-24-2006, 07:29 PM

Udet,

I will partly agree with you and partly disagree. I agree that using a fight bomber (that does not have presion guided missiles or bombs at the time) to attack small armored units was not truly effective as it is today. Yes you would get some tank kills but few. You would have to nearly have a direct hit with a bomb to kill a tank. In Hans Ulrich Rudel autobiography he said you needed to land a bomb within (can't remember for sure off the top of my head) about 25 feet (I have the book in a box right now it could alittle more or less but that is close to the range) for a tank kill to be achieved. For a F/B to do that it would be hard. Their .50 or 20mm guns would have little to effect on a tank. So I agree with you that although F/B did achieve some tank kills they were not a efficient weapon vs the tank.

Now that being said. They were very effective vs softer targets, like trucks, open topped APC, horses (which were used alot still), men, trains etc. Yes air crews exaggerated their ground kills but it is no different then any other part of war. The "fog of war" causes incorrect numbers to be reported, but they did not do so anymore than anyone else in WW2. But their effects were no less real, meaning although they didn't kill everything they claimed they did kill alot of vehicles never the less.

Here is what Hans Ulrich Rudel has been credited with for ground kills:

519 Russian Tanks

1 Battleship

1 Destroyer

70 Landing Craft

800+ Motorized Vehicles

150+ Artillery -, Pak and anti-aircraft positions

Plus 9 air kills.

Do you think all those were "real" kills? I don't think so, but his effectiveness was still huge.

Quotations from Hans Ulrich Rudel :

"Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!"

"Lost are only those, who abandon themselves!"

In his post-war manuscript about the attack at Mortain von Gersdorff, the chief of staff of 7. Armee, wrote that the majority of the equipment losses had been caused by enemy air power. You will see the effect by is not little, most of those air losses were from Allied F/B. Here is the losses:

Bullockracing · 05-25-2006, 01:55 AM

If I'm following this all correctly, it appears that the machine guns or cannons actually mounted to the aircraft (in traditional means) has little or no effect on armor, and bombs or heavy rockets are required to "kill" even a light to medium tank. How much armor can the largest guns on each side penetrate?

lesofprimus · 05-25-2006, 06:15 AM

If u'd really like to know, go back and read both parts of this thread... We've went over this time and time again, including websites and graphs/charts that show the penetrating power of certain rounds....

Bottom line, either the 8lb rockets, the 37mm cannons that the Russians and Germans mounted, napalmn and to an extent, bombs were the primary air assault means of tank destruction..

Jagdverband 44 · 05-25-2006, 09:45 AM

JU 87G was a really good tank killer.

lesofprimus · 05-25-2006, 06:10 PM

And once again, it most certainly was, and is in the top 5 for best dedicated tank killing platform....

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-26-2006, 01:31 AM

as far as dedicated tank killers go where does the hurri Mk.IID go?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-26-2006, 07:04 AM

Hmmm that is a good question.

This is no order and maybe we can order them now together but lets see here are lets say the top planes for the job:

Ju-87G
Il-2
Fw-190F
P-47
Tiffy
Hurricane Mk.IID

Now lets discuss and decide what to elliminate and come up with the all time best or what not.

Gnomey · 05-26-2006, 04:16 PM

I'd agree with that list Adler. There is always the Hs-129 to consider as well although it was underpowered.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-26-2006, 04:21 PM

That is why I dont consider it. It was a very very good design and could have been extremely distructive had they just put some DB engines in it, instead of those damn French pieces of ****.

Gnomey · 05-26-2006, 04:29 PM

Very true! They did upgrade them later on but not enough DB's would of done the job or even some BMW 801's. The first version had two 495hp Argus (the second 2 Gnome-Rhone 690hp engines) how anyone thought it wouldn't fly like a pig with the amount of armour must of been an idiot...

lesofprimus · 05-26-2006, 06:37 PM

But the Hs-129 was an effective tank killer, it just had some crappy flight characteristics... It is one of my favorite planes, crap engines or not, and the pilots that flew them were some of the bravest and best ground attack pilots around...

And just to be specific, the 2 Rustsätze Kits to consider are the Hs-129B-2/R2 with 2x20mm, 2x 13mm, and 1x 30mm Mk103, the B-2/R3 with 2x20mm and 1x 37mm BK 3/7, or the Hs-129 B-2/Wa, which was the factory installed version of the above weapons...

Either way, it destroyed many Russian tanks, and I would rate it higher than the P-47, as a tank killer only...