Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-26-2006, 07:08 PM

As a tank killer it is hard to rate anything higher than it, but those damn engines is what held it back.

lesofprimus · 05-26-2006, 07:09 PM

Yea, score up to the thread "What If..."

Gnomey · 05-27-2006, 06:13 AM

Agreed if it had had better engines it could of been a really good tank killer (not that it wasn't already).

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-28-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

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.

mmmm, whilst they did play a majoy part should we count fighter bombers? they racked up kills but with bombs and rockets, which can be dropped by most planes, they're hardly dedicated tank killers, and the simple ability to drop bombs/fire rockets doesn't make you the best tank killer?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-28-2006, 12:39 PM

I dont see why not.

the lancaster kicks ass · 05-29-2006, 02:06 AM

but do you see my point about with fighter/bombers it's the disposable store used and a lot of luck that destroys the tank, and almost any plane can drop bombs, but dedicated tank destroyers such as the -87G and IID are a different stories, very few planes could mount the guns they did and the destruction of a tank relies more on pilot skill and the actual aircraft............

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-29-2006, 05:10 AM

Yeah I see what you are saying. If anyone else something to add to the list that is fine.

lesofprimus · 05-29-2006, 05:27 AM

I agree to an extent too Lanc, although the Typhoon was pretty much in limbo as a fighter until the assault on the French mainland and the loading of those 8lb rockets that SOME people think didnt destroy a single tank during the Normandy invasion....

Dac · 05-29-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

I agree to an extent too Lanc, although the Typhoon was pretty much in limbo as a fighter until the assault on the French mainland and the loading of those 8lb rockets that SOME people think didnt destroy a single tank during the Normandy invasion....

I've had debates on other forums where people claim rockets weren't effective because of their low chance(something like 5%) of hitting the target. What they don't factor in is, one squadron of FBs carried almost 100 rockets which means you'll get about 5 direct hits in an attack and near misses are going to blow up any soft targets.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-29-2006, 02:04 PM

I am not saying that they were not effective at all, but I think they were more effective than people think. I think it depends on the type of Rockets. I know the R4Ms used against Bomber Formations but I think they would have been quite effective as well especially in the way that you are talking about Dac.

Dac · 05-29-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

I am not saying that they were not effective at all, but I think they were more effective than people think. I think it depends on the type of Rockets. I know the R4Ms used against Bomber Formations but I think they would have been quite effective as well especially in the way that you are talking about Dac.

The 3" rocket wasn't as effective later in the war but the 5" would take out a tank from the rear or side depending on the model. Panthers were vulnerable to this. I guess if the Luftwaffe had more aircraft availble for ground attack later in the war there would have been more use of rockets.

They still did pretty good with the underpowered aircraft they had. Somebody like Hans Rudel had to be very brave to fly day after day in an aircraft that many thought was obsolete.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 05-31-2006, 04:35 AM

Underpowered aircraft?

By 1943 they were useing Fw-190s for tank busting rolls and I call a Fw-190 hardly "underpowered".

Dac · 05-31-2006, 12:19 PM

When compared to the allied tactical forces the Luftwaffe's use of fighter-bombers was limited. They didn't have the fuel, planes or the pilots to spare for the effort that was required. So much of the Luftwaffe was occupied just defending the Reich. The Fw-190f was a good fighter-bomber, and was effective against tanks with it's 30mm cannon but their numbers were dwarfed by the thousands of Sturmoviks, Typhoons, Thunderbolts etc...in operation with the Allies.

I was was talking about the Hs-129 and Ju-87G, when I said underpowered.

Erich · 05-31-2006, 01:08 PM

the Fw 190F was armed with only two 2cm weapons not 3cm. there were numerous F's in production primarily serving on the Ost front where they attack hordes of Soviet tanks at will, this was the prime reason why the Ju 87D's were removed and transfered out to the night groiund attack gruppen and then the Fw 190 came into play with panzerblitz rockets. Again as i have mentioned over the last 2 years there really needs to be a book written specifically on the German ground attack units operating late war 44-45 Fw's as we would find that they indeed destroyed numerous Soviet panzers with rockets more so than any Allied ground attack a/c during the war.

lesofprimus · 05-31-2006, 06:07 PM

Quote:

there really needs to be a book written specifically on the German ground attack units operating late war 44-45 Fw's as we would find that they indeed destroyed numerous Soviet panzers with rockets more so than any Allied ground attack a/c during the war.

I agree 100% erich, and the many eyewitness accounts and a few interviews I've had on the subject substantiate this....

It would be a book I would definatly purchase, and speaking of which, when is the JG300 Vol 2 English comin out????