Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by akdhc2pilot

The "best tank killer" was perhaps the little unarmed L-4 Cub that controlled the guns of an artillery battalion, and if needed could call in all the guns of a division.

I don't think that indirect artillery fire was any more effective than bombing - in both cases, there was a rather random distribution of munitions in the area occupied by the tanks, and unless the tanks were packed really close together, the vast majority would have missed.

I believe that by far the most effective tank killer was direct-fire high-velocity guns, whether mounted in tanks, tank destroyers or on wheels.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[Gimmeacannon!]

i'd take either a tiffy or Mk.IID hurricane...............

Mmmm.....and i wonder how the Mosquito would have faired if development had been continued with the 57mm Mollins gun,

[lesofprimus]

Not well, too susceptible to groundfire...

[the lancaster kicks ass]

because she's a twin? no more susceptible than the Hs-129 and she could absorb more than her fare share of damage, i'm certainly not arguing she'd have been the best of the war i just don't believe she can be eliminated so easily on those grounds...........

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

because she's a twin? no more susceptible than the Hs-129 and she could absorb more than her fare share of damage, i'm certainly not arguing she'd have been the best of the war i just don't believe she can be eliminated so easily on those grounds...........

The Tsetse (Mossie with 57mm Molins gun) was designed as a tankbuster, with extra armour to protect against ground fire. Even so, it would have made a bigger target than the Hs 129, and a more vulnerable one (liquid-cooled engines).

The RAF changed its priorities and handed the three dozen Tsetse made over to Coastal Command. I think that the reason was that they believed that dedicated, single-purpose anti-tank planes weren't the way to go: like the USAAF, they preferred to use fighter bombers which could use rockets against tanks and guns against anything else, and could take on enemy fighters on even terms. Unfortunately, this rather ignored that fact that the rockets were many times less accurate than guns.

In training, Typhoons managed a 5% hit-rate against tank-sized targets with RPs, compared with 25% for the Hurri IID and 33% for the Tsetse. In combat, the Typhoon+RP score dropped to 0.5%. I'm not sure what the Hurri IID managed, but the fall-off in hit rate would have been far less - judging by the records of a few engagements, they managed to hit just about everything they attacked.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[lesofprimus]

The Mossie was also made of wood Lanc, and the dual engines never entered my mind...

[CharlesBronson]

Originally Posted by Tony Williams

I think your sources are correct - there were other 30mm AP rounds used by the MK 101 in 1940.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

Thanks for your answer.

by the way I think that the very low rate of fire in the mossie 57mm and the tilted gun would made hit a medium tank extremely difficult.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by CharlesBronson

by the way I think that the very low rate of fire in the mossie 57mm and the tilted gun would made hit a medium tank extremely difficult.

They did test the Tsetse against a tank-sized target. They found that on a typical attack run it could fire four rounds, and that on average one out of three hit the target. So it could, in theory, hit a tank with every pass; allthough in combat it is unlikely that the crews could have done as well as that.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[CharlesBronson]

They did test the Tsetse against a tank-sized target. They found that on a typical attack run it could fire four rounds, and that on average one out of three hit the target. So it could, in theory, hit a tank with every pass; allthough in combat it is unlikely that the crews could have done as well as that

Four ? it seems very optimist , the gunsight armonization whit this emplacement must be hellish.





By the way, I had posted the information you ask about the Mauser gun in the other forum.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by CharlesBronson

Four ? it seems very optimist , the gunsight armonization whit this emplacement must be hellish.

It isn't as bad as it looks - the nose of the Mosquito is sweeping upwards at the point where the gun muzzle protrudes, so it isn't angled downwards in the way that it appears.

By the way, I had posted the information you ask about the Mauser gun in the other forum.

Which one?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

The Mossie was also made of wood Lanc, and the dual engines never entered my mind...

what's that got to do with the price of milk? she proved time and time again that she could absorb masses of damage and make it home, the twin engines adding further reliability..........

[lesofprimus]

Masses of damage??? Comeon dude.... There is no way in Sam Hell that a Mossie could ever take near the amount of punishment that the Hs 129 could take....

And the fact that its made with wood is a very important fact when concerning ground attack missions...

[Hunter368]

"Sam Hell" I have not heard that one in a long time. Oldie but a goodie.

[CharlesBronson]

Which one?

The one in wich I am moderator.

[lesofprimus]

Originally Posted by hunter

Oldie but a goodie.

Are u by chance implying that Im an old fu*k??