Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[parsifal]

There were no Japanese Tanks operating in the imphal area. Even the tankettes that might occaionally be attached to a Japanese Infantry Division were left at the jump off points. The reason I am so sure of this is because the Japanese had to negotiate over 100 kms of trackless jungle to get to Imphal. Also, by June 1944, the Japanese were no longer in or near to imphal, The tanks may have been encountered inside of Burma, but it is almost unbelievable that this could be achieved in the thick jungles of Burma, where the Japanese, proven masters of camourflage, were rarely seen, unless already incapacitated.

[kool kitty89]

It would have been interesting if the Typhoon had been fitted with the Vickers S cannon. ANd considering the rocket rails the Typhoon carried, performance may have actually improved.

Hoever I still think rail-less rockets (HVAR, or panzerblitz II) are the optimum armament for a fighter bomber type a/c for this role, due to both the performance benefits and since it doesn't require special modifications or ilimination of the main armament that cannon pods require.


However the P-63 with M9 cannon is an interesting thought, though it never saw production or service.

A single P-63D was armed with an M9 cannon, a very different weapon, far more powerful but also far heavier. Its 37x223SR cartridge gave the same HE round as the M4 a considerably higher muzzle velocity. One of the types of ammunition available was a 752 g armour-piercing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s, and at a distance of 460 m this penetrated 60 mm of armour plate. At the same distance the M4 could penetrate only 20 mm of armour. It is obvious that the M9 was much better suited for ground attack, but apparently it was too heavy for fighters. It was also experimentally used on a number of attack aircraft, but its only service use was at sea.

[Mitya]

Want to know why the best штурмовик Il-2 and Il-10? I explain.
What is "штуромвик" ? "Штурмовик" is such plane which works directly above a battlefield. At strong counteraction of fighters of the opponent and means of air defence. On it all shoots: starting from automatic devices and finishing heavy antiaircraft guns.
Whether it is adapted Ju-87G1 (the protected engine of water cooling having rather poorly, a unit of fire on 12 shells if not I am mistaken, on a trunk), Хе-129 (at which very weak motors, bad review back, absence of defensive arms), P-47 (which carries rather solid loading, but, whether he is capable to operate in conditions of counteraction of fighters of the opponent and air defence?). I think, that was not present.
"Штурмовик" it is based in immediate proximity from a front line. And differently what for he is necessary? And so. P-47 for rise it is necessary 800 m of the concreted strip (but I do not know it with what it is loading). Where you at the front will take the concreted strips in such quantities? It is possible, certainly, folding metal to use... Only our shelfs have P-39 them did not use that was a lot of trouble with them, and the front moved to the West quickly... For rise Il-2 was required 600 m of a ground.
P-47 with bombing loading in ton he will have speed for 600 km/h at the ground (sea level ? ) and range of 1700 m? I doubt. He will turn in slow and very not manevr the purpose.
P-47, Il-2 and Il-10 are good only for the certain conditions. The best "штурмовик", certainly Il-10 (Il-2 not so, and the best would began Su-6 but whereas he has been initially designed under M-71 which have not been finished, he has not gone to a series...). From P-38, P-47, P-51, Tempest, Typhoon, etc. would not be special advantage in conditions of active and adequate counteraction fighter aircraft of Germans, including for the lack of protection of a back hemisphere. The basic lack Il-2 and Il-10 at comparison with P-47, P-38, F4U, etc. - small bombing loading.
The basic worthy competitor at Il-2 and Il-10 is assault variant FW-FW-190F. The powerful, strong, high-speed, strongly armed machine, but - it was not capable to hang above a battlefield to render the greatest possible loss. For the lack of back fire points small groups (on 4, 6, 8 machines) the Soviet fighters dispersed the whole squadrons in which was on 30, 40, 60 and more machines. To you and efficiency... I yet did not meet in memoirs that 4 FW-190, for example, has dispersed Soviet assault shelfs (ШАП)...
Such planes as: P-47, É-38, F4У, Ф6Ф, FW-190, the Typhoon, Tempest are fighters - bombers. Their task unexpectedly to strike and also quickly to escape. They are not intended for work not mediocrely above a front line.
I already wrote above, that in 1943 in the Soviet Air Forces max the allowable level of losses from fire of fighters was 2 of 12 Il- 2. And at Allies 6 from 12 Typhoons. And why? Because ihe not "штурмовик", and a fighter - bomber.
I do not know it the truth whether or not, but after war it was found out, that the American reservation was better only Japanese, conceding on characteristics to other countries.
P.S.: On pictures the 20-mm and 37-mm of fascist shells are submitted to a photo (recently has found only) Soviet Il-2 after hit in them

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by parsifal

There were no Japanese Tanks operating in the imphal area.

A quick google revealed:

history 2

"The 14th Tank Regiment fought with the Biritsh in the south of Imphal. In this battle, Japanese tanks first encountered M3 Medium Tanks. In the early fight, a Japanese captured M3 Light Tank destroyed one M3 Medium Tank. That tank shot at the rear of M3 Medium Tank at close range.

The regiment lost almost all tanks during the fights and the retreat. After the battle of Imphal, the regiment was rebuilt near Mandalay and its strenght was about one third of the previous strenght. The regiment fought with the British around Meiktila and was annihirated in April, 1945."

and: Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Yamamoto Force attacked the Shenam Saddle on the main road from Tamu into Imphal. The Shenam Saddle was ideal defensive terrain. Despite using heavy artillery and tanks, Yamamoto could not break through Indian 20th Division's well-sited defences."

and: Japanese Tanks 1939-45 - Google Book Search

This Japanese unit was committed to the disastrous March 1944 Imphal campaign, by the end of which it had been reduced to only four tanks.

and:Ganju Lama, VC | Times Online Obituary

On May 17, 1st/7th Gurkha Rifles of 48th Indian Brigade pushed forward to milestone 33 on the Tiddim road, running northeast towards Imphal. The battalion's task was to clear the Japanese from a complex of bunkers and road blocks impeding the advance of the 17th Indian Division to relieve Imphal. The enemy was known to be wellentrenched, but B Company of 1st/7th Gurkhas, in the lead on the left of the road, was suddenly held down by fire from the 37mm guns of Japanese light tanks, which had apparently appeared from nowhere.

[kool kitty89]

Mitya, don't forget about the F4U as a cantidate in the comparison. More maneuverable and much shorter takeoff than the P-47D, and with better max bombload (on the F4U-1D and later) and better range with bombs. (F4U-1D/-4/-5 could carry 2x 1,000 lb bombs and a 178 gal drop tank and take-off from an aircraft carrier, and more if land based)

But that comparison you made seemed to be about ground attack aircraft in general, and not about tank killers.


And I don't know what that statement of the P-47 not coming up aganst enemy fighters durring ground attack missions was about...

[tpikdave]

Mitya

Sure looks like it was an easy target, counting holes....low and slow is good for crop dusting...............but when there are guns around..not so good.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by tpikdave

Mitya

Sure looks like it was an easy target, counting holes....low and slow is good for crop dusting...............but when there are guns around..not so good.

Hello tpikdave,

what Mitya is trying to show, is that a IL2 could take that kind of punishment, whilst a P-47, or any other fighter a/c would't live to talk about that. The Il2 or a Ha129 were "hovering" the battle field, whilst a P-47 or F-4U swooped in and flew home.

Since there are no reliable battlefield reports (at least not known to me) it will be almost impossible to determine which kind of a/c acctually caused more damage to ground troops or formations. But IMO besides the Hs129/75mm, or the Me410/40mm? there were no a/c that could acctually be termed Tank destroyers from 1943 onward.

Regards
Kruska

[parsifal]

Hi Tony
There are indeed quite a few references that suggest the presence of Japanese tanks at the Imphal-Kohima battles, however, this is not supported by the Japanese reference materiel

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"The 14th Tank Regiment fought with the Biritsh in the south of Imphal. In this battle, Japanese tanks first encountered M3 Medium Tanks. In the early fight, a Japanese captured M3 Light Tank destroyed one M3 Medium Tank. That tank shot at the rear of M3 Medium Tank at close range.

The regiment lost almost all tanks during the fights and the retreat. After the battle of Imphal, the regiment was rebuilt near Mandalay and its strenght was about one third of the previous strenght. The regiment fought with the British around Meiktila and was annihirated in April, 1945."[/COLOR]

My reference in this case is [I]"The Japanese Army Order Of Battle (Vols I & II) Edited & translated by Victor Medej Ready Printing Co, 1981, 558 pages[/I]. this is THE publication in English to refer to when trying to pinpoint Japanese Ground Formations.

This refereence works states that the 14th Independant Tank Regt arrived in the Mandalay area from Lower Burma in late March 1944, and had partly equippe with captured Stuarts.

Mandalay is NOT the Imphal-Kohima front. Beside it appearing to be physically impossible for any wheeled or tracked japanese vehicles being in the Imphal sector, (it being separated from the nearest roads under Japanese control by more than 200 miles of trackless jungle and a mountain range, which even today is only accessible on foot, or by mule, (at best), the facts are that the 14th Regiment was nowhere near the Imphal front during the course of the battle (according to Japanese source material). What may have happened is that vehicles may have been captured by the Japanese in the Imphal area. If that is the case, there was just one small section of road where the Japanese could have used them.

The Japanese tanks that were deployed around the Mandalay area may well have fallen victim to gun armed Hurricanes, although the time over the target for the Hurris would have been limited. The area around Mandalay is not Jungle, it is a plateau region known as the central Burma plain. It is entirely conceivable that that Japanese tanks and vehicles were destroyed in this limited area of Burma,

The Japanese do record the 14th Regt as having been destroyed by January 1945

[kool kitty89]

what Mitya is trying to show, is that a IL2 could take that kind of punishment, whilst a P-47, or any other fighter a/c would't live to talk about that.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. (for the P-47 a least) I'll try and dig up some pictures.

[buzzard]

I checked out Tony's website, finding the 'Brit WWII Multi' interesting, but not esp convincing...

The less than stellar achievments of the WWII cannon-armed 'tankbusters' is not surprising, given the wildly conflicting demands faced by the a/c designers.

Any cannon capable of reliably piercing the armor of the better tanks is inevitably going to be large and heavy, demanding a powerful twin-engine a/c for best effect. As cannon fire must directly impact the tank to be effective, accuracy demands a close-range attack at very low-altitude, the slower the speed the better. This in turn demands heavy armor to withstand the the inevitable ground-fire, which in turn demands yet more power if sufficient performance and agility to defend against fighter attack is going to be sustained. Barring that, then allowance must be made for a rear-gunner and weapons of sufficient firepower to repel fighters.Yet more weight... More weight> more power needed >larger airframe> more vulnerable> rear-gunners, more armor > more weight...a vicious circle that the technology of the day simply could not break. Neither the armament, the armor, or the engines existed to make the cannon-armed tankbuster a viable weapon on a hotly-contested battlefield. Not 'til thirty years later did a truly effective armored, big-gun tank-killer become a reality

The qualities required to make an a/c a viable combat weapon include more than imposing firepower and armor. First and foremost, it must be survivable and reliable. The Hs 129 was neither. The Ju-87 and the Il-2/10 were reliable but in the absence of local air superiority, were not survivable. That some pilots ran up impressive scores (scores that are likely excessive to an order of magnitude...) is more a reflection of the exceptionable abilities of the individual men than it is of their weapons. (It reminds me of the Finnish success with the Buffalo. Maybe it was one of the 'best' too...) The Jug (and even moreso, the F4U*), OTOH was both, and had specialized anti-tank units been armed and trained for the task as was done by the Germans, they would have been much more effective than they were. The P-47 is simply a much better a/c than the others. And napalm is a terrifyingly effective weapon against both tanks, and the morale of the men inside them. Just ask the N.Korean and Chinese tankers...

Where were those esteemed German big-gun 'panzerknackers' in the last desperate year of the war? Other than Rudel's elite little group, the so-called 'best' were no more, blown out of the skies, their few surviving pilots flying the very able, if less-specialized Fw-190 fighter-bombers against the ever-encroaching hordes of enemy armor. Curious indeed...

JL

* I prefer the F4U as a fighter-bomber, but as it only fought against the very inferior Japanese tanks, I went with the P-47.

[kool kitty89]

Picks form this forum: Structural integrity of the P-47 & why Oleg is wrong! - Topic Powered by eve community

The plane shown above was flown by Lt. Karl Hallberg of my fighter group, the 366th. He had one hung bomb and tried to land at our base at Asch, Belgium, in January 1945. As you can see, the bomb fell off and exploded, but, amazingly, Lt. Hallberg survived. He suffered a head injury, but made a full recovery.




Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint". Detail shot of damage to canopy area


Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint". Well known photo but worth looking at again as contrary to popular belief, this a/c was not written of but repaired and issued to the 9th AF's 36th FG where it was finally lost on 18 August 1944.



Capt. Warren S "Pat" Patterson Jr. Jarrettown, PA. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47D 43-25579 HV-H "Widget". Damage to port stabiliser possibly the result of a mid-air collision suffered by Capt. Patterson over France on 7 August 1944





Lt. Bill May�s P-47D 42-75505, E9:M looked decidedly battered after the Munster mission of 22 February 1944. Following a scrap with Fw190s north of the Ruhr, 376th Squadron flights were reforming for return to base when Lt. May was attacked from astern by a single �190. With fuel running very low, he headed for the deck, but collided with trees and high tension wires. After landing at Manston, however, only ten gallons of fuel were found in his tanks.



Charlie Rife and Richard Kik
A Mission to Remember August 12th, 1944
20mm, 40mm & 88mm flak hits taken

"We took off on a usual mission armor cover flight at the Falaise
track. Down at the Falaise track it was hard fighting, a lot of anti-
aircraft fire, a lot of infantry, armor, trucks, a lot of everything. I went
down on a strafing run and hit this truck Previous to that I heard a
thump somewhere in the airplane and I didn’t realize what it was, but
when I came off the strafing run my wingman, Chuck Rife said "have
you got the water on?" I said "no, why?" Chuck said "you’re trailing
smoke." He came up and looked around and said "it’s coming off
the bottom of the engine." It Turned out a 20 mm knocked two or
three cylinders off my engine. I’m telling you, those people deserve a medal for that engine, I’ve
never seen one like it."

Chuck caught a burst of anti-aircraft fire. Both of his wings were struck by 40mm rounds. The flak rounds exploded and pieces of metal entered his cockpit. The explosion damaged his instruments and shredded his parachute pack. So as we got across the line I told Chuck, "you better get ready to bail out." He said "I can’t, my parachute’s all tore up." I told Chuck you’ve got two live bombs on your wings, you’re not going to be able to belly land with those, can you drop them? He said "no, I can’t" and held up his bomb release, "cause here’s my bomb thing." It was a mess.








WW II ACE STORIES
SHOT FULL OF HOLES
Don Blakeslee's P-47 Upon Return From The Paris Mission
September 1943

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by buzzard

I checked out Tony's website, finding the 'Brit WWII Multi' interesting, but not esp convincing...

In what respects? I've received a comment from an aeronautical engineer who likes examining old designs that the proposal is entirely feasible.

As cannon fire must directly impact the tank to be effective, accuracy demands a close-range attack at very low-altitude, the slower the speed the better.

I don't think so - from what I recall of the Hurri IID accounts they were going flat-out when they attacked.

Besides, exactly the same could be said of planes firing rockets or dropping bombs, if they wanted to hit a small target.

Neither the armament, the armor, or the engines existed to make the cannon-armed tankbuster a viable weapon on a hotly-contested battlefield. Not 'til thirty years later did a truly effective armored, big-gun tank-killer become a reality.

It depends what you mean by "viable weapon". It was certainly possible to make a good ground-attack plane which was well-protected and armed with a gun powerful enough to be effective against tanks - but no-one quite managed to put the combination together.

If you mean something which can dice with fighters on equal terms as well as survive hits from ground fire and knock out tanks, you're right - but the same applies to the A-10: that would get eaten alive by a contemporary air combat fighters.

The qualities required to make an a/c a viable combat weapon include more than imposing firepower and armor. First and foremost, it must be survivable and reliable. The Hs 129 was neither.

? I know the engines had reliability problems, but the Hs 129 was heavily armoured against ground fire. It was the closest WW2 equivalent to the A-10.

Where were those esteemed German big-gun 'panzerknackers' in the last desperate year of the war? Other than Rudel's elite little group, the so-called 'best' were no more, blown out of the skies, their few surviving pilots flying the very able, if less-specialized Fw-190 fighter-bombers against the ever-encroaching hordes of enemy armor. Curious indeed...

Not curious at all, but entirely understandable. The Luftwaffe was no longer able to provide air cover against the massive air supremacy of the Allies, so any specialised ground-attack plane was a dead duck. They were forced to use ground-attack versions of fighter-bombers, but in doing so they lost a lot of effectiveness, specifically in attacking point targets like tanks (I should add that the fighter-bombers were also considerably less accurate in bombing than the specialised dive-bombers like the Ju 87).

Basically, with the planes which actually saw service in WW2, you had a choice between versatile fighter-bombers which had little ability to kill tanks, or accurate tank-killers which couldn't survive against air opposition.

Of course, if my proposed multi-role plane had been built, it would have had a fighter-like performance, good armour protection and a tank-killing gun.

[kool kitty89]

As renrich pointed out, the F4U was nearly as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD (and about the same as the SB2C), so there's at least one big exception to the fighter-bombers being less accurate bombers. (although in this context, bombing a tank with anything other than napalm would be very difficult, even for a dedicated dive bomber)

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

As renrich pointed out, the F4U was nearly as accurate a dive bomber as the SBD (and about the same as the SB2C), so there's at least one big exception to the fighter-bombers being less accurate bombers. (although in this context, bombing a tank with anything other than napalm would be very difficult, even for a dedicated dive bomber)

I don't know what actual accuracy figures these planes achieved. The figures for average miss distances I have read are c.30m for a good Ju 87 crew and 120-140m for a Typhoon. Of course, even 30m isn't good enough to reliably knock out a tank (although it would give the crew one hell of a battering).

[lesofprimus]

Or possibly knock a track off...

Tony, in ur opinion, where do u rate the 190F-8 Panzerblitzer II??? There are a few of us purists who think that arrangement with those R4M powered bastards was the best multiroller tank buster....

The thought of comparing a suped up, fire snortin 190F-8 at treetop level to a big hunkering beast like the 47 is almost appalling...

And as far as Im concerned, the only dedicated tank buster created in WW2 was the Hs 129B...