Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued

[buzzard]

Tony,

My comment on your 'British Multi' was not derogatory. I do find it interesting and well-thought out (I like the rest of your site, too) but I'm not convinced that it would work as well on the battlefield as it does on paper. But who knows...On the same topic, what do you think of the Beech XA-28 Grizzly? It seems awfully big to me...

My comment about the need for gun attacks to be carried out at lower speeds concerns accuracy. A gun cannot accomplish anything without a direct hit. Even a glancing blow is generally ineffective. I'm not sure what speed the heavily-laden Hurricane IID could achieve on the deck, but I suspect it was not much more than 250mph. And the German and Soviet gunships were even slower. A napalm strike is effective from 50-60 feet away in azimuth, and as JoeB mentioned, short hits can also be very effective. Complete accuracy is not required. Nor will heavier armor stop the insidious burning ooze from finding its way into the cracks and crevices of the big tanks.

I'm not so dogmatic as to insist that a dedicated tank-buster must be able to tackle fighters on an even basis, per se. I just believe that it should be more than a sitting duck. The comparison of the Hs 129 to the A-10 is IMO, unjustified. That both are armored, and have big guns is merely superficial. What matters are the a/c themselves. Their qualities are very different. The A-10 is very manoueverable and gives the pilot excellent all-round visibility. The Hs 129 was the polar opposite. The A-10 is very damage-resistant, and reliable The Hs 129 was extremely vulnerable to even small-arms fire, and had a woeful serviceability record ( of the 12 a/c of the squadron ordered to Tunis, only 8 arrived...of which only 4 were considered serviceable) The gun of the A-10 is effective against Soviet armor. The Hs 129 was largely ineffective against the better Soviet tanks. And in defending against fighter attack, the agility, excellent visibility, rapid-fire gun, and optional Sidewinder armament gives the A-10 pilot a very sporting chance to escape. Not so the blinkered, sluggish, and vulnerable Hs 129. The Hs-129 and Il-2/10 are fundamentally different from the A-10, even allowing for the technological gap.

While the less-specialized fighter-bombers may seem less effective than the dedicated big-gun tankbusters, an argument can be made that the opposite is true.

While the WWII B-G TB was more effective on a per-pass basis, the inherent vulnerability of the a/c, and their absolute requirement for constant fighter support probably made them a less efficient use of resources (both men and materiel) than the more versatile FBs such as the P-47 and F-4U. The FBs may need to make more passes than the B-G TBs, but their ability to defend themselves meant that more a/c could be actually attacking the enemy. Nor do they need to waste time escorting slow-moving a/c back and forth. Add in their higher survivability and reliability, and their superiority over the B-G TBs is undeniable.

Making a flight of P-47s or the Corsairs into better tank-busters would not have demanded bigger engines, bigger and heavier guns (and the systems to handle those guns) or other difficult-to-achieve requirements. All that was needed was better training and more napalm...napalm, that even if it had missed, would have terrorized the enemy tankers and, unless they were made of very stern stuff indeed, sent them scurrying from the battlefield.

Of course, if your idealized 'big-gun tank-buster' would actually work as well as you imagine, I retract my support for the lowly Jug

JL

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by 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

Interesting Parsifal, I just had a quick flick through "The air battle of Imphal" by Norman Franks and he states that 20 sqn RAF (Hurricane IID) knocked out 12 tanks in June 44. Franks states that the squadron was operating inside the valley, finding the tanks in the Southern end. Apparently 20 sqn weren't flying outside the valley because it was too dangerous to fly over the mountains due to the monsoonal clouds which were obscuring the tops.

[parsifal]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Interesting Parsifal, I just had a quick flick through "The air battle of Imphal" by Norman Franks and he states that 20 sqn RAF (Hurricane IID) knocked out 12 tanks in June 44. Franks states that the squadron was operating inside the valley, finding the tanks in the Southern end. Apparently 20 sqn weren't flying outside the valley because it was too dangerous to fly over the mountains due to the monsoonal clouds which were obscuring the tops.

I was sure about my facts when I started this, but now I am starting to get confused......I cant seem to make much sense of it all, the dates, the activities, the locations are just not adding up for me....

Its quite feasible for the allies to be knocking out tanks in June '44, because by that time the Japanese had retreated. They were back on the eastern side of the ranges by then, retreating towards their supply heads, with the Allies hot on their heels. What doesnt gel in this case is the statement about the a/c not wanting to cross the mountains. In order for the allies to be attacking Japanese in that "Imphal-Mandalay" axis, they would have had to be overflying numerous mountains by that time.

My reading of the basic history is this....the Imphal-Kohima battles were fought March-April, and early May 1944. The Japanese then finally retreated, believing that the Monsoons would cover their retreat. The allies did not react as expected, and instead broke into a hot pursuit that enable them to capture suitable jump off points inside of Burma once the wet had stopped in mid-october. At the same time this was all happening, the Allies, being basically a mix of Chinese, US (under Merrill) and CW forces managed to capture Mytikina, thereby making it possible to start the Ledo Road to China.

Im not as good a student as you guys about the aircraft histories, but I am not too bad with the general operational history stuff. I cant seem to reconcile what is being said here (your post, and Tony's) with the general history stuff. I dont doubt the veracity of what you and Tony are saying, but neither can I work it out. Its just the details that are wrong....

[tpikdave]

buzzard.....

Since you mentioned this aircraft, I thought why not give my "firsthand" account as to what I perceive its capabilities to be.

In 1989(not too sure about the date) I was lucky enough to be able to participate in the "Gathering Of Eagles" USAF Capabilities Exercise at Nellis AFB as a communications tech. There, I was able to witness up close and personal, the destructive power of the A10. I had been working at Nellis, and the Indian Springs AAFB gunnery and bombing range. I was on "hot" ranges many times and was able to see all kinds of aircraft scoring hits and misses on the various ranges. I have to say, the A10 was unmistakably the best weapons delivery system in the USAF inventory.

At the "Gathering Of Eagles" VIP capabilities demo three A10's came in on a convoy of 4 M60A1 tanks, two tanker trucks, 4 APC's and a couple of trucks. There was one pass using the GAU-8 gun of each of the three aircraft. Thats all it took. There was not one target left that was viable or not on fire. I will never forget the sound. At the time I looked at my buddy and said, it sounds like "God's zipper"!!

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

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....

I have no specific information on the combat record of the 190F series. However, it was an interesting and logial approach to producing a reasonably well-protected ground attack aircraft which still maintained some self-defence capability against fighters.

The main problem with switching to the 190F from the Ju 87 is that they gave up the ability to deploy the cluster bombs which were among the more effective anti-tank weapons. And while they tried hanging a pair of 30mm MK 103 under the wings, excessive recoil meant that these were too inaccurate.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by buzzard

On the same topic, what do you think of the Beech XA-28 Grizzly? It seems awfully big to me...

I agree - size is not a benefit for a close-support plane, it just makes it a bigger target.

My comment about the need for gun attacks to be carried out at lower speeds concerns accuracy.

I'm not so sure that speed affects accuracy very much, but it will affect the number of shots the pilot has time to fire. Even so, the Tsetse (which was probably travelling fast when it attacked, although I have no specific info on that) had time to fire four 57mm rounds per pass. And with a 33% hit rate against a tank-sized target, that meant one tank per pass.

The Hs 129 was extremely vulnerable to even small-arms fire,

I am surprised to read that, since the Hs 129 carried more armour than any WW2 plane except for the Il-2. if it was indeed vulnerable (compared with a P-47 say) that means the designers must have made some fairly major errors.

The Hs-129 and Il-2/10 are fundamentally different from the A-10, even allowing for the technological gap.

The design purpose is the same, and the concept of substantial armour plating also, plus the ability to carry a big gun (for the Hs 129 anyway - the Il-2 was less successful at that). Of course, the execution of the design was very different, but I stand by my statement that the Hs 129 and A-10 were conceptually closely related.

An A-10 would be picked off by a radar-equipped fighter firing radar-homing missiles long before it could get within Sidewinder range. In aerial combat, speed and weapon range are what matter.

While the less-specialized fighter-bombers may seem less effective than the dedicated big-gun tankbusters, an argument can be made that the opposite is true.

The USAAF/USAF has always made that argument. They regard fighter-bombers as far more versatile than CAS planes because they can be switched to other priorities when required. They also, I suspect, are doctrinally opposed to CAS because it subordinates the USAF to the needs of the army. They have on at least two occasions tried to scrap the A-10 fleet (in the early 1990s they produced a few "A-16" planes with a 30mm gunpod, but this proved a failure). Conversely, the army loves CAS planes like the A-10 for exactly the same reasons that the USAF hates them!

Of course, if your idealized 'big-gun tank-buster' would actually work as well as you imagine, I retract my support for the lowly Jug

I should perhaps clarify that the ground attack version of my "multi-purpose compact twin" concept for the WW2 RAF was not really a dedicated tankbuster, but was more a fighter-bomber in the 190F mould: take one fighter and add armour to enhance protection against ground fire. It would have been comparable in size, weight and performance to the P-47, only with the safety benefit of two engines and with the ability to carry a big gun on the fuselage centreline - as well as a couple of 20mm cannon and all the RPs and bombs you could ask for

The problem with napalm (and, probably to a lesser extent, the cluster bombs like the Russian PTAB) was the huge safety distance from friendly troops. Even when dropping ordinary bombs, the P-47 was limited to attacking no less than 250 yards from friendly troops. I don't know the distance for napalm but I suspect it would have been even greater. With a big gun firing solid ammo you can open fire extremely close to friendly troops.

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by tpikdave

At the "Gathering Of Eagles" VIP capabilities demo three A10's came in on a convoy of 4 M60A1 tanks, two tanker trucks, 4 APC's and a couple of trucks. There was one pass using the GAU-8 gun of each of the three aircraft. Thats all it took. There was not one target left that was viable or not on fire.

Effectiveness against modern tanks isn't necessarily that devastating. This is an extract from Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945

"The 30 mm GAU 8/A in the A 10 "tankbuster" can get 80% of its shots within 5 mil, equal to 9 m dispersion at the 1,800 m maximum range. On test, the A-10 managed to hit a tank with about 10% of the shots fired at ranges varying between 500 and 1,340 m; a performance which has almost certainly improved since the LASTE package (low altitude safety and target enhancement), including a radio altimeter, autopilot and ballistic computer, was fitted in the 1990s. Incidentally, of the hits scored (against Russian T-62 tanks) just under 20% penetrated the armour (i.e. 2% of shots fired), although many others extensively damaged the track and suspension."

I should point out that the ballistics of the GAU 8/A's ammo are very similar to those of the Luftwaffe's MK 103 firing Hartkernmunition; the main differences being the DU rather than tungsten core, and of course the ten-times-higher rate of fire.

[kool kitty89]

Wasn't the muzel velocity of the Mk 103 (for AP round) ~760 m/s for a ~500g AP round? (much slower than the GAU-8's ammo)

For the much lighter ~330g HE(M) round MV was ~940 m/s iirc (same ammo as the MK 101) Although, due to the lighter structure of the gun, acording to some sourses it was reduced to 860 m/s for HE ammo. (full propellant load was used on AP ammo though as it was deemed worth the risk)

[Tony Williams]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Wasn't the muzel velocity of the Mk 103 (for AP round) ~760 m/s? (much slower than the GAU-8's ammo)

For the much lighter ~330g HE(M) round MV was ~940 m/s iirc (same ammo as the MK 101) Although, due to the lighter structure of the gun, it was usually reduced to 860 m/s for HE ammo. (full propellant load was used on AP ammo though)

The M-Geschoss loading was derated to 860 m/s as you say, because of concerns over the longevity of the gun compared with the MK 101.

However, the Hartkern loading was kept at 940 m/s for 355g (compared with the GAU-8/A's 988 m/s for 425g). The GAU-8 is clearly more powerful than the MK 103 (with the DU providing a further improvement of 10-15% in effectiveness) but it doesn't outclass it.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by parsifal

I was sure about my facts when I started this, but now I am starting to get confused......I cant seem to make much sense of it all, the dates, the activities, the locations are just not adding up for me....

Its quite feasible for the allies to be knocking out tanks in June '44, because by that time the Japanese had retreated. They were back on the eastern side of the ranges by then, retreating towards their supply heads, with the Allies hot on their heels. What doesnt gel in this case is the statement about the a/c not wanting to cross the mountains. In order for the allies to be attacking Japanese in that "Imphal-Mandalay" axis, they would have had to be overflying numerous mountains by that time.

My reading of the basic history is this....the Imphal-Kohima battles were fought March-April, and early May 1944. The Japanese then finally retreated, believing that the Monsoons would cover their retreat. The allies did not react as expected, and instead broke into a hot pursuit that enable them to capture suitable jump off points inside of Burma once the wet had stopped in mid-october. At the same time this was all happening, the Allies, being basically a mix of Chinese, US (under Merrill) and CW forces managed to capture Mytikina, thereby making it possible to start the Ledo Road to China.

Im not as good a student as you guys about the aircraft histories, but I am not too bad with the general operational history stuff. I cant seem to reconcile what is being said here (your post, and Tony's) with the general history stuff. I dont doubt the veracity of what you and Tony are saying, but neither can I work it out. Its just the details that are wrong....

G'day parsifal, I'm no expert on the Imphal-Kohima battles myself, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the book I mentioned. I only mentioned it because I recalled the use of the Hurricane IID's against Japanese tanks and when you said they weren't there, it struck me as being odd. Maybe the author got his dates and /or places confused, i don't know, however looking further along he contradicts himself by stating that only 3 tanks were destroyed and 18 damaged (by the whole of 221 group). Anyway, I'm confused and as you seem to be more knowledable on this theatre than I, I'm inclined to take your word.

[plan_D]

On the Japanese tanks issue;

I've been going through my books again and it's quite confusing. I've read that as the Japanese forces built up for their offensive on Imphal they had to abandon all heavy material because the railroad could not support them as the Allied airforces had taken a heavy toll (reducing movements to less than 400 tons per day).

This led to the 54th Division to arrive by sea, while others marched along the unfinished railway line. The Japanese had to abandon motor transport, anti-tank guns and artillery pieces while marching to the jump-off point for the Imphal offensive.

Then later I'm told that 221 Group and USAAF aircraft were attacking massive motor transport columns with great success (no tanks are mentioned).

Further in, there's the meeting between 14/13th Frontier Force Rifles and a "strong Japanese force supported by tanks." on March 4th. On March 14th in Witok the 3rd Carabiniers with six M3 Lee tanks had to come to the aid of 100th Indian brigade who were facing 215th regiment supported by tanks.

[Kruska]

Maybe this can help you guy's: Battle of Imphal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Imphal: The 14th Tank Regiment was assigned to support the offensive. The regiment was equipped with 66 tanks (Type 95 Light Tanks, Type 97-Improved Medium Tanks, some captured M3 Light Tanks, Type 97 Tankettes, and Type 1 75mm SPH).

The 100th Indian Brigade had an attached tank unit, known as Claudecol.

The Japanese assumed that the British would be unable to use tanks on the steep jungle-covered hills around Imphal. For the sake of ease of movement and supply, the Japanese were leaving behind most of their field artillery, their chief anti-tank weapon. As a result, the Japanese troops would have very little protection against tanks if these were in fact used against them.

On 13 April the Indian 5th Division counter-attacked, supported by massed artillery and the M3 Lee tanks of the 3rd Carabiniers. The Japanese regiment had no anti-tank weapons, and their troops were driven from the ridge with heavy casualties.


So to my understanding both sides had tanks and these could also be moved in the respective terrain.

Regards
Kruska

[parsifal]

Ive read those articles as well, but there are other articles that seem to contrdict it, and then there is the geography...if the Japs had tanks at imphal, how did they get there?????? i will concede the point if anyone can provide the answer to that.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by parsifal

Ive read those articles as well, but there are other articles that seem to contrdict it, and then there is the geography...if the Japs had tanks at imphal, how did they get there?????? i will concede the point if anyone can provide the answer to that.

They were airdroped by Ar234's Just joking okay

If the British got their tanks there, then why shouldn't the Japs have?

Regards
Kruska

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by tpikdave

buzzard.....

Since you mentioned this aircraft, I thought why not give my "firsthand" account as to what I perceive its capabilities to be.

In 1989(not too sure about the date) I was lucky enough to be able to participate in the "Gathering Of Eagles" USAF Capabilities Exercise at Nellis AFB as a communications tech. There, I was able to witness up close and personal, the destructive power of the A10. I had been working at Nellis, and the Indian Springs AAFB gunnery and bombing range. I was on "hot" ranges many times and was able to see all kinds of aircraft scoring hits and misses on the various ranges. I have to say, the A10 was unmistakably the best weapons delivery system in the USAF inventory.

At the "Gathering Of Eagles" VIP capabilities demo three A10's came in on a convoy of 4 M60A1 tanks, two tanker trucks, 4 APC's and a couple of trucks. There was one pass using the GAU-8 gun of each of the three aircraft. Thats all it took. There was not one target left that was viable or not on fire. I will never forget the sound. At the time I looked at my buddy and said, it sounds like "God's zipper"!!

I just finished watching a firepower demo at Gila bend at end of April. The Euro Fighter was going through joint command paces, the F-16 and F-15E was there but most impressively, the A-10 was there.

As you noted, the close range stuff was simply devastating - but they also made a relatively high angle long slant range pass at some T72/80s and the 30mm intert puched through the entire aft deck from at least 1200-1500 meters. The close stuf f was a mix of HEI and AP and it looked like the long range stuff was same mix.

Awesome weapon. I'm still waiting on the pics from the range tower on the short range passes.

I was told we have not lost an A-10, and they are in high threat environments on the Pakistani border as well as (less frequently) the Iraqi airspace.