Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued - Page 66 - Aircraft of World War II

Waynos · 10-26-2008, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

...Most with an educated opinion rank the 190F-8 above the rest...

Most.

Oooooooooh, get her!

How would you guys rank the Hurricane in this discussion. IIRC it was very successful in the desert campaign?

kool kitty89 · 10-27-2008, 01:40 AM

I think it was thrown out of the competition due to the liquid cooled engine. (with vulnerable radiator, Il-2's radiator was an exception, though the oil cooler was still somewhat vulnerable, like with the Corsair)

It was a pretty sturdy aircraft though and would probably fair better against fighters than an Il-2 or Hs 129. (but much less capable than the higher performance fighter bombers, especially those without bulky rocket rails or tubes)

r2800doublewasp · 11-22-2008, 12:22 AM

Ju-87 with the cannons on the wings. How Hans Ulrich Udel's record with 2,000 ground targets. 519 of them tanks

lesofprimus · 11-22-2008, 11:11 AM

Rudels numbers are Propaganda numbers.... Divide those numbers by 2 or possibly 3 to get the true numbers...

Take a look into the Fw 190F-8 Panzerblitz if u want to see the all around champion in this catagory....

Burmese Bandit · 12-05-2008, 11:07 AM

Hmmm....while it's true that Rudel was a true believer Nazi Sheet - even after the war was over ...unlike, say, Hartmann, who was a fighter pilot first and foremost...

I suspect Rudel's numbers were substantially true. Remember, because he was a Luftwaffe and Nazi star, he had quite a lot of cover on his ass, so the greatest danger to him was ground fire.

lesofprimus · 12-05-2008, 03:25 PM

Rudels numbers were and are definatly compromised... How much so only Rudel knows... To say that they were "substantially" true just shows ur ignorance...

Propoganda is propoganda, whether its Russian, German, British or American... Rudel was a great Nazi and a great pilot, but he was Goebbels greatest propoganda tool...

Burmese Bandit · 12-05-2008, 09:26 PM

My statement on Rudel's 500 plus tanks is based on research, and also on this logic:

Let's say that Goebbel's propaganda machine DID want to provide hope to the home front and the German Army on the Eastern Front by providing a myth of the Aryan Flyboy superman who killed three (Russian) divisions of tanks all by his lonesome.

If so, why the disparity between Rudel and the next highest scorer, who killed a mere 100 + tanks? We don't see this disparity in the GAF where Erich Hartman with 350+ was closely followed by Barkhorn and others...

Or in the U-boat war where the tonnage claims of the top 5 aces were fairly close, too.

So why only the tank killers? Doesn't add up. Nah, I think Rudel's claims are substantially true.

kool kitty89 · 12-05-2008, 11:54 PM

Propaganda aside, in pretty much all cases, on all sides, claims (and "confirmed kills") tend to be greatly exaggerated (to varying degrees) when compared to official enemy losses.

And in aircraft tank "kills" in particular, a tank may apear to be hit when the round failed to penetrate the armour. (and even when a tank is hit, by cannon, RP, or bomb, they were often just temporarily disabled)

Burmese Bandit · 12-06-2008, 12:01 AM

Yeah, that's true. I believe the system used by the USAF today is mobility Kill, and Total K-kill....right? I think there are more categories than the two I just remembered...

lesofprimus · 12-06-2008, 01:42 AM

We have some experts on this site that confirm what Im saying... Rudels real numbers are far below his 500+... I love what he did with his 87G, the guy was unsurpassed, hellova leader, and most of all a survivor...

Clay_Allison · 12-28-2008, 02:51 AM

I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 12-28-2008, 07:17 AM

I will have to go with the Fw 190F-8 for the same reasons you said. Besides it was a proven tank killer.

lesofprimus · 12-28-2008, 09:11 AM

The P-47 compared to several other tank busters listed here is a poor choice...

Venganza · 12-28-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

However, while you're lining up for your free kill, ignoring the 12.7mm tracers streaking past you from the IL-2's rear gunner, the Yak or Lavochkin escorting the Ilyusha blast your tail off. I'm talking post mid-1943, not 1941 or 1942 when the escort was poor or non-existent.

Venganza

comiso90 · 12-28-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clay_Allison

I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter.

This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

What is your P-47 armed with?

Rockets weren't as effective as a lot of people think and they're far less practical then a cannon.

As a convoy buster and interdiction machine, yes the Thunderbolt was a God along with the Tempest but it wasnt much of a "tank buster" compared to the rest.

11-22-2008, 11:11 AM	#979
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,503	Rudels numbers are Propaganda numbers.... Divide those numbers by 2 or possibly 3 to get the true numbers... Take a look into the Fw 190F-8 Panzerblitz if u want to see the all around champion in this catagory.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

12-05-2008, 03:25 PM	#981
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,503	Rudels numbers were and are definatly compromised... How much so only Rudel knows... To say that they were "substantially" true just shows ur ignorance... Propoganda is propoganda, whether its Russian, German, British or American... Rudel was a great Nazi and a great pilot, but he was Goebbels greatest propoganda tool... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

12-05-2008, 11:54 PM	#983
kool kitty89 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,412	Propaganda aside, in pretty much all cases, on all sides, claims (and "confirmed kills") tend to be greatly exaggerated (to varying degrees) when compared to official enemy losses. And in aircraft tank "kills" in particular, a tank may apear to be hit when the round failed to penetrate the armour. (and even when a tank is hit, by cannon, RP, or bomb, they were often just temporarily disabled) Last edited by kool kitty89; 12-05-2008 at 11:56 PM.

12-06-2008, 01:42 AM	#985
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,503	We have some experts on this site that confirm what Im saying... Rudels real numbers are far below his 500+... I love what he did with his 87G, the guy was unsurpassed, hellova leader, and most of all a survivor... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

12-28-2008, 07:17 AM	#987
DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crewchief Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ansbach, Germany Posts: 33,152	I will have to go with the Fw 190F-8 for the same reasons you said. Besides it was a proven tank killer. __________________ fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"[/I]

10-27-2008, 01:40 AM	#977
kool kitty89 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,412	I think it was thrown out of the competition due to the liquid cooled engine. (with vulnerable radiator, Il-2's radiator was an exception, though the oil cooler was still somewhat vulnerable, like with the Corsair) It was a pretty sturdy aircraft though and would probably fair better against fighters than an Il-2 or Hs 129. (but much less capable than the higher performance fighter bombers, especially those without bulky rocket rails or tubes)

11-22-2008, 12:22 AM	#978
r2800doublewasp Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 80	Ju-87 with the cannons on the wings. How Hans Ulrich Udel's record with 2,000 ground targets. 519 of them tanks

12-05-2008, 11:07 AM	#980
Burmese Bandit Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 475	Hmmm....while it's true that Rudel was a true believer Nazi Sheet - even after the war was over ...unlike, say, Hartmann, who was a fighter pilot first and foremost... I suspect Rudel's numbers were substantially true. Remember, because he was a Luftwaffe and Nazi star, he had quite a lot of cover on his ass, so the greatest danger to him was ground fire.

12-05-2008, 09:26 PM	#982
Burmese Bandit Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 475	My statement on Rudel's 500 plus tanks is based on research, and also on this logic: Let's say that Goebbel's propaganda machine DID want to provide hope to the home front and the German Army on the Eastern Front by providing a myth of the Aryan Flyboy superman who killed three (Russian) divisions of tanks all by his lonesome. If so, why the disparity between Rudel and the next highest scorer, who killed a mere 100 + tanks? We don't see this disparity in the GAF where Erich Hartman with 350+ was closely followed by Barkhorn and others... Or in the U-boat war where the tonnage claims of the top 5 aces were fairly close, too. So why only the tank killers? Doesn't add up. Nah, I think Rudel's claims are substantially true.

12-06-2008, 12:01 AM	#984
Burmese Bandit Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 475	Yeah, that's true. I believe the system used by the USAF today is mobility Kill, and Total K-kill....right? I think there are more categories than the two I just remembered...

12-28-2008, 02:51 AM	#986
Clay_Allison Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 924	I have to go for the P-47 in this contest. It had the armament to take on a tank and kill it. It had the toughness to take groundfire, and crucially it was no easy pickings for an enemy fighter. This last attribute puts it ahead in my mind. If I'm a 109 pilot and I see an Il-2 off in the distance, I'm thinking free kill. If I see a Thunderbolt, I clench my cheeks and hope he doesn't see me in time to make a fight of it.

12-28-2008, 09:11 AM	#988
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,503	The P-47 compared to several other tank busters listed here is a poor choice... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode