Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I

[dead parrot]

For sure the Sturmovik was sent out no matter what, but it suffered huge losses. Its famed armor was to protect the crew from ground fire more than other planes, and it was still an easy kill. The Russians just kept throwing them up there.

Granted the Stuka really need local air superiority, but isn't that true, really, of any tactical ground attack air craft that isn't blazing fast? This is why it shouldn't have been in the BoB in the first place, which was a battle by the Luftwaffe to _establish_ superiority. If it had, and Sealion had gone ahead, the Stuka would have been a killer against ground defences and ships.

I suppose it would be hard to find total tank kills for the Il-2 and Stuka, but as I said, I think the Stuka could come out on top, especially on a per plane basis. But that's speculation...

[lesofprimus]

If I'm not mistaken, we are talking about the tank busting capabilities of the different aircraft available during WW2... The Stuka had been around since 1938 in a dive bomber role... Not a tank busting role...

When the Stuka finally started blasting away russian tanks, their philosphy had changed... They flew low to the ground, albeit not very fast... They removed dive brakes and associated hardware that made it famous during the earlier part of the war...

Keep in mind how the battlefield operated during these latter parts of the war... Furious armoured attacks and counterattacks... There really was no clear owner of the skies in a air-superiority role... The 87G-1 & 2 flew off dirt roads and such, and were called upon in decisive breakouts and on the spot emergencies...

Air superiority was NOT a factor in the tank busting role of the Stuka 87G during the western assault... There really was no such thing as air superiority on this type of fast moving, move and countermove, battlefield...

The records are sorta sketchy concerning the # of tank busting 87G's that were lost to groundfire vs. enemy air action... Obviously, the # lost to AA was very , very high...

But... Remeber how they operated these machines... Fly in low, and either a rear on attack or side on... If u did get shot down by AA, and alot of them did, u usually ended up in ur own lines.. And because the Suka was such a well designed, study aircraft, the pilots usually survived, walked back to their airfields, climbed into another plane, and went right back up....

Rudel was one such man... Probably the greatest pilot that has everflown in the skies...

[dead parrot]

But surely attacking enemy armour was one of the roles meant for dive bombers? In fact, weren't dive bombers the _only_ way to attack individual tanks from the air until heavy cannon started to be mounted on planes?

Regarding AA losses: On the 450-plane raid consisting largely of Stukas, preceding Operation Neptune on April 17th, 1944, 7 Stukas were shot down or heavily damaged.

[plan_D]

The VVS had no viable means of destroying the Stukas when 109s and 190s were in escort. There is always such thing as air superiority, and the Luftwaffe had it for the majority of the Russian Campaign.
The Stuka was always in the prime position for attacking enemy tanks, while the 109s swooped up the LaGGs and Yaks of the VVS. Stukas were always easy prey for any fighter. The Sturmovik was not such easy prey even after being battered it could still fly home, just like the B-17. There was a reason it was called the Concrete Plane.

If the Stuka achieved more tank kills than the Sturmovik it means nothing. The Soviets production of tanks out-numbered the Germans 7:1. There's more Soviet tanks to destroy, many, many more.

[dead parrot]

Originally Posted by plan_D

If the Stuka achieved more tank kills than the Sturmovik it means nothing. The Soviets production of tanks out-numbered the Germans 7:1. There's more Soviet tanks to destroy, many, many more.

Oh, sure it means something. They still had to kill the tanks, whether or not it was a target-rich environment, and they did. The fact that the Soviets were overwhelming the Germans in numbers could easily be an argument in the Stuka's favour. I bet the Russians had more AA too...

I'll never convince anyone (least of all myself ) that the Stuka wasn't a sitting duck for fighters, but my point is most ground attack aircraft were vulnerable to some degree, and that the Stuka's vulnerability has been overstated somewhat by observers in the West who remember the BoB.

[plan_D]

It's vunerability hasn't been under-stated. As in most cases it is against fighters, which gave the Luftwaffe the biggest trouble in the BoB. Sure, the Stuka could withstand ground fire to a point. That point might have been higher than normal planes, but it wasn't as good as the Sturmovik.

A target rich environment makes for more kills. I doubt the Soviets had much AA cover. The Soviets had 37mm, 57mm and 85mm AA cover, the Germans had 20mm, 88mm and 105mm. I reckon they had around the same amount plus the Germans had more effective mobile AA stations.

[dead parrot]

I'm suggesting that it's vulnerability has been overstated, in comparison to other divebombers in particular, and ground attack planes in general. Absolutely the Il-2 was better in this respect, but it wasn't quite the flying tank it's made out to be, nor was the Stuka the paper airplane it was made out to be. It was no more vulnerable than the Dauntless, Skua or Val, for example.

You said that because there were more Soviet tanks than German, whatever the Stuka destroyed meant nothing--I think that's going a bit too far. And if you want to talk numbers, how about the 30,000+ Il-2 (Eastern Front) versus the less than 6,000 Stukas (all fronts)? I reckon that makes whatever the Stuka did on the eastern front compared to the Il-2 even more impressive.

[plan_D]

I meant overstated, sorry about that.

The Stuka was no more vunerable to ground fire than the Dauntless and such armour wise. But the Sturmovik was less likely to fall out of the skie from AA fire than the Stuka, that's my point.
The Sturmovik was truely a flying tank, it had the firepower and durability to earn itself the title. The Stuka was more vunerable than the Sturmovik.

Well I put that too strongly, I don't mean nothing but it certainly doesn't prove its supremecy. If there are more fish in the lake, you're going to catch more. So the Stuka, only naturally, was going to achieve higher kills.
On top of that the Stuka had complete freedom over Poland and France 1940. When they were up against it, they failed such as in North Africa and the BoB. Then put into another free situation like in Russia they began to achieve.
The Sturmovik was up against it throughout its operational career. The Luftwaffe was always capable of making sweeps against the Sturmovik formations.

The numbers built really don't talk about the survivability of either plane. As both planes were under different stresses from the opposition. Where the Stukas opposition was strong they could not achieve, where the Sturmoviks opposition was strong they continued on.

[Lightning Guy]

The Stuka did a fine job of busting tanks (especially considering the Luftwaffe only accepted about 4,800 total - not sure how many of those were G varients). But it must be remembered that the Luftwaffe held air-superiority over the Eastern Front far longer than anywhere else. That meant greater protection for the Stuka and greater risk for the Il-2. Citing Rudel as an example proves nothing because that man probably would have knocked out a couple hundred Russian tanks flying a broom stick! He was just that good.

Think about it this way, what would have happened if the Germans had had the Il-2 and the Russians had the Stuka? The Il-2 was no speed demon, but it was faster than the Ju-87G by nearly 40mph. It carried a better overall armament: 2 heavy cannon (23mm or 37mm), up to 8 rockets, PTAB 2.5 cluster munitions. The Il-2 was by far the better armored and also had much heavier defensive armament (that 12.7mm UBT was far superior to the MG-81Z of the Stuka). For busting tanks, the Il-2 was clearly the better plane.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

none of this has swawed my opinion that the IL-2 was the better tankbuster......................

[plan_D]

Truthfully though, I think anything that can do the job be it a Typhoon, Stuka or Sturmovik is good enough.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i'm not sure i would actually give the tiffy the title of tankbuster, i know it was very successfull in this role in normandy, but i would still just call it a ground attack aircraft.................

[Lightning Guy]

Or P-47. They all did very well, but the point of this treat was to discuss which was best. For destroying tanks, it was the Il-2.

[plan_D]

True. The Typhoon was very capable at destroying tanks though, Lanc. Or Hurricane Mk. IV

[Lightning Guy]

The Tiffy was excellent at destroying tanks. The rockets could knock out any German tank and the 4 20mm were very useful at destroying anything smaller than a Panther.