Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I

[plan_D]

I read that the Hs-129s equipped with 75mm were very effective, and the 25 built were valuble in service.

[Lightning Guy]

So why not build more of them? Was that another case of political in-fighting ruining a good thing?

[the lancaster kicks ass]

if anything it was the best Soviet a/c of the war as the rest was just plain junk

i wouldn't say that, thay had some very good fighters late in the war.................

[Erich]

the 75mm jammed easily. the barrel was too long which made the Hs 129 unwielding in flight. The aerodynamics of flight were countered by the long barrel and the firing of the weapon even with an oversized muzzle-brake to dampen the vibration.

Rudel was not only the high scorer of SG 2 flying the Stuka and personally i doubt his high score of claims. some 250 seems reasonable to me. the second closest to him is a pilot with a mere 120 if we want to call it that

[Lightning Guy]

I have no reason to doubt Rudel's claims. He certainly was very good (you have to be the survive 2,000+ missions) and he certainly had the time and the targets to shoot at.

[plan_D]

The T-34 doesn't make a comparison to the Panther. The T-34 had 80mm (front) armour, while the Panther Ausf G had 110mm. Top armour on the T-34 was 25mm while on the Panther Ausf G it was 40mm.
The IS-2s were more comparable but even then you have to think of ammo differences. Two examples of different German 37mm ammo; 3.7cm Pzgr penertration 100m 41mm, 3.7cm Pzgr40 penertration 64mm and this is from the same gun.
The Germans were the technological supreme when it came to ammo types. So the Soviet ammo was not comparable.

[Erich]

ah but who reported Rudels claims as he was out having a good time on supposed solo missions ? his gunner ? of course he would as he received the Ritterkreuz. Rudel was the ultimate propaganda tool of the Reich and has been chatted for years on end his claims at times were of his flying companions but Rudel was given the credit even for only damaged Soviet armor. His sinking of the Murat was bogus as the ship returned to action and was not destroyed................. I think you get what I am speaking of

[the lancaster kicks ass]

The T-34 doesn't make a comparison to the Panther. The T-34 had 80mm (front) armour, while the Panther Ausf G had 110mm. Top armour on the T-34 was 25mm while on the Panther Ausf G it was 40mm.

but it was more sloped on the T-34 wasn't it??

[Erich]

it really didn;t matter the slope when attacked from the air. It was found by both sides of the conflict if you come in low and hit the engines, fuel tanks if external you are bound to couase some major destruction. also of note is the top of the turret and fore over the radio operators head and driver.

dang PC is acting up. cyber-demons on the rage............

[Lightning Guy]

That was the huge advatage planes had over tanks and AT guns. An airplane didn't need to be able to punch through the front armor of a tank as it could rather easily attack from above and behind.

[plan_D]

You'll probably see the majority of kills on tanks of the Wehrmacht were attacks from the behind or side. The Allies and Soviet Union struggled to destroy the German tanks from the front.
If you noticed I did state the top armour value of the T-34 and Panther. Although sloping on top armour was very minimal, the T-34 had something of a 1 degree angle advantage on the Panther top side. Mostly the Panther was on equal terms, or more slanted than the T-34.

[Lightning Guy]

Interesting. I had always heard that the sloped armor on a T-34 gave it a considerable advantage. But tanks aren't not my strong suit.

[Erich]

Gentlemen are you familiar with the destruction of a large amount of soviet armor at Kursk by Hs 129's ?

[Lightning Guy]

I have heard a little bit about the Hs 129. What I have seen suggests that it was very effective. I know that it was more heavily armored than even the Il-2 and that it used radial engines (which I prefer in a ground attack plane). If only those engines had produced a little more power . . .

[plan_D]

No Erich, but I know of the large amouts of Soviet Armour loss at Kursk by everything together.
LG, the T-34 did have an advantage over many tanks due to its slanting, but it only gives so much protection. If you've ever seen late make Panthers, they are very slanted especially at the front. The Tiger however is not, and the T-34 slanting gives it an edge but the Tigers armour is just too thick.
There's only so much slanting can do. And with only 80mm on the T34/76 it was outclassed by 1943.