The Best Anti-Tank Aircraft of World War 2....

[dcasuta]

I voted for Ju87G. I think that for an old designed aircraft like that...was more that devastating on the russian tanks. The next logical choise was IL-2 (good armour...).
I judge after the number of kills, and the facts are for the Stuka.
We (the romanian army) had Ju87, Hs129 and also IL-2(10). Our pilots loved the Stuka and the Hs129.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by dcasuta

I voted for Ju87G. I think that for an old designed aircraft like that...was more that devastating on the russian tanks. The next logical choise was IL-2 (good armour...).
I judge after the number of kills, and the facts are for the Stuka.
We (the romanian army) had Ju87, Hs129 and also IL-2(10). Our pilots loved the Stuka and the Hs129.

The issue with making judgements about any aitcraft in WWII for any discussed mission - is the timeframe.

While the Axis forces had air superiority over the enemy battlefield a slow, relatively defenseless aircraft could be very effective.. once the air superiority was lost, the Stuka created a logistics problem on scarce Luftwaffe resources - namely I must draw fighter escort from other duties to provide escort to the Stuka... and still not a guarantee that the Stuka's will reach the target if enemy fighters are encountered.

Another factor is raw speed. The slower the cruise, the more time the opponent has to be alerted and react to the threat.

It virtually disappeared from West in late 1943 and when it ventured out, like on D-Day the one attempt (as near dusk) by SG103 was virtually wiped out in minutes.

That is why it makes sense for me to ask which system was a.) lethal on ground vehicles and tanks and, b.) was able to defend itself., and c.) fast.

Lightnings, Corsairs, Tempests, Typhoons, Thunderbolts, and Fw 190's fit that vision for me. All had heavy firepower, ability to carry both rickets and bombs, were fast and (varyingly) agile at low altitudes. I then went to radial engine, then selected.

The only reason I picked the 190 is that my impression is that a.) it had greater all around firepower with rapid firing 20mm cannon, and b.) it matched up well with other fighters it was likely to encounter down low, and c.) radial engine in general more survivable to small arms fire.

just a different perspective, doesn't make my view 'correct'

[lesofprimus]

U pretty much mimicked how I feel about it as well Bill.... I love the 87G and the 129B, and feel that the 129B was the best DEDICATED tank killer, but overall, the 190F-8 Panzerblitz is/was the best of all worlds combined....

Those of u voting for the IL-2 need to get better edumacted....

[Soren]

Hmmm... This is about the best anti-tank aircraft, not the most versatile a/c, and for that reason the Hs-129B-2 seems to be my fav in this category.

[drgondog]

maybe the perspective could include "which one would I prefer to fly over or beyond MLR against an enemy with capable fighters"

The Hs 129 was outsatnding in the East. Like the Ju 87D, it was a 'no show' in the West. It seems to me that one qualification for Best is that it should not only perform its intended design but also have a good chance of matching a takeoff with a landing. Both were ridiculously easy to shoot down

Dan - it seems our perspective, while in agreement, has no buy in as we are the only two idiots picking the Fw from the list..maybe we need to be more "edumacted" also.

[Udet]

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion German troops called the IL-2M "Black Death". The silly nickname was surely the direct consequence of an efficient bolshevik propaganda job.

"Black Death"? Dying or getting killed in a war is, per se, something "black" enough in my view. For some odd reason the bolsheviks seemed to believe dying due to IL-2M attack should be "blacker" than dying, say, due to an artillery barrage or the rifle fired by a young guy herded from Kyrgyzstan to the front.

The top speed of the IL-2Ms and Stukas was nearly identical by the way...and do not forget the Stuka had a non-retractable landing gear which added to the drag factor.


Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.

I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.

I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.

Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.

Yup, that the soviets continued producing large number of planes during the whole war is completely true, but the human factor represented their main problem: they never recovered from the hammer delivered by the Luftwaffe during 1941 and 1942, nor had the timeframe and springboard to produce pilots with adequate training. They went through emergency after emergency, even if such emergencies were of different nature during the several phases of the war in the east.

From June 22nd 1941 until the end of the 6th Army in Stalingrad, it was mainly and mostly about survival, with some of the most crushing and horrifiying losses of men and material in the history of wars. Keyword here: SURVIVAL.

The first half of 1943 was a time when nobody could yet be sure of the outcome in the east; the Wehrmacht was far from being defeated, so the survival issue could not yet be erased from the soviet list of critical issues when the soviets were now confronted with a new emergency: the western allies had landed in North Africa (late 1942)...an emergency of political nature.

The political emergency in Moscow became increasingly critical in the same year: when the battle of Kursk was raging (summer 1943) the western allies landed in Sicily. Also there was the allied build up in southern England to launch Overlord.

During 1944, when the soviets launched "Bagration", and after its succesful termination -enduring losses as catastrophic as those of the Germans during such operation- they could finally remove the survival issue from their lists of concerns, but the political one remained critical and would only worsen.

The western allies had successfully landed in Normandy and were steadly advancing toward Germany. So the soviet command was hard pressed to advance as fast as possible using all material and human resources at their disposal.

They never had the time to properly train their pilots!

The Pokryshkins and their lucky pupils made very rare exceptions.

If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.

Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.

The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Udet

Also on the viewpoint suggesting the Stuka became an obsolete ship as the war progressed...i do not think i will ever understand the notion.

I´ve said this before: following the same logic then the B-17s and B-24s are "obsolete" when one assesses their losses prior to the arrival of the long range escorts. Different types of planes, sure: one is a dive bomber designed to provide direct support to advancing army forces while the other two are level bombers.

I do not have the numbers at hand, but i once compared % of losses of B-24s/B-17s endured prior to the arrival of the proper escorts vs those of Stukas and it was clear the Stukas fared better in this department.

Adrian - I agree your thesis up to a point.

The point would be that the Ju 87 did not fly in the same threat environment as the B-24 and B-17. The mission was different, but at no time did the VVS ever match the local air superiority that LuftFotte Reich have over Germany in late 1943 to early 1944.

Taking the contrast even farther, even the B-29 would be obsolete against the Me 262 as it was in Korea for daylight mission against the MiG.

Bill, the Stuka remained operational throughout the entire war in the Eastern Front due to the very simple reason the VVS did never attained the type of resurgence depicted on bolshevik and western allied accounts. It´s pure mythology. You have to believe me.

I do believe you. In my clumsy way I tried to contrast the effectiveness of the Ju 87 and Hs 129 in the East up to the end of the war versus their 'no factor' in the West.

I am aware of two situations in which Stukas encountered US fighters en masse - once in the East on July 25, 1944 near San River - when Jim Brook's 307th FS/315 FG spotted Rudel's Gruppe and virtually wiped out 2. and .3 squadrons, with Rudel's 15 Stuka's jettisoning their bombs and slipping away.

IIRC this was the worst single day for Rudel's Gruppe's in the east and it was inflicted by 15th AF, not VVS.

The second was one my father was involved in on June 6, 1944 when the 355th caught and wiped out 15 SG103 Stuka's on the way to the beach head. I am not aware that Ju 87s ever ventured into Western airspace again.

If for some bizarre reason the build up of the 8th and 15th Air Forces had occurred in the Eastern Front and not in England, then the Stuka would have been withdrawn from service in the sector.

I certainly believe that, and offer the two examples above as rationale to support your statement

Finally, the efforts to detect "obsolete" equipment is focused on Germany, the defeated guys, but let´s not forget the RAF still had Hurricane squadrons in operations as late as in mid 1944...as a fighter and during 1944, the Hurricane could surely be tagged as obsolete since it would be no match against any of the contemporary German fighters.

Once again we are in violent agreement.. and we could point out that they (contemporary German fighters) made life interesting for contemporary Allied Jabos.. and the reverse applied to the FW 190F.

But the F was effective in the West in contrast to the Ju 87 - and it was a very capable fighter in defense at low altitudes - which I think was the reason I ultimately picked that one. I would like my chances one on one better in that aircraft with a Tempest and Lightning being 'good enough' for me... but perhaps more vulnerable to infantry fire on the deck. And I liked its Fighter role better than a P-47D on the deck

The Stuka was never obsolete; i think of this scenario where air-superiority is not attained by the USAAF and RAF in the West, and they still go for Overlord...there are sufficient numbers of German fighters in Normandy to either escort Stukas on mission or to at least tangle with swarms of Allied fighters, then you´d have Stukas screaming on Omaha, Juno, Gold or Sword with perhaps a devasating effect.

I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.

I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority?

Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France

and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.

Which scenario has higher loss percentages?

Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17?

It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944

So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support?

Regards,

Bill

PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.

[Soren]

Bill,

During BoB the Bf-109 could only loiter for 15min over the UK before having to go home, that's why He-111, Ju-87 & Ju-88's got pounded the way they did, they didn't have escorts. The Bf-109 did very well on its on though, acquiring itself a ~2:1 kill ratio.


I can agree with you and Dan on the FW-190F-8 though, I'd certainly choose it if I wanted to accomplish my mission with great success and then come home afterwards. However as a dedicated AT a/c nothing really beat the Hs-129 & Ju-87, both proving extremel effective in the role when air cover was available.

[lesofprimus]

I agree with u Soren and Bill, and Adrian too... Its all about surviving till the next mission to effectivly plug another breakthrough attempt...

The IL2's were decimated partly because of the tactics they employed...

[Udet]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I should think it would be no more effective than in Battle of Britain? Offhand I can think of no improvements made to Ju 87 to make it more survivable in West in 1944 from 1940 - what cahnged was lack of fighter cover effectiveness

Originally Posted by drgondog

Bill, also i do not think of any significant improvements that could make the Stuka better than it was; there were some improvements made to the Stukas during war though. When the war commenced, the main version was the B. When the D version entered service there were some modifications made to the oil cooler and also featured a more aerodinamic shape, plus a new engine (Jumo 211-J), new propeller, plus extra armor and better defensive armament with the MG 81 Zwilling installed.

The only way to give Stukas higher survability would have been to have a larger number of JGs deployed in France and/or Low Countries for 1944. This, in my view, could have been attained had the Germans heeded my advice ( ): disband all ZGs by the end of 1943 and most of the KGs -do not launch the futile Steinbock raids in the beginning of 1944!!-, convert the biggest number possible of bomber pilots to fighter pilots and revamp the aviation industry for producing single-engine fighters mainly. Also this would have saved them fuel enough to put the necessary number of single engined fighters in the air.

Agree with you: what changed was lack of fighter cover effectivenes. This is also the reason why i do not see the Stuka becoming obsolete. What happened was this dramatic change that clearly showed the conditions for proper combat deployment of the Stuka had ceased to exist in Western skies.



This, friend, is only point (obsolete) we disagree. I would classify a ship that is much slower than the Fw 190F - practically defenseless against any fighter (Rudel excluded from this description), and not capable of performing it's prime mission in a high threat environment, as obsolete.

Already stated why i would not consider the Stuka obsolete, even if this line of reasoning is sound.

For example, the level bombing carried out by the fleets of B-24s and B-17s was everything but accurate (The claim the Norden bombsight could put bombs into pickle barrels could perhaps be the wildest and boldest marketing statement ever made by any manufacturer in history).

Many times it would take them several missions flown against the same target to effectively destroy it or to at least cause severe damage. When this was happening during the time there were no long range escorts you have to add the horrendous losses the bomber guys were enduring. Could we assume the fleets of B-17s and B-24s were not capable of fully performing their prime task?


I think to circle back to your original point in obsolescence (Ju 87 vs B-17) we might look at whether you think the Stuka could have been as effective in the West as in East, with even 'parity' in air-superiority?

Excellent question there. With parity in air-superiority i am sure the Stuka can be as devastating as one can think. Surely they´d be taking some losses but with the proper presence of German fighters at least i´d expect them to be withing the sustainable range.

I recall reading somewhere of perhaps the rare cases when Stukas (of StG 2) had the chance to effectively dive and scream on U.S. troops in North Africa -Tunisia- in early 1943 flying in an airspace that was highly contested at the time, meaning the Luftwaffe had no air superiority attained, and the effect was devastating on US soldiers.

Say, a one to one ratio of air cover to both the Stuka's and say, attacking fighters...over France

As i said, in this scenario the Stukas have a greater chance to reach their assigned targets and successfully perform their task.


and contrast that with B-17s and B-24s with proportionately fewer escort fighters over Germany from 1 December through May, 1944.

Which scenario has higher loss percentages?

I couldn´t think of an answer to this Bill. As i said with parity in air-superiority the Stukas can reach targets and have them pounded, not without losses for sure. With fewer escorts for the timeframe you suggest i see a number of B-17s and B-24s still reaching their targets, taking losses as well, but here i would digress on the accuracy of bombing methods: level bombing was highly inaccurate while the dive bombing method of the Stukas ensured a greater accuracy.

I should not continue comparing Stukas against B-17s/B-24s. Too different things. But, there is an episode of the war, in Normandy, around St. Lo, where the fleets of heavy bombers were used to attack enemy troops, namely the elements of the powerful Panzer Lehr that was causing serious losses to the advancing U.S. forces. "Operation Cobra" was called. The very first time they attacked enemy troops was ridiculous, not only the Norden bombsight could not put bombs into pickle barrels, they bombed their own soldiers which got killed and wounded by the hundreds, including a Lt. General of the US Army killed by friendly bombs. It took them several days of attacks to effectively hit the enemy forces.

I know this is off-topic for the thread points to tank-killer planes, not that we´d see the B-17s of B-24s deployed in such role, but it was in my view necessary to get this into the discussion in an attempt to counter the notion of the Stuka becoming obsolete.

So, all in all, the bombing method of the Stuka was way more accurate. So if friendly fighters are present in the area in sufficient numbers, even with losses acknowledged due to enemy action, i see the Stukas hitting in a more effective way.




Or taken another way, would same number of Stuka's (assuming it had the range) escorted by same number of Mustangs, suffer same or fewer losses than B-17?

It's pure speculation on my part but I believe that the available Stukas dwindle to zero very quickly against the same Luftwaffe capabilities over Germany in late 1943/early 1944

So, if you had to choose one that must operate on all theatres, Which a/c would you choose for the role of ground support?

Well, it depends Bill...in an airspace where the enemy has a powerful presence of very capable fighters flown by competitive pilots and can not expect a sufficient number of my own fighters flying around, i´d go for the Fw 190 F hands down...but, if, on the contrary, the airspace even if contested, has a strong presence of my own fighters -not to speak of a scenario of complete air-superiority attained by my air force- i do not hesitate: lets dive and scream.

If it is true we had lived other lives before, chances are i was a Stuka pilot, possibly died during the war.



PS - it's snowing today. Yesterday it was nearly 60 degrees F. My wolfhounds hold me in complete contempt when I say 'outside'.

Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!)

Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Udet

[i]

Aha! And i used to think those great wolfhounds had diplomatic immunity within your land (that thing about them assaulting your kitchen to get those juicy steaks!)

Bill, this is very interesting...i was not aware a flight of Stukas got intercepted in Eastern airspace by USAAF fighters. Thanks for the information!

Briefly, here is the background.

Three sqaudrons of Rudel's Ju 87's were covering Model's retreat from Konev.

I did some more checking including Rudel's Stuka Pilot. His 15 ships were not attached to the other two squadrons, according to his statements on pages 148 and 149.

The Frantic III force was 76 P-38's from 82nd FG plus 56 Mustangs from 31 st FG plus some ships from 5th PRU. The mission was to attack Mielec Poland to destroy LW manufacturing and repair facilities. The two Fighter Group force along with the bombers from 15th AF landed at Poltava on July 22

On the 25th the two fighter forces were briefed to attack Mielec. It turns out that Mielec was also a base for Rudel's Gruppes. They found a motorized Wermacht column near the base and the 307th FS attacked Model's troops. Shortly after the strafing attack the 307FS encountered the 40+ Ju 87s attacking the Russian army and bounced them near Jaroslaw. They overflew Rudel and caught his other two squadrons.

Rudel's account places "300 Mustangs" in the attack. In fact there were a.) never more than two Groups of Fighters involved in any action for any Frantic Mission. On this day 16 Mustangs of the 307FS split up into two sections of eight, one flying top cover. The eight ship attack section claimed 20, were awarded 17, with Brooks, McElroy and Didear getting three each.

One flight each of the 308 and 309 FS caught 6 more scattering from the original bounce point.

What I find interesting is that even a pilot like Rudel would claim "Three hundred Mustangs" attacked when a.) only 56 were within 800 miles of that site, and only 24-30 actaully were involved in the fight. I have never fully understood this 'order of magnitude' overestimation - but then I was never there.

This is a common thread from many Luftwaffe accounts in the period when there were relatively few Mustang Groups combined in 8th, 9th and 15th AF

In Rudel's book he recalls this mission as the only time he jettisoned his bombs.

The soviet hosts at Poltava did not believe the claims until the reports filtered back from their front line units and much vodka was apparently consumed that night.

The final score for the missions flown between 22 and 25 July resulted in 40 air awards plus acknowledgement from Russians of nearly the same destruction of aircraft on the ground plus many vehicles shot up on the roads.

General Strothers made a formal offer to General Permonoff to arrange US tactical air support - but offer never acknowledged after that.

When you get squared away with an email address I will send you the article Jim Brooks wrote about this specific mission in the North American Retirees Bulletin, Fall 1944. Interestinly (for me) it also has an article written by Al White (NAA B-70 Test Pliot) about the Frantic VII mission my father led.

And yes they (wolfies) have 'diplomatic immunity' simply because of 'silent disobedience' which they practice with great skill and enthusiasm. They are far smarter and more agile than I am. We took 12 of 13 out for a long walk to our north creek and they bounced a covey of quail, chased a deer which went over the vineyard game fence (designed to keep deer out but 'failed design', tromped around in the vineyrad, and in general raised merry hell.

Hope you get over here so they can practice their begging on you!

Adrian, which one would you have picked as 'best'??

[airboiy]

hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.

[lesofprimus]

No, it doesnt deserve mention in any thread besides Night Fighters....

OMFG, it had a cannon in the prop??? Which prop, the left or right hand one??? The first, second or third propeller blade???? (Its called a propeller HUB u Meatball)

WOW, amazing...... I guess it was the best tank killer with that cannon in the prop....

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by airboiy

hey what about the p-61 that the Russians used to destroy german armor? Doesn't that deserve mention, despite it's sluggish speed? it had a cannon in the prop.

It is the P-63 King Cobra not the P-61 Black Widow which was a night fighter.

[Robsoar]

The B-25H/J with the 75mm cannon was pretty devastating too!