Bill Hello:
Sorry...for one moment i kind of forgot about this thread.
Thanks again for providing further detail on Rudel´s units meeting with USAAF fighters. Very interesting.
Now your question: as best i´d definitely pick the Stuka. When either air force enjoyed nearly complete air superiority the Stuka proved its full worth as perhaps the ultimate aerial method of destruction, and no other plane deployed in the tank-killing role came close to match the record of the Stukas.
With this i´d be referring to the Ju 87 D; even if the G-1 fitted with the 37mm cannons too proved successful tank killers.
Many people have said to me "but it was a very difficult thing to hit a moving tank with the bombs the Stuka was to launch during the dive". Perhaps. But who says it was necessary to put the bomb through the turret hatch of a tank to either destroy it or to a least knock it out, or to at minimum put the tank crew out of commission?
See some shocking evidence (already posted on another thread i opened):
YouTube - Die Deutsche Wochenschau 1941-12-05 Stukas über Nordafrika
Again i´d referr to the "Operation Cobra" launched by the USAAF to hit the elements of the Panzer Lehr around St. Lo during 1944. It took them nearly 2 days to finally hit the German units, not before killing, vaporizing and wounding a large number of their own soldiers. This operation involved more than 350 B-17s flying in an environment of nearly complete air superiority...and they simply could not find the mark, and when they finally managed to hit the Germans, losses of equipment due to the carpet bombing were not as disastrous as allied literature enjoys portraying. Yes, there was an allied break-through after the carpet-bombing, but a significant number of Panzer Lehr tanks and vehicles were still in service. Furthermore, from reports of some Panzer Lehr commanders it was clearly stated very few tanks were destroyed by the bombs of B-17s.
And do not forget that for this operation, there were also USAAF fighters involved attacking ground targets...that given the nature of the target (Panzer Lehr) a significant number tanks and other AFVs were around.
Had such a task been assigned to Stukas, and with air superiority similar or identical to that enjoyed by the allies over Normandy, it would have taken them Stukas half a morning to exterminate the enemy target, with way less resources invested. How do i substantiate this assertion? Very simple: consider the advance of the US/British armies through Normandy in mid 1944. Again and again, they enjoyed nearly complete air superiority and they had a seriously nasty time in gaining extra yards through their sector. How come? See the same case now for Germany: the advance of the Wehrmacht was utterly crushing and overwhelming even in weeks where the enemy air force was not yet annihilated (First months of Barbarossa in the USSR, or Poland, or France, or the Balkans, even in North Africa during the first months of Rommel).
Hence the evidence the Stuka did not require anything like "complete air superiority" to successfully and brutally fulfill assigned missions.
Had the U.S. developed a plane similar to the Stuka, i can think of them having a more convincing and sound advance through Normandy during 1944.
So all in all, the Stuka is the best.
I have German guncamera footage of Fw190s and Bf 109s dealing with RAF fighters Tempests/Typhoon fitted with those aluminium rails under the wings for installing rockets...they seemed easy victims as well and exploded in huge fireballs.
None of the Allied planes deployed in the ground attack mode destroyed as many enemy tanks as the Stukas did; reading Niklas Zetterling´s works on the matter can be of great help to understand how overrated the P-47s, Typhoon and Tempests are when referring to anti-tank missions.
Huge delays caused to German armored units marching to the front were the main effects ever attained by those allied planes trying to hit German columns.
On another approach -off topic-, having read and studied a good deal on the Normandy campaign, Opeation Cobra being the issue here, helped me training my views Germany could have fared a far more wiser and more efficient aerial war against the 8th and 15th AFs.
The fact a formation of more than 300 B-17s was sent on combat mission to an area clearly identified and detected where enemy elements were blocking the allied advance (St. Lo sector), flying in skies that to a great extent were secure, meaning their side enjoyed nearly complete air superiority, and they could not find the mark, and when they finally did, other than severe disruption and negative impact on morale the Panzer Lehr was not put out of action speaks of the great inaccuracy in USAAF bombing methods.
(Even when fighting in the horror of Stalingrad, where positions held by soviet soldiers in many cases were no more than 50 meters away from German infantry units, when the Stukas were called and vectored to hit the target, there is no single report indicating the Stukas ever hit their own men, flying in a far more complicated battle environment; yup, given the distances and dimensions of that urban fight German troops too had to duck when the Stukas dived, but i have not come across one single report indicating Stuka bombs ever hit Wehrmacht elements even within a bloody city).
Instead of devoting the bulk of the Luftwaffe to Reichsverteidigung, a considerably larger number of German fighters could have been alloted to effectively support German ground forces in the west.
Fighting with almost zero air-support the German soldiers proved their excellence and preparedness on the battlefield. Think of a scenario where they can enjoy aerial cover.
Linear Mode
