Editor in Chief Bill | 22 Nov 2011 9:33 a.m. PST |
Speaking of aircraft intended to hunt individual tanks – not strategic bombers! |
green beanie | 22 Nov 2011 9:45 a.m. PST |
In order: Allied: British Typhoon (Tiffy) Soviet S-3 Stormavik US P-47 British Hurricane German: He-129 (one versions instead of the 3 cm flak gun had a 7.5 cm ATG mounted in the belly) JU-88 ( also had a version with a 7.5 cm ATG in the belly) JU-87 with 2 cm flak I seem to remember some bi-plane the German's would use at night but can not recall it right at the moment. I always wondered why the German's never used their 5 cm rocket firing FW-190's against tanks like they did on B-17's and B-24's? |
Some Chicken | 22 Nov 2011 9:45 a.m. PST |
The evidence tends to suggest the answer is whatever Rudel was flying. Probably a JU87G-2 with twin 37mm cannon for most of his kills? That said, personally I like the Typhoon. |
David Miniature Armies | 22 Nov 2011 9:49 a.m. PST |
P-39 and the IL-2 pop to mind. P-39 more versatile, being that it could be a fighter as well but for pure tank busting I would say the IL-2. Of course any of the later allied aircraft armed with rockets and .50 cal or 20mm. But I was going with aircraft with built in firepower. |
David Miniature Armies | 22 Nov 2011 9:55 a.m. PST |
I had forgotten about the Typhoon. But for some reason I have always liked the P-39. P-47 packed quite a punch too. Geez too many choices:) |
jpattern2 | 22 Nov 2011 9:59 a.m. PST |
Yeah, given those conditions, I'd go with the IL-2, too. Inspiration for most of the post-war dedicated ground-attack aircraft, including aspects of the A-10 Warthog. |
Dances with Clydesdales | 22 Nov 2011 10:05 a.m. PST |
Jabo, P-47 Thunderbolt. It could dish out abuse as well as take a lot in return. |
John the OFM | 22 Nov 2011 10:15 a.m. PST |
Piper Cub spottinmg for the heavy artillery. |
Mako11 | 22 Nov 2011 10:40 a.m. PST |
I'll have to go with the Typhoon for the Allies. Probably the Stuka for the Germans, though all the ones mentioned are good, and the Me-262 would be as well, with its 30mm cannons all mounted in the nose. The latter is quite vulnerable to small arms fire though, due to its exposed engines. |
LeadLair76 | 22 Nov 2011 10:51 a.m. PST |
Weren't the B-25 and B-26 used for ground support? |
21eRegt | 22 Nov 2011 10:59 a.m. PST |
Hs-129 and Ju-87G for the Axis. Typhoon (by a lot) and Sturmovick for the Allies. |
ancientsgamer | 22 Nov 2011 11:54 a.m. PST |
Didn't the P-38 have canon as well? I thought it was a superior aircraft for air to ground strikes. Not sure of its record against tanks though. I also thought the Mosquito was supposedly very effective in this role? I don't think the B-25 and B-26 would be as effective. You may be thinking the A-26 but from reading Wiki, it seems they mounted machine guns instead of cannon. I believe you would need the 20mm canons to penetrate tanks in their vulnerable areas. |
elsyrsyn | 22 Nov 2011 11:57 a.m. PST |
IL-2. If Rudel is on the stick, The Ju-87 with the twin BK 3.7s is at the top of the list, but ONLY if he's in the cockpit. Otherwise, it's too much a sitting duck. Doug |
Omemin | 22 Nov 2011 1:13 p.m. PST |
P-47 and Typhoon, take your choice. On the Eastern Front, IL-2 and JU-87 with the 37's on the spats. I also like the DDs record whenever German Panzers got near the beach, like at Gela and Dunkirk. A 5" round in the front door that's fused to explode in milliseconds after penetration can really mess up a Panzer. |
troopwo | 22 Nov 2011 1:53 p.m. PST |
|
Grizzlymc | 22 Nov 2011 2:08 p.m. PST |
Lancaster – one thousand at a time |
hurrahbro | 22 Nov 2011 2:29 p.m. PST |
I'm another one voting for the Il-2 Sturmovik. |
Gaz0045 | 22 Nov 2011 2:50 p.m. PST |
Typhoon in a 'cab rank'
..similar weight of fire to a navy 6" cruiser bradside if memory serves
|
John D Salt | 22 Nov 2011 3:14 p.m. PST |
Grizzlymc has the right answer. Aircraft are, in general, not a good proposition for enaging point targets. All the best, John. |
KSmyth | 22 Nov 2011 3:35 p.m. PST |
While intended more for strafing than tank busting, the B25G/H could mount a 75mm gun in the solid nose configuration. Only fired four rounds per run, which made it less than accurate. Nasty stuff though. Here's a Youtube video of the gun being test fired. YouTube link |
wrgmr1 | 22 Nov 2011 5:57 p.m. PST |
According to one source I read, the total number of tanks destroyed by rockets fired from allied aircraft was minimal. Trucks, trains and other soft skins took the most damage. However the fear factor of allied aircraft cannot be understated. Rudel is another story altogether. I would venture to guess that John the OFM is correct, the Piper cub directing artillery. |
Etranger | 22 Nov 2011 6:03 p.m. PST |
Further to that ~ only 4% of german armour losses in NW Europe were directly attributable to airstrikes. Of course the tank is still lost if the fuel trucks are blown up en route by the jabos! |
skippy0001 | 22 Nov 2011 6:36 p.m. PST |
1. B-17/B24/Lancs destroying the transport system so the tanks never got fuel or to the front. 2. Piper Cub with wing-strapped bazookas AND spotting for artillery 3. Il-10 Sturmoviks and the Nightwitches that would'nt let the crews sleep 4.Any allied aircraft shaving the road. |
Steve64 | 22 Nov 2011 6:43 p.m. PST |
Ill go with John the OFM – spotter planes directing artillery. Include also all those other recon flights that seem to escape the gaming table. Taking that one step further, the absolute ultimate tank killer thing in the sky would be the modern satellite eye-in-sky. Death from above indeed. Back the OP though – for something that flys out looking for tanks to kill, how about the humble Me-109 ? In the final Gotterdamerung period, many aging Me-109s and other obsolete aircraft were used in desperate kamikaze missions – diving to crash into Russian armoured columns who were massing to cross the Elbe. Iron Cross material for sure. The effect would have been devastating, and many good men were lost no doubt. But as far as the mathematics of efficiency go, thats got to be right up there with the best. In terms of cost vs effect, or "Return on Investment", second to none. Given that wars are pretty much run by accountants these days, that option would have to be at the top of the list for the best tank killing machine for the money. That young men (and women) should volunteer for such things never ceases to amaze. |
hagenthedwarf | 22 Nov 2011 7:47 p.m. PST |
Rudel is another story altogether. Depends on how big a discount on his alleged score you feel is required. Not a man for understatements. |
Kaoschallenged | 22 Nov 2011 9:02 p.m. PST |
Not sure what is meant by the "best?". One of the things I hate about this type of question is what is the criteria as some have mentioned? Statistically? The most successful attacks per sortie? Serviceability. Aircraft characteristics? Total number of kills? There is a toss up between my two favorites. The JU-87 and HS-129. |
Fonthill Hoser | 22 Nov 2011 10:21 p.m. PST |
What the dwarf said about Rudel. How did these Ubermenschen lose the war? ;) Hoser |
DBS303 | 23 Nov 2011 6:03 a.m. PST |
I imagine the source Wrgmr1 is referring to is Ian Gooderson's excellent Airpower at the Battlefront; he uses the operational analysis done in France in 1944-45 to demolish the claims of hundreds of tanks knocked out by Typhoons and P-47s; the PK of a 3" rocket being only about 0.5%. But does demonstrate that a) the aircraft tore apart the logistic support, especially fuel tankers, with 20mm or 0.5" strafing; and b) a panzer crew only needed to see the results of one lucky hit with an RP on a fellow tank to decide that they really did not want to be in their vehicle when a Tiffy was about. So, in short, either a Typhoon as best "armoured-unit busting aircraft." (Slightly different, you see
) Or, as others have said, a Piper Cub or Auster with a FOO at the controls. Though I do have a very soft spot for the Hurricane IId :) |
Grizzlymc | 23 Nov 2011 6:04 a.m. PST |
Kamikaze tactics are only cost effective if you can write off the cost of training the pilot. In the normal course of affairs, this is worth more than the plane. But if your qualified pilot hasnt got fuel for more than one mission, might as well make that one count. |
Femeng2 | 23 Nov 2011 7:11 a.m. PST |
My guide in Russia would say the Stormovik. While being escorted around the airfield, he mentioned that "That was my Stormovik" and we talked about, in general, the attributes of Stormoviks, until he corrected us with "No, that was MY Stormovik, I flew it throughout the war". CAn't argue with that. |
green beanie | 23 Nov 2011 8:19 a.m. PST |
I did read German accounts of the Normandy Campain that stated they were more afraid of the L-4's than they were of the Jabos. As John stated earlier they feared US artillery and knew when they saw the L-4 Pipers flying about a world of hurt was coming their way. |
Omemin | 23 Nov 2011 9:56 a.m. PST |
Basically, Jabos take out tanks and other vehicles behind enemy lines before the engagement. At the sharp end, it's AT guns, tank destroyers, and tanks that do the job. |
Kaoschallenged | 23 Nov 2011 12:19 p.m. PST |
There was a study By The US Army Or AAF put out after the war that has been posted here about the subject posted on the Boards before but I can't remember the name. There are these though. Robert Combat Aircraft Versus Armour in WWII link TANKBUSTERS: AIRBORNE ANTI-TANK GUNS IN WW2 link |
Kaoschallenged | 23 Nov 2011 2:50 p.m. PST |
Ian Gooderson's 'Air Power at the Battlefront', London 1998, containsa couple of cases studies link And here is the TMP thread, "Effectiveness of Ground Attack Aircraft (Esp. Rockets)" TMP link Robert |
Griefbringer | 23 Nov 2011 3:04 p.m. PST |
In the final Gotterdamerung period, many aging Me-109s and other obsolete aircraft were used in desperate kamikaze missions – diving to crash into Russian armoured columns who were massing to cross the Elbe. When faced with the Soviet invasion in 1945, also some Japanese pilots resorted to similar approach against Soviet armour. |
1815Guy | 23 Nov 2011 11:22 p.m. PST |
Gotta love those Typhoons. The Germans hated and feared them. Didnt a Tiffy take out Rommel from the Normandy campaign? Thats got to be real effectiveness for the campaign!!! |
Frontovik | 24 Nov 2011 3:08 a.m. PST |
A regiment of Il2 Sturmoviks flying a Circle of Death. @David Miniature Armies – as well as it's two on board 20mm or 37mm cannons it can carry 600 kg (1,320 lbs) of bombs or eight RS-82 or four RS-132 rockets under the wing. |
archstanton73 | 24 Nov 2011 3:38 a.m. PST |
Yes a spotter plane is very useful however you do need air supremacy..A piper cub or stoch against anything is pretty much dead meat!! |
hagenthedwarf | 24 Nov 2011 8:30 a.m. PST |
Didnt a Tiffy take out Rommel from the Normandy campaign? Thats got to be real effectiveness for the campaign!!! I thought it was a Flt/Sgt in a Spitfire. |
zippyfusenet | 24 Nov 2011 9:09 a.m. PST |
I note that an IL-2 had four bomb-bays in the wings, each one loaded with a batch of small AT or AP bombs. One thing I've wondered – could the pilot salvo one bay at a time? Or did they drop all at once? |
Frontovik | 24 Nov 2011 11:43 a.m. PST |
All at once for both rockets or bombs. link |
Herkybird | 24 Nov 2011 1:41 p.m. PST |
I think the pilot quality and courage would skew any major differences in aircraft Ground attack capability. How good an aircraft is will be dependant on: 1- Weapon load and type. 2- Aircraft ability to withstand flak. 3- Speed and stability of aircraft. 4- Good visibility from the cockpit for the pilot to see targets. Etc
. |
goragrad | 24 Nov 2011 1:47 p.m. PST |
First thought was a Mosquito "Tsetse" equiped with the 6pdr Molin's autoloader, but wasn't sure if that was their role (knew they were historically deployed in anti-shipping/submarine roles). While googling on the 6pdr HE filling topic, I came on a piece on the 6pdr that included the note that the "Tsetse" was originally intended as a 'tank buster.' link To get to the point, in that role I think it would have also done very well. A 33 percent hit ratio (training) against tank sized targets versus the 5 percent for rockets (and I believe based on John Salt's weapons compendium that that is optimistic) with 6 pdr AP gives it a big leg up on the Typhoon. The RAF then became interested in fitting the Molins Gun in the de Havilland Mosquito, to form an airborne anti-tank weapon to replace the Hurricane IID which had been equipped with a pair of Vickers 40mm Class S guns. The aircraft was duly developed as the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII, popularly known as the "Tsetse", but by this time the RAF had lost interest in the anti-tank gun role so the aircraft were brought into service by Coastal Command for anti-ship (and specifically anti-U-boat) purposes. The Tsetse, of which about thirty were built, served with No.248 Squadron during 1944 and is credited with sinking a U-boat. Perhaps its most remarkable achievement occurred during an anti-shipping strike, when one Tsetse became involved in a melee with defending Luftwaffe aircraft. A Junkers 88 was careless enough to fly in front of a Tsetse, which promptly fired its big gun and demolished the Ju 88 with one shot!The Molins Gun, which was technically known to the RAF as the "QF 6pdr Class M Mark I with Auto Loader Mk III" was based on the long-barrelled (50 calibre) gun. The gun weighed 487 kg (635 kg with autoloader) and was fully automatic, with a rate of fire of about 55 rounds per minute. The ammunition supply in the autoloader consisted of 21 rounds, held in five racks of unequal length, plus two additional rounds in the feedway. The rounds in each rack were fed by a combination of gravity and a spring-loaded arm and each rack was moved into place in turn by an electric motor. The gun normally used the plain AP shot (that is the only one shown in photographs), so had a high muzzle velocity of 890 m/sec (2,920 fps). Against U-boat hulls, it was calculated that it would be able to penetrate the hull when striking at an angle of 45 degrees or more, at a range of about 1400m, even through 60cm of water. The gun/aircraft combination was extremely accurate, achieving a hit rate in training of 33% against tank-sized targets – compared with 5% for rocket projectiles. The Tsetse was eventually withdrawn from service when the RAF decided to use rocket projectiles for such roles because, despite their relative lack of accuracy, these were more suited to a variety of purposes and could easily be fitted, or removed, as required. The Molins Gun in the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII was tested in the USA in 1945, in comparison with the nearest US equivalent, the manually loaded 75mm AN-Mk 5 in the PBJ-1H. This comparison was more valid than the difference in calibre might suggest, for the 75x350R ammunition used in the American gun (the same as was used by the M4 tank gun in the Sherman) was about the same overall size as the 57x441R, and the 6pdr and 75mm tank guns were effectively interchangeable in the later British tanks. The Molins Gun impressed the Americans with its performance and reliability and was considered superior to the 75mm as it could achieve a much higher rate of fire. It was noted that fairly violent evasive action and 2.5 positive Gs did not cause stoppages – which could not be said for manual loading! The Americans recommended that the Molins autoloader could be considered as suitable not just for conventional guns but also for recoilless weapons and spin-stabilised rockets. P.S. Amusingly (not surprisingly?), the author of the piece credits a certain John Salt for his penetration data. |
Kaoschallenged | 24 Nov 2011 1:49 p.m. PST |
There is this thread I created awhile back:). Robert "Bazookas on Piper Cubs," TMP link |
zippyfusenet | 24 Nov 2011 5:14 p.m. PST |
Thanks for that link Frontovik, most helpful. |
Lion in the Stars | 24 Nov 2011 8:03 p.m. PST |
Best tank-buster of WW2? tie between Sturmovik and Typhoon, honorable mention to the Hurrican IId. Most effective would be the Piper Cub directing artillery fire. Modern day? Do we have to ask? A10, honorable mention to the Su25. Second place goes to an F111 with the onboard laser-target-designator pod and 250lb Paveway bombs from medium altitude. Yes, the 'varks were used as tank-busters in 1991. They ran out of deep-penetration targets! |
Grand Duke Natokina | 24 Nov 2011 10:54 p.m. PST |
|
Frontovik | 25 Nov 2011 4:35 a.m. PST |
@zippyfusenet – forgot to say the one thing I don't know is whether the rocket launch is salvo firing or ripple firing. I suspect the former but don't know. Whatever, it unloads them all at one press of the button. |
Chouan | 25 Nov 2011 4:44 a.m. PST |
"Modern day? Do we have to ask? A10, honorable mention to the Su25. Second place goes to an F111 with the onboard laser-target-designator pod and 250lb Paveway bombs from medium altitude. Yes, the 'varks were used as tank-busters in 1991. They ran out of deep-penetration targets!" Then ran out of Iraqi targets, and had to find British ones instead. Oh, sorry, that was in the most recent invasion
|
Lion in the Stars | 25 Nov 2011 5:55 a.m. PST |
Well, from 25,000 feet, everything on the ground looks like a target.[/arsehat mode] That's what you get when you ask the USAF to attempt CAS. If you want effective CAS, call the Marines. The USAF's sole purpose at the time of their creation was to deliver nuclear weapons to foreign soil and prevent the delivery of nukes to US soil. Their mindset hasn't changed much since. The A10 has NEVER been assigned to an active-duty USAF unit, it has always been Reserves and/or Air Guard. Sorry, I have little respect for the 'chair farce'. The only USAF guys I respect are PJs and combat controllers. And the combat controllers still have to buy their own drinks. Pararescue, however, get at least one free drink from me. It's bad enough when you job description is 'keep stupid officers from getting into trouble,' but when your job description is 'get stupid officer out of Indian country,' well, that's just far too nasty a job to have to buy your own drinks. |