Best Tank-Buster of WW2 [Archive] - The Great Planes and warbirds Community

Double T

5th June 2006, 06:59

Some candidates come to mind... but which should wear the crown of BEST at busting enemy tanks? feel free to add what I may have overlooked.

* Ju-87G-2 with 37mm gun-pods. (Like Hans Rudel flew with great success.)

* Hawker Typhoon... on the deck, rockets firing and 4x20mm cannon to boot

* Hawker Hurricane MkIID equipped a version with 40mm gun-pods used in the desert. No idea of it's value. Other variants with 4x20mm cannon.

* Henschel HS 129-B2/3. It appears to have been effective using 37mm and 50mm cannon. The 75mm version was a bit "much."

* P-47-D Thunderbolt... known as a good "Jabo" but tank-killer? A strong American candidate eludes me...

* Ilyushin IL-2m3 with twin 23mm cannon-pods. VERY formidible.

* I'm not aware the Japanese felt the need for a tank-killer... nor the Italians.

Fire away.
Tim

curmudgeon

5th June 2006, 08:23

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Some candidates come to mind... but which should wear the crown of BEST at busting enemy tanks? A few candidates come to mind... feel free to add what I may have overlooked.

* Ju-87G-2 with 37mm gun-pods. (Like Hans Rudel flew with great success.)

* Hawker Typhoon... on the deck, rockets firing and 4x20mm cannon to boot

Very effective in instilling fear. Post action analysis showed not very effective in destroying tanks

quote:
* Hawker Hurricane MkIID equipped a version with 40mm gun-pods used in the desert. No idea of it's value. Other variants with 4x20mm cannon.

* Henschel HS 129-B2/3. It appears to have been effective using 37mm and 50mm cannon. The 75mm version was a bit "much."

Good record on the eastern front where most tank warfare occurred

quote:
* P-47-D Thunderbolt... known as a good "Jabo" but tank-killer? A strong American candidate eludes me...

* Ilyushin IL-2m3 with twin 23mm cannon-pods. VERY formidible.

* I'm not aware the Japanese felt the need for a tank-killer... nor the Italians.

Fire away.
Tim

Tony Williams

5th June 2006, 18:02

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

On balance, I'd have to give the nod to the Hs 129 - provided that no fighter opposition was expected. It was well-armoured and the single, centrally-mounted gun was better than two wing-mounted ones (more accurate, better recoil control, less weight).

If you expect the plane to defend itself against fighters as well, then the Yak-9T has a lot going for it. Not well-armoured, but very hard-hitting and an effective fighter.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Mark J

5th June 2006, 18:26

Tony, would sabots have been usefull in the smaller 20mm guns?

cheers

Tony Williams

5th June 2006, 20:10

quote:Originally posted by Mark J

Tony, would sabots have been usefull in the smaller 20mm guns?

Small-calibre sabots were probably technically unrealistic in WW2 - they had enought trouble getting the big ones to work.

Germany did introduce some tungsten-cored Hartkernmunition for their 20mm KwK 30/38 light AFV guns, and also for the 15mm MG 151. There was also a British Hispano AP Mk III (IIRC) which was tungsten-cored, but this was never issued. These all had considerably better penetration than conventional steel AP.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Double T

5th June 2006, 22:57

No votes for the Sturmovik?
Curious.

Tim

montanamotor

5th June 2006, 23:36

Folks,

The Henschel 129 in most of her variants featured suprisingly small calibers - 2 x 7,92 an 2 x 20 mm in the fuselage, only. The belly-monted 37 and 50 mm-kalibers were very rarely used and, there were very few of those 129-planes in use at a time at the Eastern Front, too. Also to mention is the fact that, the flight-performance of the Henschel 129 suffered severely under the heavy belly-monted gun.

The Ju 87G-2 - well: There was exactly one squadron of those with 36 planes in service at the eastern front, at any given time from 1943 onwards. In fact, the Ju 87G-2 was only kept in use, because Rudel and few other Stuka-pilots refused to be re-assigned to the new-founded FW 190-Schlachtgeschwader. And, to have those reluctant Stuka-riders have to do at least SOMETHING usefull at the Eastern Front, the otherwise out-dated Ju 87D was reequipped with those heavy gun-pods. Alas: 8 rounds per gun is not a too overwhelming stockpile of ammo, if you have to stop a russian 2000+-tank-attack...

The Iljushin 2M-3 in some variants had TWO wing-mounted 37 mm-guns - and sometimes even a third, nose-mounted, 37 mm-gun. A heavy hitter, in fact. My favorite for busting tanks, if there ever was one.

The british Hawker Typhoon fighter bombers proved very effective in fighting german tanks in the "Battle of the Bulge" at Bastogne during the "Ardennen-Offensive". Yet, after-battle-evaluation revealed that, more than 50 percent of the german tanks that had been hit by british Typhoon-launched rockets, in fact remained intact after the hit! The rocket's charge didn't penetrate the tank's armour. The tanks after a hit were only abandoned in panic by the german crews, who thought their last bell had tolled when the rockets exploded on the tank's deck. So, it was more the german's morale, that was busted, not the german's armour.

The in-flight-performance of the Hurricane Mk. IID-tank busters with their two underwing 40 mm-Bofors-guns suffered severly from the wheight and the drag of those heavy, pod-mounted guns. Additionaly, they had a stockpile of only 5 rounds per gun, as far as I am informed. So the "Tankbuster"-Hurricane had one, at best two approaches per sortie to hit a target before being exhausted.

Last, but not least, should we not forget to mention a very special, yet very effective type of tank-buster(s), which I am fond of very much, too, yet which are often overlooked as tankbusters:

The Bell P 39 Cobra and, P 63 King Kobra! Both featured this one big, strong, General Motors-build, 37-mm Colt gun firing through the propeller-hub. The russian pilots where CRAZY about fetching one of these from the about 10.000 lend-lease-Bells that the soviet airforce was equipped with during WWII. These planes had fighter performance, as well as top tank-buster qualities. VERY fast and manouverable at low levels. And both Bell-planes (well: Fighters - or what...?) had 50 (!) rounds of ammo for their one big Colt-gun, supplemented by two to four .50-caliber-guns - and up to three hard-points (P 63) for bombs, napalm-canisters, long-range-tanks aso., aso.

So, summed up, I'd say: The Iljushin 2M-3 had the maximum hitting power, the Bell's had the maximum overall performance as tank busters.

And - yes: There was a Yak 3 with a central 37 mm gun in use by the russians, too. So make your choice: Want a tail-dragger, or rather a tricycle gear? Anything goes...

Kutscha

6th June 2006, 00:39

Afiak the P-39 only carried HE, no AP. It is a myhh that they were used as tank busters. They might take the odd potshot but that was not their primary duty.

The Hurrie performed very well as a tank buster in NA (5, 6, 20 RAF, 7 SAAF) and NE Europe (184 RAF). The Vickers S had a mag of 15 rds. Of all the rockets fired, it was lucky if 1% came near enough to a target to do any damage. The Hurrie still had 2 .303" for offence while the Ju87 had no offencive guns, only defensive guns.

The Ju87 had 12 rds/gun.

Ricky

6th June 2006, 01:18

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

The british Hawker Typhoon fighter bombers proved very effective in fighting german tanks in the "Battle of the Bulge" at Bastogne during the "Ardennen-Offensive". Yet, after-battle-evaluation revealed that, more than 50 percent of the german tanks that had been hit by british Typhoon-launched rockets, in fact remained intact after the hit! The rocket's charge didn't penetrate the tank's armour. The tanks after a hit were only abandoned in panic by the german crews, who thought their last bell had tolled when the rockets exploded on the tank's deck. So, it was more the german's morale, that was busted, not the german's armour.
Actually a direct hit from a Typhoon's rocket was certain death for any tank. Unfortunately (as Kutscha pointed out) a direct hit was pretty rare. IIRC In tests on Salisbury Plain against a stationary Panther, painted white, it took a full set of 12 planes, firing 8 rockets each, to achieve a hit. The hit completely destroyed the tank. There were lots of near misses, which did nothing at all.

Now imagine if the tank was camoflaged and/or moving, and there was AA fire...

Groggy

6th June 2006, 01:32

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

The british Hawker Typhoon fighter bombers proved very effective in fighting german tanks in the "Battle of the Bulge" at Bastogne during the "Ardennen-Offensive". Yet, after-battle-evaluation revealed that, more than 50 percent of the german tanks that had been hit by british Typhoon-launched rockets, in fact remained intact after the hit! The rocket's charge didn't penetrate the tank's armour. The tanks after a hit were only abandoned in panic by the german crews, who thought their last bell had tolled when the rockets exploded on the tank's deck. So, it was more the german's morale, that was busted, not the german's armour.
Actually a direct hit from a Typhoon's rocket was certain death for any tank. Unfortunately (as Kutscha pointed out) a direct hit was pretty rare. IIRC In tests on Salisbury Plain against a stationary Panther, painted white, it took a full set of 12 planes, firing 8 rockets each, to achieve a hit. The hit completely destroyed the tank. There were lots of near misses, which did nothing at all.

Now imagine if the tank was camoflaged and/or moving, and there was AA fire...

Hi Folks,
What were the results for the trials for the Tank Buster Mosquito with 58mm Molins gun? Was the gun any good?

Tony Williams

6th June 2006, 01:44

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Afiak the P-39 only carried HE, no AP. It is a myhh that they were used as tank busters. They might take the odd potshot but that was not their primary duty.
Correct - AP shot did exist but was not supplied to Russia, I believe. Anyway, the gun was too weak to be effective as it had only a small fraction of the power and penetration of the Russian and German 37mm weapons.

The prototype P-63D was equipped with the 37mm M9, firing much more powerful ammunition, which would have been a good tank-buster, but that never made it into service.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Tony Williams

6th June 2006, 01:52

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

The Henschel 129 in most of her variants featured suprisingly small calibers - 2 x 7,92 an 2 x 20 mm in the fuselage, only. The belly-monted 37 and 50 mm-kalibers were very rarely used and, there were very few of those 129-planes in use at a time at the Eastern Front, too. Also to mention is the fact that, the flight-performance of the Henschel 129 suffered severely under the heavy belly-monted gun.
The best gun for the Hs 129 was probably the 30mm MK 103, which fired very effective tungsten-cored ammo at quite a high rate - and it carried 100 rounds.

quote:The Iljushin 2M-3 in some variants had TWO wing-mounted 37 mm-guns - and sometimes even a third, nose-mounted, 37 mm-gun. A heavy hitter, in fact. My favorite for busting tanks, if there ever was one.
No Il-2 carried a nose-mounted 37mm gun - the engine wasn't designed to take it. Its guns were certainly powerful, but the problem with this plane (as with others with wing-mounted guns) is that the recoil pushed the nose down so the pilot could only fire two or three shots before having to correct the aim. It required a lot of skill to use and the combination of Il-2 and 37mm was not considered very successful.

quote:The in-flight-performance of the Hurricane Mk. IID-tank busters with their two underwing 40 mm-Bofors-guns suffered severly from the wheight and the drag of those heavy, pod-mounted guns.
Not Bofors - Vickers Type S, which fired much less powerful ammunition.

quote:And both Bell-planes (well: Fighters - or what...?) had 50 (!) rounds of ammo for their one big Colt-gun,
30 rounds, actually, for the P-39 and most P-63. Later P-63 had 58 rounds.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Dogwalker

6th June 2006, 04:01

quote:Originally posted by Double T

* I'm not aware the Japanese felt the need for a tank-killer... nor the Italians.

In Italy, after the north african experiences, there were several studies to fit an artillery piece in an aircraft. Some of them were very interesting, but were stopped by the armistice. The only that was effectively used (12 aircrafts built) was tha Fiat Camsa Fc.20
http://www.aerei-italiani.net/Fotostoriche/Fc20.jpg
http://www.comandosupremo.com/CANSAFC20Bis.jpg
Designet as a recognitor (the glass nosed one) was soonly converted in an assault aircraft, equipped with a Breda 37/54 AA gun with 45 rounds in the nose (a very good weapon) two forward firing Breda SAFAT 12,7 mm and a further Breda SAFAT 12,7 mm in a turret.
It was disliked by the pilots due to the poor performances.

A good one could have been the Fiat AS 14
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Ferone/4157L.jpg
It was heavily armoured, the maximum speed 420 km/h with Fiat engines (further developements of the engines were projected), with a 3 men crew.
It was armed with a 37/54 mm Breda machine-gun with 36 shells , two SAFAT 12.7 mm machine-guns in the nose, four in the wings externally to the engines, one in a turret , each with 300 shells, and one 7.7 mm SAFAT in each side of the fuselage.
The prototype was judged as a good aircraft by the pilots but it was destroyed by an allied bombing, and the armistice stopped the developement.

The Breda 37/54
http://www.museoscienza.org/navi/img/armi_62a_big.jpg

Red Admiral

6th June 2006, 04:53

Usually the armament of the AS.14 is given as a 45mm cannon and not 37mm. This is the first time i've seen the 37mm mentioned. 45mm calibre seems unlikely as well.

Kutscha

6th June 2006, 05:09

The Italians fitted a 105mm cannon to their big 4 engine bomber.

The Japanese fitted big guns to some of their a/c but used them against a/c (ie B-29).

Dogwalker

6th June 2006, 05:40

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

Usually the armament of the AS.14 is given as a 45mm cannon and not 37mm. This is the first time i've seen the 37mm mentioned. 45mm calibre seems unlikely as well.

It's a widely repeated error. There is not a similar gun (self loading 45 mm) in the italian inventory. Italians didn't use the 45 mm calibre, and the closest, the self loading 47 mm Fiat 47/32, was a tank-weapon, unadapt to be avionized.
Some fonts (as this http://www2.ing.unipi.it/~dimnp/staff/manfredi/100_Anni_compact.htm ) report the correct calibre.

Red Admiral

6th June 2006, 06:29

The gun fitted to the Piaggio 108A was the 102mm/35 with a magazine for about 50 rounds in the fuselage. Maximum firing range was 10km. Does anyone know about the loading mechanism? Manually loaded or automatic?

Dogwalker

6th June 2006, 07:34

It was manually feeded. It's comprehensible, since it was intended to be an anti-ship weapon.

Kutscha

6th June 2006, 21:56

quote:Originally posted by Red Admiral

The gun fitted to the Piaggio 108A was the 102mm/35 with a magazine for about 50 rounds in the fuselage. Maximum firing range was 10km. Does anyone know about the loading mechanism? Manually loaded or automatic?Thanks.[8D] Knew it was 10?mm.

Dogwalker

6th June 2006, 22:12

The original Ansaldo 102/35 was widely used as coastal artillery and as "autocannone" (self propelled gun).
http://www.cmsc.it/static/1943/selia.jpg
http://comandosupremo.com/102-35little.jpg

Lightning

8th June 2006, 01:49

Hi Double T,

Quoting you:
quote:No votes for the Sturmovik?
Curious.

The IL-2 was mentioned, and it is the Sturmovik. I agree with you--the Sturmovic must be included in any discussion of great tank busters.

I think the subject can be looked at from several angles. Does "best" mean most successful in actual operations, or does it mean having the most potential--not necessarily realized?

Without having done a lot of research on this topic, let me give my thoughts on it.

I think that, as far as its actuall impact on the war is concerned, the IL-2 was the best, or at least the most significant, tank buster of the war. Its ability to come down low, absorb tremendous punishment by ground fire, and bore-in on its target made it better than other, more heavily armed but also more fragile, ground attackers.

It is true, however, that the late-war German Tigers and Panthers were pretty immune to the IL-2's armament. Also, the low performance of the Sturmovik made it easier to hit with ground fire and by fighters. Much of this was improved in the IL-10--the Sturmovik's successor.

The IL-10 was more heavily armed and had good-enough performance to allow it some ability to actually engage in aerial combat. (The IL-2 had no such ability and had to be defended by escort fighters when intercepted. The IL-10 was a better airplane, but it only appeared at the very end of the war (around the beginning of 1945), so its contribution cannot be compared to that of the IL-2.

If the deciding criterion in this discussion is hitting power, then I guess some of the other planes mentioned can be considered better tank busters, but in order to utilize such firepower, the plane must reach the target in the face of interceptors, attack at low level in the face of heavy ground fire, and then get back home to be rearmed to strike again--A plane that is good for only a few missions before being lost is not really that effective no matter how powerful its guns are (unless, perhaps, there is an unlimited supply of both planes and pilots).

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

8th June 2006, 01:57

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

(unless, perhaps, there is an unlimited supply of both planes and pilots)
Which was almost true for the Il-2...[:p]

Kutscha

8th June 2006, 03:54

quote:Its ability to come down low, absorb tremendous punishment by ground fire, and bore-in on its target made it better than other, more heavily armed but also more fragile, ground attackers.Strange you would say that when the Il-2 usd much wood in its structure (wing, rear fuselage, tail). In Aug 1944 the wooden wing was replaced by a metal one. In early 1945, the wooden rear fuselage and tail was replaced by one of metal.

Double T

8th June 2006, 04:09

Kutscha:
My understanding is that the Sturmovik was armored from the engine-cowling back to the rear-gunners' compartment. It was then wooden construction from behind the gunners' station to the tail. I believe the wings were also of wood-construction.
As Lightning stated, the IL-10 made many improvements over the IL-2... including all-metal wings and improved performance.
In any discussion of dedicated "tank-killers' the Sturmovik must be at--or near--the head of the class. The armor provided the crew, and engine, a level of protection from anything short of 20mm cannon-rounds. (So I am told.)
I have to say I'm a fan of the Henschel HS129-B2/3 as well. It was a dedicated anti-tank platform, though I'm not aware of the armor protection provided to the pilot. (I believe the entire windshield/canopy was armored glass?) It also brought the concept of a large, powerful, nose-mounted cannon forward. The twin-engines provided a margin of error for getting-home if one engine failed.
Sounds a lot like the A-10 Warthog of today doesn't it?

Tim

Double T

8th June 2006, 04:11

Ouch.
Double-post!

Tim

Kutscha

8th June 2006, 04:59

Isn't that what I said? wing, rear fuselage and tail of wood. ;)

The Il-10 was a very late war a/c, not doing a comabt sortie til early Feb 1945.

quote:The armor provided the crew, and engine, a level of protection from anything short of 20mm cannon-rounds. Yes, be sure, but the rest of the a/c was wood, and we all know the opinion of someone about a certain wooden a/c.

The Hs129 pilot was enclosed in a small armoured capsule. So small that some instruments were mounted externally as was the sight and padding added to the windshield. If you get a chance read the Classic Publication on the Hs129. A cheaper book (some guy was asking $200 for the Classic book on e-Bay) is the Squadron/Signal book #1176.

The Hs129B-3 was a waddling duck. The B-2 with the 37mm was a much better a/c.

This book has got some nice reviews

Red Star Against the Swastika ISBN 1853676497
It's a first person account by Il-2 pilot Vasily B Emelianenko with 92 combat sorties under his belt, including being shot down three times.

curmudgeon

8th June 2006, 09:19

quote:Originally posted by Kutscha

Isn't that what I said? wing, rear fuselage and tail of wood. ;)

The Il-10 was a very late war a/c, not doing a comabt sortie til early Feb 1945.

quote:The armor provided the crew, and engine, a level of protection from anything short of 20mm cannon-rounds. Yes, be sure, but the rest of the a/c was wood, and we all know the opinion of someone about a certain wooden a/c.

As a supporter of a certain wooden aircraft (which I must have seen flying in my early childhood, but without recollection ... I certainly remember that the Vampires that replaced them were 'different' and 'strange') I am going to point out that they had no role as tank busters except in bombing railway lines, trains, barges and fuel dumps. Lightning argues on the topic ... in the local argot 'he plays the ball, not the man'.

Tony Williams

8th June 2006, 17:32

The most successful anti-tank armament was probably the cluster bombs which could be carried by both the Il-2 and the Ju 87. For the Il-2, the 23mm guns weren't powerful enough and the heavy recoil made the 37mm ones too hard to aim. The Ju 87 gun layout was also inferior to the Hs 129's, although Rudel obviously mastered it pretty well (without getting into the debate about exactly how many tanks he killed ;))

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Double T

8th June 2006, 22:55

Kutscha:
I think we stated the same thing... I attempted to underscore the "armor" aspect, while you made special note of it's "wooden-construction." In my mind the wodden components are not necessarily a negative-aspect of the design.

Tony:
I'm disappointed that those Russian N-37 gun-pods weren't more accurate. I've seen photos of the muzzle-flash as Sturmoviks were firing those 37mm cannon. It looked like "shock and awe."

My readings on the Hs 129 B2/3 indicate that the 50mm cannon-version was more successful in the field than that huge 75mm version. As to the comment comparing the -B3 to a waddling duck... this is a ground-attack aircraft, not a fighter. I think the requirements are different based on it's role. The Sturmovik also needed top-cover and fighter protection as it was not intended to be a dogfighter.

The Japanese Ki-45 Nick might have qualified as a tank-buster... considering it was armed with a 75mm cannon slung under it's belly. Of course it was intended to intercept and shoot-down B-29s.

The B-25 Mitchell was well-known as a ground-strafer in the pacific. Imagine a gaggle of these appearing over a European battlefield with 14 forward-firing .50 caliber machine-guns. (One version had a 75mm cannon for anti-shipping work.) I wonder if it would have been an effective anti-tank weapon? My guess is the size of it's air-frame would have been a disadvantage, but it's awesome firepower is undisputed.

Can anyone think of other "gunslingers" that would qualify with modifications to a "tank-killing" role? How about the Mosquito with it's 4x20mm cannon? Or perhaps an Me-410?

Tim

Ricky

8th June 2006, 22:59

I have seen an Me-410 with a 50mm cannon in the nose, but I have no idea if it ever got into service or what it was used for.

We could always look at the Blenhiem, as several airframes were modified in North Africa to take a 20mm cannon in the nose, as a panicky reaction to the successes of Rommel's armoured forces. Thankfully these were never used...

Tony Williams

8th June 2006, 23:51

quote:Originally posted by Double T

Can anyone think of other "gunslingers" that would qualify with modifications to a "tank-killing" role? How about the Mosquito with it's 4x20mm cannon? Or perhaps an Me-410?
There's one which could have done it without modifications: the Mossie FB Mk XVIII Tsetse, with the 57mm Molins gun - it was actually designed for the role, after all, until the RAF changed its mind. The 6 pdr gun had plenty of penetration, automatic fire and had a magazine of 22 rounds. On test, it demonstrated a 33% hit rate against tank-sized targets, which given that it could fire 4 rounds in each pass, meant that it could score a kill on most passes.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk

Kutscha

9th June 2006, 03:02

Tim, in comparison to previous models of the 129 and other TK a/c. The ammo alone added 416lb(16rds x 26), never mind the weight of the cannon with no increase in power. (BK37s weighed 600lb)

The B-2 suffered a ~75% attrition rate (to all causes). Of the 664 delivered by the end of 1943, 495 had been lost.

I can only find 3 B-2s that had the BK5 cannon. These were WNr140494, 141291, 141292 and these were test a/c. Testing of the last 2 was cancelled.

The 75mm M4 (weight ~900lb) in the B-25G/H proved too much for the airframe and were removed in favour of mgs.

Kutscha

9th June 2006, 03:29

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/hs129b3.gif

Double T

9th June 2006, 05:34

Tony/Kutscha:
Good information... AND photos.
Thank you both. Good discussion as well.

Tim

Kutscha

9th June 2006, 08:27

Here is another one Tim,

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Hs129-1-3.jpg

Sorry is so large but already reduced x45%, any further and the resolution disappears.

Can't give a credit except is from some Russian site.

montanamotor

10th June 2006, 04:54

Gentlemen,

now there is very much ado (Cheers to Shakespeare!) about heavy guns and Tungsten and clusterbombs and rockets an like. But: What about those 50 kg-bombs that were thrown singly by FW 190-Schlachtflugzeuge against russian tanks? During winter times, for fighting single tanks, the FEW german FW-190-Schlachtgeschwader did an EXTREMELY low run on the russian T 34, then dropped a single 50 kg-bomb which, by riquochet, flung back from the hard-frozen ground to finally hit the tank like - a dam-buster-bomb hits a dam (LESS rotation, of course!). To put it straight: They TORPEDOED the tank, rather than bombing it!

Yeah - this was common habit for the german FW 190-Schlachtgeschwader during the russian-winter-offensives of '43-'44 and '44-'45. Reason? Too few heavy aerial guns and Tungsten-Ammo (Sparstoff!) availlable, NO anti-tank-rockets availlable AT ALL until early '45 (In the Land of Nebel and von Braun - shame!) and - NO Napalm availlable!

Germans INVENTED the infantry-flame-thrower during WWI, as far as I am informed. So, to stop massive russian tank-attacks from late 1943 onwards, in developing that idea for new purposes, they tried not only to build flame-throwing tanks, but also flame-throwing PLANES. Thousands of engineering-man-hours, of money and material was wasted on flying flame-throwers on german side! FW 190, equipped with REARWARD-spraying (Drag!) flamethrowers under fuselage and wings, triggered at the time the plane passes right over the top of the tank... Thats the german way of doing it: Why do it simple, if you can do it supercomplicated?

But nobody in Germany got the plain-and-simple idea that, fire being about 3-to-4-times as destructive per ton of incendiary delivered than any conventional explosive during WWII, a bomb filled with a BURNING filling instead of an exploding one, would be the perfect solution for massive attacks against massive tank-assaults!

This idea was left, as far as I know, to some US-Marines-mechanics in the Marianas, who filled abundant droppable fuel-tanks with a mix of fuel, used engine oil and coconut oil, fixed a phosphor-hand-grenade to the tank and finally dropped it onto the heads of the average, usually reluctant-to-surrender japanese Army soldier...

Right time, wrong TOW, opposite side.

Hell, you never have a napalm-bomb at hands when you need it most...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

Romantic Technofreak

12th June 2006, 19:24

Long time ago, we already had a "best ground attack plane" topic. I don´t know if you can separate a tank buster from a "normal" assault aircraft, especially the best-armed ground attackers must be very good tank busters too. Near the end mentioned topic, I made a list of aircraft very well suitable to the task, but still unsuccessfull. Wrong place - wrong time. Here, let me repeat only some of them, in my eyes the best of the best:

1. The Sukhoi Su-8:

http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n2/su-8.html

2. The Beech XA-38 "Grizzly", already object of a GOT topic:

http://www.tgplanes.com/public/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=496

3. The Lockheed XP-58 "Chain Lightning"

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/chainlit.htm

And if you ask for a Japanese contribution, the original version of the Kawasaki Ki-102

http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/wwii/_ki102.gif

was intended as ground attacker, sported a 57mm cannon and, not mentioning if there were some armour plates installed too, would have appeared a very promising antitank aircraft also.

Regards, RT

Ricky

12th June 2006, 19:50

Another finding of British testing of groundattack aircraft was that while unguided rockets had a low hit probability, bombs were even worse. Few, if any, fighter-bombers had anything approaching a bomb-aiming device, and reading accounts written by Western Allied fighter-bomber pilots there were many informal methods of bomb aiming which granted rough accuracy...

Did any Soviet or Axis fighter-bombers have bomb-aiming equipment?

Obviously, I exclude dedicated ground-attack aircraft like the Stuka from this...

ChrisMcD

14th June 2006, 05:44

Cheers RT yet another aircraft new to me.

poor old Sukhoi, always just not making it!!

Reverting back to the comments about the Hurricane with the 40mm cannon. I understand that one of the reasons that the RAF switched to rockets was that the losses of the cannon Hurricanes were prohibitive. You had to fly straight and low for too long if there were any compentent Whermacht Flak gunners in the area.

Rockets may not be accurate, but they can be fired off at a much greater range and they are likely to put the flak gunners aim off if they see the dam things coming their way - knowing they are innacurate just means that they may get you even when they were aimed at the tanks!!

Dogwalker

14th June 2006, 21:04

The heavier of all the experimental italian assault aircraft was the SM 89.
It was a twin engined version of the SM 84 medium bomber, equipped with two 1500 hp Piaggio P XII RC35 engines, it carried two Breda 37/54 guns, three Breda SAFAT 12,7 mm machineguns and 1000 kg bombs.
The prototype was in charge with the 173a Squadriglia for operational evaluations at the time of armistice.
http://www.finn.it/regia/immagini/savoia/sm89.jpg

Lightning

15th June 2006, 00:22

Hi All,

I was reading about the Mosquito the other day when I came across the statement that the Molins-gun-equipped variant was mostly used for antishipping, and that the gun was not all that usable; it was replaced by eight 60-pound rockets. No further details were given.

Regards,
Lightning

Ricky

15th June 2006, 01:17

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

I was reading about the Mosquito the other day

Do my eyes decieve me???[:p]:D

ChrisMcD

15th June 2006, 01:54

Hi Lightning,

I think that the problem with the Mollins Mosquito (Tse-tse) was that it's rate of fire was such that you could only get off a few rounds before the U boat had dived. Mind you I gather one shot went straight through a conning tower and out the other side!

Whereas rockets could be salvoed in one go.

Also a rocket mosquito was much more easily adaptable to other warloads whereas the Mollins was very solidly built into the nose.

And once the rockets were fired the Mossy was a very dangerous long range fighter - remember that a lot of the time they were scrapping with Ju88's out in the Bay of Biscay.

Althought apparently even the mollins gun could be used air-to-air. One incident occured on the 10 March 1944. Two Tse-tse with an escort of four FBVI's from 248 Sqn were ordered to find and attack a Japanese submarine that had entered the Bay of Biscay.

They found the sub but it was being escorted by two destroyers and two torpedo boats. There were also 8 Ju88C-6s from III/ZG1 circling overhead. Sqn Ldr Phillips attacked the submarine and claimed a number of hits, he then fired on one of the destroyers. Spotting a Ju88 he fired off four 6pdr shells at it and claimed to have knocked out the port engine. The FB VI's claimed one Ju88 shot down and another damaged. Acording to German records 7/ZG 1 lost one aircraft at 0924 hrs.

Lightning

15th June 2006, 01:56

Hi Ricky,

quote:Do my eyes decieve me???

"i" before "e", except after "c" :D

Regards,
Lightning

Doubting Thomas

15th June 2006, 02:14

"i" before "e", except after "c"

That really is an ancient saying, Lightning!

Romantic Technofreak

15th June 2006, 07:37

Sorry for answering so late to your question about German bombsights, Ricky. I don´t have accurate sources about them and have to quote from memory.

There were German bombsights, but in the beginning not very good ones. This was the reason why the Stuka was developed and masthead bombing was employed. This backwardness was one of the major shames for a country like Germany that always claims to be in the first line of technology.
A good bombsight became only available after a "Norden" was plucked out of a shot-down Lancaster. Copied and installed in the FW 200, this led to new ship sinking results in autumn 1943 for an airplane that had been already out of business for quite a while.

Regards, RT

Kutscha

15th June 2006, 10:06

RT, a Norden in a Lancaster? You sure?

Actually, the Sperry was better than the Norden. A spy gave the Germans the drawings/data for the Norden pre war. The Lofte 7 was developed from them.

Romantic Technofreak

15th June 2006, 17:28

I said I quote from memory, Kutscha. In the moment, I have other occupations than to do a deeper net research about the topic.

Congratulations to your Lt.Col. promotion!:)

Regards, RT

DoBravery

16th June 2006, 00:00

How about the Heinkel 177 Greif? Actually I know its coupled engines had a horrific safety record and would often burst into flames, but for some odd reason I just love this plane.

The tank buster carried a 50mm gun. I know the Germans also modified 5 aircraft with a 75mm (He-177A-3/R5). I read its flight characteristics were horrible and firing the 75mm caused a severe shock to the frame. I think the 75mm was removed without ever seeing combat. I don't know if the 50mm was effective or not.

Here's the BordKanone BK 50. I had trouble pasting it blown up.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C006001/armament/bk50.html

If you follow the link back, you'll see photo's of Me410 BK50, Ju87 BK37, and Ju88 P-1 with the BK75.

Lightning

16th June 2006, 01:01

Hi Doubting Thomas,

Quoting you:
quote:"i" before "e", except after "c"

That really is an ancient saying, Lightning!

Are you absolutely sure about that?

It's an "oldie but a goodie" (after all, English is not a new language like Esperanto), and it is true in the great majority of cases. Like with many of the "rules" of English, there are exceptions (and these are listed in the complete saying), but, when in doubt (as in "Doubting Thomas"), go with it. So, yes, I am sure about it.

Ricky and I never miss a chance to get in a good-natured jab on one another. If you check his posting of June 14th, you'll see the relevance of my posting.

Regards,
Lightning

Double T

16th June 2006, 03:46

I'm thinking the Bristol Beaufighter might have excelled in a tank-busting role. It was armed with 4x20mm cannon, 6x.303 machine-guns in the wings, and a rear-facing .303 to keep tail-gaters honest.
Imagine it with a 40mm cannon slung under it's belly--aka the Hs-129-B3--and the rear-gunner (perhaps) in a postition to feed that cannon when it was empty.
Later versions were also rocket-armed... though much has been discussed regarding the inaccuracy of unguided rockets.
A couple squadrons of tank-busting beaufighters in North Africa might have given Rommel some REAL headaches. The Japanese called it the "Whispering Death."

Tim

Ricky

16th June 2006, 17:48

Amusingly, I have at home a 'Commando' comic which has a Beaufighter specially modified with a big gn pod under the belly. It had a system where when the gun fired, it also fired lead shot of equivalent weight rearwards, to eliminate the recoil...

Sadly in the comic it was purely a ship-buster, and was only really used in one, incredibly heroic action.;)

Not really a valid point, but I liked the connection.:)

Tony Williams

17th June 2006, 04:01

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

Amusingly, I have at home a 'Commando' comic which has a Beaufighter specially modified with a big gn pod under the belly. It had a system where when the gun fired, it also fired lead shot of equivalent weight rearwards, to eliminate the recoil...
Such guns saw British service in WW1 - they were developed by a USN Commander, Cleland Davis. They were developed in 2 pdr (40mm), 6 pdr (57mm) and 12 pdr (76mm) calibres, but only the former saw (brief) service.

The Germans did (of course) develop the biggest aircraft gun ever, in WW2, which may have inspired the story. This is an extract from Flying Guns – World War 2: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations 1933-45:

"Largest of all the RCLs considered for firing from aircraft was a German weapon, the Rheinmetall G104, a 36,5 cm calibre gun designed to fire a 635 kg shell at 315 m/sec, the recoil being balanced by the expulsion of the equally heavy cartridge case to the rear. The intention was to hang the four tonne gun under a bomber and fire it in a steep dive, battleships probably being the main intended target. However, ground firing tests demonstrated that the muzzle and venturi blasts would be so severe that the aircraft would be unable to survive them, so the idea was abandoned."

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk