Jump to content


Favorite tank killing aircraft of WW2.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
78 replies to this topic

WidowMaker1711 #41 Posted 30 May 2014 - 12:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostLasidora, on 30 May 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:


they had the capabilities. just... they were not maneuverable enough to keep up with 90% of designated fighters lol. their fixed landing gear added alot of resistance. i was watching something on history channel once and they mentioned a few accounts of stukas downing other aircraft. dont think there was any footage seeing as it was a very rare occurance. they had 2 high powered mgs at the front an i think a gunner in the back.

 

Got immense strength too. Must be able to deal with high G loads. Yes a rear gunner and in dive bomber setup either 1 or 2 forward facing 7.92 mgs


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Schlauen Wolf #42 Posted 31 May 2014 - 12:20 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5432 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 30 May 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

 

Got immense strength too. Must be able to deal with high G loads. Yes a rear gunner and in dive bomber setup either 1 or 2 forward facing 7.92 mgs

Not sure of the variant JU 87-(j)(k)? But there was a 30mm cannon under each wing, just outside of the wheel struts, nasty bugger! But plagued with limited ammo supply(space/weight), and, the Stuks was obsolete by '41.


 

                


Schlauen Wolf #43 Posted 31 May 2014 - 12:34 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5432 battles
  • 200
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View PostKiwi the Fox, on 28 May 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

The Tempest was not a ground attack aircraft - you are thinking of the similar looking but very different Hawker Typhoon - the aircraft that carried the 8 rockets and 4x 20mm in the wings - used by the 2nd TAF in Europe in 1944

 

The Tempest was a development of the Typhoon with much thinner laminar flow wings and used to intercept and destroy V-1 bombs in the later stages of 1944.  Very fast and powerful the Tempest was at least a match for all but the

Me 262 jet fighter fielded by the Luftwaffe and if I'm not mistaken did face the jet in combat several times towards the war's end.

 

Got to get out of my HEAD!!!!!!!!!:veryhappy:

 

  That is so damn funny, youre right I was thinking TEMPEST but typed Typhoon intead all this time( until now ) I read tempest in my post. Thanks Kiwi.

  How is it, that, the Brits can design beautiful automobiles, aircraft, churches, manor homes, gardens........

      ...  but have such butt ugly tanks until the late 50's/early 60's???  -jk-:teethhappy:


 

                


Nocturnal814 #44 Posted 31 May 2014 - 12:48 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostLURKINGPANCAKE, on 31 May 2014 - 01:20 AM, said:

Not sure of the variant JU 87-(j)(k)? But there was a 30mm cannon under each wing, just outside of the wheel struts, nasty bugger! But plagued with limited ammo supply(space/weight), and, the Stuks was obsolete by '41.

Ju87g, and it was 37mm



something, something, something, dark side...

Nocturnal814 #45 Posted 31 May 2014 - 12:49 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostLURKINGPANCAKE, on 31 May 2014 - 01:34 AM, said:

Got to get out of my HEAD!!!!!!!!!:veryhappy:

 

  That is so damn funny, youre right I was thinking TEMPEST but typed Typhoon intead all this time( until now ) I read tempest in my post. Thanks Kiwi.

  How is it, that, the Brits can design beautiful automobiles, aircraft, churches, manor homes, gardens........

      ...  but have such butt ugly tanks until the late 50's/early 60's???  -jk-:teethhappy:

The radial engined tempest looked suspiciously like an fw190.... just saying...



something, something, something, dark side...

MashdTaytuz #46 Posted 01 June 2014 - 08:05 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2188 battles
  • 836
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

Not to get off topic, but I saw the Stuka mentioned. I thought I'd share this bit about the Dauntless from wikipedia.

 

"During its combat service, the SBD Dauntless was an excellent naval scout plane and arguably the world's best dive bomber. It possessed long range, good handling characteristics, maneuverability, potent bomb load capacity, great diving characteristics, defensive armament and ruggedness. In most of these characteristics, the SBD was superior to both of the Axis Forces' main fixed-gear dive bomber designs — the German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka and the Japanese Aichi D3A "Val" — and any dive bomber possessed by the Allies' Royal Air Force or the Soviet Air Force."


Leela: You know, Zapp, someone ought to teach you a lesson.

Captain Zapp Brannigan: If it's a lesson in love, watch out. I suffer from a very sexy learning disability. What did I call it, Kiff? 

Kif Kroker: Ugh... sexlexia. 


CaptainAhab21 #47 Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:07 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 8725 battles
  • 11
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013
The historical impact of the IL-2 series makes this a no brainer for me. Not having to worry about a lucky 20 mm round exploding in my lap would make strafing Pz. IV's a lot less stressful. The Ju-87G is scary looking, but Rudel was the Kenny McCormick of WWII.   

 


flynlion #48 Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:46 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 3637 battles
  • 1,890
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
P-47 does it for me. I got several (older) friends who flew it during WW2, great airplane.

Panthergraf #49 Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:36 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37493 battles
  • 1,516
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostCaptainAhab21, on 02 June 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

The historical impact of the IL-2 series makes this a no brainer for me. Not having to worry about a lucky 20 mm round exploding in my lap would make strafing Pz. IV's a lot less stressful. The Ju-87G is scary looking, but Rudel was the Kenny McCormick of WWII.   


Hmm. How about:

 

Gerhard Stüdemann. 117 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190.

Anton Hübsch. 120 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190. 8 air victories.

Hendrik Stahl. 100 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190.

 

Just to name a few.  They all flew more than 1000 sorties and survived the war.

 

Anyone remember the PC-Flightsim "IL 2 Sturmovik"? That was fun! I've spent hours and hours in the good ol' P40 Warhawk. Or "Red Baron", "Aces Of The Pacific" etc.  in the early 90's. Great stuff.


Edited by barmbek76, 02 June 2014 - 12:39 PM.


WidowMaker1711 #50 Posted 02 June 2014 - 03:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View Postbarmbek76, on 02 June 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:


Hmm. How about:

 

Gerhard Stüdemann. 117 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190.

Anton Hübsch. 120 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190. 8 air victories.

Hendrik Stahl. 100 tanks in JU 87 und FW 190.

 

Just to name a few.  They all flew more than 1000 sorties and survived the war.

 

Anyone remember the PC-Flightsim "IL 2 Sturmovik"? That was fun! I've spent hours and hours in the good ol' P40 Warhawk. Or "Red Baron", "Aces Of The Pacific" etc.  in the early 90's. Great stuff.

 

To be fair anything fitted with the Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 would have stopped most AFVs dead.

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Dennis420b #51 Posted 02 June 2014 - 06:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 02 June 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

To be fair anything fitted with the Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 108 would have stopped most AFVs dead.

 


??? The Mk 108? Do you mean the Mk 101 or Mk 103? The Mk 108 was a low velocity weapon used for bomber destruction. The Mk 101 and Mk 103 were high velocity weapons.

 



WidowMaker1711 #52 Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:31 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostDennis420b, on 02 June 2014 - 07:06 PM, said:


??? The Mk 108? Do you mean the Mk 101 or Mk 103? The Mk 108 was a low velocity weapon used for bomber destruction. The Mk 101 and Mk 103 were high velocity weapons.

 

 

Well yes those too. But it was the MK108 that was destined to arm the ultimate FW190, the TA152. 

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


pG x Hotshot #53 Posted 02 June 2014 - 08:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14762 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMtOMajorCat0311, on 24 May 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I will cast my vote for the P-47 Thunderbolt, since it will see me safely into the theater of operations, clear the airspace, take out my targets, and see me safely home.  Is it the best tank buster, maybe not, but I like the survivability.

Same here. P-47 Thunderbolt completely.


"Semper Fi"


WidowMaker1711 #54 Posted 02 June 2014 - 10:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Hawker Typhoon Ib

For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Kiwi the Fox #55 Posted 03 June 2014 - 01:30 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 18030 battles
  • 519
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostMashdTaytuz, on 01 June 2014 - 04:05 AM, said:

Not to get off topic, but I saw the Stuka mentioned. I thought I'd share this bit about the Dauntless from wikipedia.

 

"During its combat service, the SBD Dauntless was an excellent naval scout plane and arguably the world's best dive bomber. It possessed long range, good handling characteristics, maneuverability, potent bomb load capacity, great diving characteristics, defensive armament and ruggedness. In most of these characteristics, the SBD was superior to both of the Axis Forces' main fixed-gear dive bomber designs — the German Junkers Ju 87 Stuka and the Japanese Aichi D3A "Val" — and any dive bomber possessed by the Allies' Royal Air Force or the Soviet Air Force."

The Dauntless was also designated and used as an emergency interceptor for Aircraft Carrier Combat Air Patrol should the F4F Wildcat CAP be off intercepting incoming "bogies".  By all accounts its maneuverability and ruggedness

stood it in good stead when dealing with Japanese A6M "Zero"  fighters used by the Imperial Japanese Navy during the war.  It was also a commonly held belief in the USN that the successor to the Dauntless, the Curtiss SB2C Helldiver, was in fact an inferior dive bomber to the Dauntless and definitely not well loved by its crews

 

 


 

"My avatar is the division patch for the 4th Canadian Armored Division, NW Europe 1944-45"   - painted on  Left Front of Vehicle                                                               

 

                                                              


Chieftain WGA #56 Posted 03 June 2014 - 03:59 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 24 May 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:


I cant think of a plane that I would rather fly if I was an allied airman tasked with close support missions than the P-47. I believe the pilot of this one lived. From what I understand its 500lb bomb being carried dropped and detonated upon landing after failing to deploy during its attack.

Although I could be wrong in my recollection of the events.

 

I gave a talk at the 8th Air Force museum a few months ago, and I asked the lads what was the best ground attack aircraft that the Western Allies put into production in the war. I got a number of suggestions back, P47 was the leader.

 

The problem is that P47, Typhoon, A36... they weren't attack aircraft. They were fighters which were found wanting at their primary designed role, and put into service at something they were competent at because ground attack wasn't considered important enough to warrant designing airplanes for the role. They are not on a par in lethality or survivability with purpose-designed aircraft such as the Hs 129 or IL-2. Analysis of P47 and Typhoon effectiveness showed they actually sucked at killing tanks. (They had great morale effect, however, and did a reasonable number on soft targets)



WidowMaker1711 #57 Posted 03 June 2014 - 05:56 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostChieftain WGA, on 03 June 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

 

I gave a talk at the 8th Air Force museum a few months ago, and I asked the lads what was the best ground attack aircraft that the Western Allies put into production in the war. I got a number of suggestions back, P47 was the leader.

 

The problem is that P47, Typhoon, A36... they weren't attack aircraft. They were fighters which were found wanting at their primary designed role, and put into service at something they were competent at because ground attack wasn't considered important enough to warrant designing airplanes for the role. They are not on a par in lethality or survivability with purpose-designed aircraft such as the Hs 129 or IL-2. Analysis of P47 and Typhoon effectiveness showed they actually sucked at killing tanks. (They had great morale effect, however, and did a reasonable number on soft targets)

 

Didnt the Typhoon and Apache suffer the same indignity at having engines that were only capable at low level?? 

 


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


flynlion #58 Posted 03 June 2014 - 06:20 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 3637 battles
  • 1,890
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostChieftain WGA, on 03 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

 

I gave a talk at the 8th Air Force museum a few months ago, and I asked the lads what was the best ground attack aircraft that the Western Allies put into production in the war. I got a number of suggestions back, P47 was the leader.

 

The problem is that P47, Typhoon, A36... they weren't attack aircraft. They were fighters which were found wanting at their primary designed role, and put into service at something they were competent at because ground attack wasn't considered important enough to warrant designing airplanes for the role. They are not on a par in lethality or survivability with purpose-designed aircraft such as the Hs 129 or IL-2. Analysis of P47 and Typhoon effectiveness showed they actually sucked at killing tanks. (They had great morale effect, however, and did a reasonable number on soft targets)

 

I know several P-47 vets who would argue those points  :izmena:



Chieftain WGA #59 Posted 03 June 2014 - 10:12 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View Postflynlion, on 03 June 2014 - 07:20 PM, said:

 

I know several P-47 vets who would argue those points  :izmena:

 

Well, right off the bat they'd have to explain why an aircraft with a 'Pursuit' and not 'Attack' designation found its fame shooting at ground targets...



INDR1D COLD #60 Posted 04 June 2014 - 02:50 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 22426 battles
  • 1,347
  • [W0TFR]
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

since i have a thing about radial single engine planes i will have to go for the

FW190 F/G  and the P47 D/M .

not purpose designed for this task but still very efficient at it . both were though planes , very performant and incredibly versatile workhorses .

 

on a sidenote , I went to a gathering of mustangs in kissimmee fl back in 1999 ( it was at the time the largest amount of mustangs in one place since the korean war ) , and one of the pilot had some interesting insight on the jugg . when asked which he prefered flying ( he flew the P47 in WWII and P51 in korea ) , all he said was :

during WWII , if you wanted to impress your girl back home , you had your picture taken in a mustang 

if you wanted to get back to her , you'd better fly a thunderbolt .


Edited by JBT manchzeck, 04 June 2014 - 03:19 AM.

formerly : JBT manchzeck




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users