PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Best tank buster of WWII



james8325
06-16-2004, 09:47 AM

james8325
06-16-2004, 09:47 AM

Platypus_1.JaVA
06-16-2004, 09:53 AM
Hawker Typhoon.

The P38 never was really a tank buster.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge,
ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured
to you again.

Placed 3rd, with team, in the official european championship Il-2/FB

carguy_
06-16-2004, 09:54 AM
Jagdpanter.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

james8325
06-16-2004, 09:57 AM
i knew i forgot something. i only put the p-38 cuz i couldnt think of anything else. thanks.

horseback
06-16-2004, 09:59 AM
So where's the Hurricane Mk IV or the Typhoon? From the list, it's either the Stuka or the Sturmovik. P-47s and Mustangs rarely cracked tanks without rockets or bombs, and models specialized for the role weren't made.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

ASM 1
06-16-2004, 10:02 AM
Voted for the typhoon but.....

Other Possibilities:

Ju 88P-2 with two 37 mm BK 3.7 Fak 18 canon or 88P-4 with a single 50 mm Bk 5 cannon.

only prob with the BK 5 is its ROF.

or one of these things http://www.kotfsc.com/thunderbolt/graphics/hs129-plate-1.jpg
Its a Henschel Hs 129B-3/Wa of 14.(Pz)/Sch.G 9 fitted with the 75 mm BK 7,5 (PaK 40L) anti-tank gun in the winter of 1944-45 (from site)

Dam that gun looks big http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

My fav would have to be the TA152C-3 - 4x MG151/2O + a MK 103 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif
Plus a (460 mph (740 km/h) top speed at 32,810 feet with MW 50 boost)

Enough oomph to get out sharpish like and be on your way back home as well!

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

arzaal
06-16-2004, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
So where's the Hurricane Mk IV or the Typhoon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Typhoon is there. And is voted fot it of course. Most efficient against tanks, AAA etc with its rockets http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
06-16-2004, 10:06 AM
You forgot 190 F8 with PBII Rockets

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

james8325
06-16-2004, 10:07 AM
there is an other option lol. the poll only allows 5 choices. geeze.

WOLFMondo
06-16-2004, 10:10 AM
Hawker Typhoon.

The Beaufighter could carry exactly the same ordinance as the Typhoon but was it used much for tank busting? I know it liked busting ships http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)

p1ngu666
06-16-2004, 10:11 AM
typhoon had increadibly bad losses and problems http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
is the il2 im afraid http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Fafnir_6
06-16-2004, 10:13 AM
Hs129B-2/B-3

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

DeBaer.534
06-16-2004, 10:22 AM
im with fafnir.
and the Bücker Bü 131 with two pairs of Panzerfausts fitted the wings http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif
(it really flew)

LilHorse
06-16-2004, 10:30 AM
This question doesn't even warrant a poll, unless you just want to pick your personal favorite.

The absolute, all time champion a/c for destroying tanks, not just in WWII but for all time is the Ju-87 Stuka. And that's even without the 37mm cannons. Stukas are responsible for destroying more tanks than any other aircraft in history. It is a popular misconception that they were "obsolete" at the start of the war. Not only were they the most successful tank busters but if you include all ground (and sea!) targets destroyed by Stukas you will see that they were the most successful ground attack aircraft in history.

Chuck_Older
06-16-2004, 10:37 AM
Gotta disagree with all y'all

best tank buster was the German 88mm gun

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

faustnik
06-16-2004, 10:41 AM
How about which a/c would you prefer having to fly an anti-armor strike in? I'll take the Jug. Good bombs and rockets and really fast to get the heck outa there! Toughest fighter-bomber in the air. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

ThanasisK
06-16-2004, 10:54 AM
IL-2. Their ability to soak up enormous amount of damage played a major part in the battle of Kursk

LilHorse
06-16-2004, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
How about which a/c would you prefer having to fly an anti-armor strike in? I'll take the Jug. Good bombs and rockets and really fast to get the heck outa there! Toughest fighter-bomber in the air. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There ya go. That's a better angle for a poll. And I'd have to agree here. Zoom in. Hit 'em hard. And get the hell outta Dodge. Yeah, P-47 or Typhoon. For me.

Atomic_Marten
06-16-2004, 11:33 AM
Vote for "other", but think stuka + henschel will be my choice, if I really must choose. There are several good anti-tank equipped A/C's but... what Ruddel did with stuka is impressive so I have choose. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dammerung
06-16-2004, 12:01 PM
Both Il-2, the Dumptruck of CAS aircraft, and the Ju-87, a pure 90 degree screamer.

Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...
The whole damn place is full of queers, navigators, and bombadiers...
Oh, there are no fighter pilots down in hell...

Rebel_Yell_21
06-16-2004, 12:06 PM
I voted other, since aircraft destroyed damn few tanks in World War II.

They were hell on lightly armored vehicles and transport, but a huge percentage of armored vehicles claimed by pilots were not, in fact, done any harm from the air.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg

Resident_Jock
06-16-2004, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
This question doesn't even warrant a poll, unless you just want to pick your personal favorite.

The absolute, all time champion a/c for destroying tanks, not just in WWII but for all time is the Ju-87 Stuka. And that's even without the 37mm cannons. Stukas are responsible for destroying more tanks than any other aircraft in history. It is a popular misconception that they were "obsolete" at the start of the war. Not only were they the most successful tank busters but if you include all ground (and sea!) targets destroyed by Stukas you will see that they were the most successful ground attack aircraft in history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I gotta disagree there. The stuka may have had the most tank kills ever but then again it flew during WWII when there were hundreds or even thousands of tanks on any given major battle. I would say that the all time most efficient tank killer would be the A-10, but for the purposes of this argument I will say the IL2. It's ordinance carrying ability as well as the later model's equipped armament, as well as it'slegendary survivability make it the supreme ground attack plane of it's day.

http://thecasualty.homestead.com/files/resident_siggy.jpg

gates123
06-16-2004, 12:47 PM
I think the Stuka wins in a close race over the Il-2

http://www.flightjournal.com/images/index_photos/gunslinging.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?

Mitlov47
06-16-2004, 01:03 PM
In game I'd say the IL-2. Especially the early model which carries eight pairs of rockets. I don't know what was the best in real life.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087375867_dorasig2.jpg

LilHorse
06-16-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Resident_Jock:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
This question doesn't even warrant a poll, unless you just want to pick your personal favorite.

The absolute, all time champion a/c for destroying tanks, not just in WWII but for all time is the Ju-87 Stuka. And that's even without the 37mm cannons. Stukas are responsible for destroying more tanks than any other aircraft in history. It is a popular misconception that they were "obsolete" at the start of the war. Not only were they the most successful tank busters but if you include all ground (and sea!) targets destroyed by Stukas you will see that they were the most successful ground attack aircraft in history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I gotta disagree there. The stuka may have had the most tank kills ever but then again it flew during WWII when there were hundreds or even thousands of tanks on any given major battle. I would say that the all time most efficient tank killer would be the A-10, but for the purposes of this argument I will say the IL2. It's ordinance carrying ability as well as the later model's equipped armament, as well as it'slegendary survivability make it the supreme ground attack plane of it's day.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GW1 record for A-10s (one of my favorite a/c of all time BTW):

Tanks- 987
Artillery- 926
APCs- 501
Trucks- 1106
Command Vehicles- 249
Military structures- 112
Radars- 96
Helicopters (air-to-air!)- 2
Bunkers- 72
Scud missiles- 51
AAA- 50
Command posts- 28
Frog missiles- 11
SAMs- 9
Fuel tanks- 8
Fighters (air-to-ground)- 10

A very impressive record indeed. Keep in mind, however, that these are stats for all A-10s in GW1.

Hans Ulrich Rudel's combat record:
Tanks- 518
Trucks- 700
AAA and artillery- 150
The battleship October Revolution
The cruiser Marat
Landing craft- 70
And hundreds of train cars

That's by himself. And there were a good number of other Stuka pilots whose tank kills ran up into the hundreds. Probably four or five Stuka pilots including Rudel would match up target-wise with all the A-10s targets in GW1.

woofiedog
06-16-2004, 01:21 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gifI have to go with the P-47... it has many... many shots to fire off.
Some go with those Big Cannon Jobs.
But there is noth better than lots of Ammo! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif
Plus... it has a Radial engine that can take Licking or the punishment and keep on Ticking. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

BSS_Vidar
06-16-2004, 01:27 PM
IL-2 based on armament and survivability.

The P-51? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif Not even close... ground attack was its hugh weakness. The in-line engine was cannon fodder to ground fire.

P-47 a very very close second.

BSS_Vidar

p1ngu666
06-16-2004, 04:24 PM
stuka is **** compaired to il2. it can dive bomb and carry a large (single bomb) not a great benifit for blowing up a tank
il2 cannons, rockets, bombs all at once
stuka has bombs or cannons

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

PunicaDUSK
06-16-2004, 04:37 PM
FW-190 with F¶rstersonde http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

whitetornado_1
06-16-2004, 04:42 PM
I say the Hawker Typhoon and the IL-2

Its funny when you read Russain infantry and Tank crew stories how they would say that the Il-2 was much less present in battle than the Red Army had claimed.

Mitlov47
06-16-2004, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
That's by himself. And there were a good number of other Stuka pilots whose tank kills ran up into the hundreds. Probably four or five Stuka pilots including Rudel would match up target-wise with all the A-10s targets in GW1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin had a lot more tanks than Saddam did. If Saddam had an army as big as the Red Army, you'd have individual A-10 pilots who rivaled Rudel. I remember hearing one Warthog pilot who killed 24 tanks (not vehicles, tanks) before he had to head back to base to reload. I don't know whether that's an urban legend or not, but between the GAU-8 and Hellfire missiles, it's certainly possible.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087375867_dorasig2.jpg

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 05:19 PM
Hans Rudel is not the kind of "Panzer Ace" such as Wittmann or Barkmann, simply because he was "Stuka Ace" and destroyed enemy armored fighting vehicles from the air. During his career, as Stuka pilot he managed to destroy enormous number of enemy equipment, including 519 Soviet tanks. Hans-Ulrich Rudel was born in 1916 in Silesia.He was the son of a clergyman - minister. He was never good at school and received limited education. Rudel was a teenager when the NSDAP took charge and became indoctrinated at very early age.Since young age, Rudel showed interest in sports and did not do well in school. In 1936, he joined the Luftwaffe as an cadet officer as a way to continue and develop his sporting activities. After passing his flying training course and becoming a pilot, Hans Rudel applied for further training in the technique of the dive-bombing but was turned down. Instead, he received reconnaissance observer's training and flew long range reconnaissance missions during Polish Campaign in September of 1939 as a Lieutenant. On October 11th of 1939, Rudel was awarded Iron Cross 2nd Class.At the same, Rudel continued applying for Ju-87 Stuka (Sturzkampfflugzeug - dive bomber)training course and was finally admitted in May of 1940. After the completion of the course, Oberleutnant Rudel was posted to Stuka Training Wing near Stuttgart, where he spent the French Campaign. Afterwards, Rudel was transferred to 1st Staffel (1st Squadron) of Stukageschwader 2 (Dive-Bomber Group 2) and took part in the airborne invasion of Crete in May of 1941, although not in the battle zone. In preparations for the Operation Barbarossa, Rudel's Group was transferred to the Eastern Front and on June 23rd of 1941 at 3:00am flew his first combat dive-bombing mission. During next 18 hours, he flew total four combat missions. On July 18th of 1941, Rudel was awarded Iron Cross 1st Class.

On September 23rd of 1941,Rudel's Group (1st and 2nd Wing) attacked elements of the Soviet Baltic Fleet in Kronstadt harbor (Leningrad area). During the attack, Rudel sunk Soviet Battleship "Marat" with 1000kg bomb hitting its ammunition store and breaking the ship in half - "We've got her ... you must have hit her ammunition store...She is blowing up !" (Rudel's rear gunner Scharnovski over the intercom).On Christmas Day, December 24th of 1941, Rudel flew his 500th mission and on December 30th, was decorated with Deutsches Kreuz (German Cross) in Gold by General Freiherr Wolfram von Richthofen himself (who was Manfred von Richthofen's cousin).After that, Hans Rudel was sent to Graz to lecture and train new Stuka crews. On January 15th of 1942, he was awarded with Knights Cross and eventually returned to the Eastern Front on his own demand in June of 1942.In September of 1942, Rudel received the command of the 1st Staffel of the 1st Wing of Stukageschwader 2 (1StG2), while operating in the Stalingrad area. At that time, his squadron was often sent to attack Soviet tank units, when inadequacy of bombs against tanks was realized.

On February 10th of 1943, Hans Rudel flew his 1000th mission and became a national hero to the German public.Rudel was then posted to the new special "Panzerjagdkommando Weiss" unit formed at Briansk to test newly developed tank-busting version of Ju-87 D-3.Modified Stuka armed with two Rheinmetall-Borsig 37mm (BK) Flak 18 guns (each mounted in special canopy under each wing with 6 rounds of ammunition) was developed at the Luftwaffe's experimental station at Rechlin (near Neustrelitz, Germany). Prototypes were used at first against Soviet landing crafts in the Black Sea and in the space of three weeks, Rudel destroyed 70 such boats.In March of 1943, during a tank battle around Belgorod, Rudel knocked out his first tank with his new tank-busting Stuka - "... my rear gunner who said that the tank exploded like a bomb and he had seen bits of it crashing down behind us." (Hans-Ulrich Rudel).Later on, more Ju-87 D-3s were converted to tank-busters and were designated as Ju-87 G-1 (often nicknamed Panzerknacker - Tank Buster or Kanonenvogel - Cannon Bird) and started arriving on the Eastern Front in October of 1943.



On April 14th of 1943, Hans Rudel was awarded Oakleaves to his Knights Cross.Captain Hans Rudel's squadron of nine tank-busting Ju-87 G-1 was assigned to support of the 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf". On the first day of the Operation Citadel, during his first mission,Rudel knocked out four Soviet tanks and by the evening, his score grew to twelve. "We are all seized with a kind of passion for the chase from the glorious feeling of having saved much German bloodshed with every tank destroyed." - Hans Rudel.At the same time, because of Rudel's squadron'ssuccess, Panzerstaffels (Tank Destroyer Squadrons) were formed.Based on his experiences, Rudel developed new tactics for Panzerstaffels. He found that the best way to knock out tanks was to hit them in the back (T-34's rear mounted engine and its cooling system did not permit the installation of heavier armor plating) or the side. Interesting fact is that attacking the back of the tank meant that the plane had to come from the rear flying towards friendly territory - great advantage if the plane got damaged during the attack.



On October 25th of 1943, Hans Rudel was awarded Swords to his Knights Cross with Oakleaves.In early March of 1944, he flew his 1500th mission and was promoted to the rank of Major.In late March, during a mission, Rudel's squadron was attacked by a squadron of Soviet Lavochkin La-5 fighters. One Stuka was shot down and crash landed with its crew unharmed,Hans Rudel decided to land and rescue his comrades stuck in the enemy territory.He landed and rescued his friends but could not take off because of the soft ground.They were forced to escape on foot towards German lines being chased by the Russians.Rudel and his comrades reached the river Dniestr and swam 600m in the ice cold water and just before reaching the other side, Rudel's rear gunner drowned. Eventually, wounded Rudel was the only one who managed to escape and reached German lines. He then returned to his unit, where he was cheerfully welcomed by his comrades. On March 29th of 1944, for his bravery, Major Hans-Ulrich Rudel was awarded Diamonds to his Knights Cross with Oakleaves and Swords, the highest German military award.In November of 1944, while flying near Budapest, he was shot in the thigh but returned to service few days later with his leg in a plaster cast. On January 1st of 1945, Rudel was awarded the Knights Cross with Golden Oakleaves, Swords and Diamonds, being the only recipient of this award specially created for him. In February of 1945, Rudel was seriously wounded and his right thigh was shattered by anti-aircraft fire near Lebus (near Frankfurt am der Oder). He managed to land in German held territory and was quickly taken to the field hospital, where his leg was amputated. Rudel was then taken to the hospital in Berlin, where he had an artificial limb fitted and then returned to his squadron. In the last days of the war, Colonel Rudel commanded the oldest and the best known close assault / support Stuka group - Schlachtgeschwader 2 Immelmann. He was still operating with his unit in last days of war on the Eastern Front. At the end of the war, Rudel wanted to fly a suicide attack with his squadron but hissuperior ordered him not to take off because "he might be needed later", which might have been the only reason why he didn't do so. He also volunteered to fly his Stuka into Berlin in May of 1945 to rescue Hitler from the Red Army. On May 8th of 1945, when Germany surrendered, Colonel Hans Rudel who was in Bohemia, flew his last mission in Ju-87 Stuka. He managed to contact American forces and arranged for himself and other planes to fly over to Kitzingen airfield (near Wurzburg) in the American zone, escaping the capture by the Soviets.Afterwards, Hans Rudel was interrogated first in England and then in France and eventually returned to hospital in Bavaria for convalesce. In 1946, Rudel left the Bavarian hospital and started working as a haulage contractor and in 1948, left for Argentina, where he worked for the State Airplane Worksand organized with other escaped Nazis a NSDAP party-like structure.

In 1951, Rudel published two booklets in Buenos Aires, "Wir Frontsoldaten zur Wiederaufrüstung" (We Frontline Soldiers and Our Opinion to Rearmament of Germany) and "Dolchstoß oder Legende" (Daggerthrust or Legend). In the first book, Rudel claims to speak for all frontline soldiers stating that they would fight again against the Bolsheviks and that Germany's "Lebensraum" (Living Space) is in the East.In his second book, Rudel condemns notonly all the soldiers who tried to kill Hitler as traitors, but also the staff officers of the Wehrmacht stating that both groups were directly responsible for the defeat. Rudel condemns soldiers because the turmoil caused by the assassination allowed the Allied forces to succeed with the Invasion of Europe, while he condemns the staff officers of the Wehrmacht because they could not see Hitler's genius in warfare and worked silently against him. Those two booklets were followed by some more of similar nature.Hans-Ulrich Rudel eventually returned to Germany in early 1950s and in 1953, published his war diary entitled "Trotzdem" (Nevertheless). There was a discussion in Germany if it should be allowed that his diary was published, because he was known as a Nazi, but in 1953, it was no longer that bad to be a Nazi. Most people wanted to forget, mostly their own part of the story, while some Nazis became politicians and businessmen and the Witschaftswunder (The rise of the industry and economy) made the Germans interested in other things. Rudel continued his sporting activities and became a candidate for the Deutsche Reichspartei (DRP) an ultraconservative party but was unsuccessful. The "Stuka Ace" died in Germany in 1982. In 1984, his diary was published again and two of the greatest Allied fighter pilots, Douglas Bader and Pierre Clostermann wrote a warm and praising foreword to this edition, surely being unaware of Rudel's political activities.


Junkers 87 R-1 Stuka of 2nd Staffel of Stukageschwader 3,
over Trapani, Sicily in 1941.

During his career, Rudel flew over 2530 (around 400 of his sorties were flown in a Focke-Wulf 190 fighter plane during whichhe was credit with 11 air victories) missions and destroyed around 150 various artillery pieces, 519 tanks, around 1000 various vehicles, 70 landing crafts, 2 Lavochkin La-3 fighters, Il-2 Stormovik and sunk Battleship "Marat", 2 Cruisers and a Destroyer. Rudel was responsible for such huge damages to the Red Army that Joseph Stalin himself put a price of 100.000 rubles on his head.He flew more than 600.000km and used more than 5.000.000 liters of fuel. Hans Rudel dropped over 1.000.000kg of bombs, fired over 1.000.000 of machine gun rounds, over 150.000 20mm rounds and over 5000 37mm rounds. Rudel thought that the Lend-Lease American tanks were easier to kill than the Soviet T-34s, but he hated their machine guns, because once he was shotdown by one. Rudel was an outstanding pilot with experience,who loved to fly and destroy.He hated to take homeleave or sickleave and even when he got his leg amputatedhe was not depressed since he couldstill do what he loved - fly and destroy.During his career, Hans Rudel showed remarkable power, toughness, fearlessness, unparalleled determination and arrogance but none of his photos show any impact of the hardship of war on his face. His personal bravery was beyond belief and his place in the annals of military history thoroughly deserved, although it is important to remember the words of an American Protocol-Officer, who absolutely correctly named Rudel "the typical Nazi Officer". Rudel's famous quotation was "Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt" ("Lost are only those, who abandon themselves").

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen9.htm

Mitlov47
06-16-2004, 05:30 PM
Very interesting post, Menthol_moose. He obviously was an incredibly talented pilot. However, I think the following exempt him from "role model" status:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Menthol_moose:
in 1948, left for Argentina, where he worked for the State Airplane Worksand organized with other escaped Nazis a NSDAP party-like structure.
...
In 1951, Rudel published two booklets in Buenos Aires, "Wir Frontsoldaten zur Wiederaufrüstung" (We Frontline Soldiers and Our Opinion to Rearmament of Germany) and "Dolchstoß oder Legende" (Daggerthrust or Legend).
...
that Germany's "Lebensraum" (Living Space) is in the East
...
In his second book, Rudel condemns not only all the soldiers who tried to kill Hitler as traitors, but also the staff officers of the Wehrmacht stating that both groups were directly responsible for the defeat.
...
...
it is important to remember the words of an American Protocol-Officer, who absolutely correctly named Rudel "the typical Nazi Officer".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087375867_dorasig2.jpg

lbhskier37
06-16-2004, 07:14 PM
I would say A10.

Anything that has its main antitank weapon as rockets doesnt really get my vote. I remember seeing here a postwar report saying that very few (only a handful maybe, I dont recall) german tanks found after the invasion were discovered to be killed by rockets. If the american rockets weren't killing them in 44, I dont really believe the russian rockets were killing many, or especially the crappy german rockets. The heavier tanks at the end of the war needed damn near a direct hit with a 500kg bomb to kill them, so I dont really know how a little rocket would do it.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

VOL_Hans
06-16-2004, 07:33 PM
I think i'm gonna go with the Ju-87 Stuka. The kill counts are there to back it up.

As for the IL-2, a VERY close second.

And Mitlov...those 24 kills in the A-10 would have been between the GAU-8/A Avenger and AGM-45 Maverick missiles...

AGM-114 Hellfire missiles are on attack helicopters, not the jets.

http://www.altitude.us/missions/The%20Volunteers/hanssig.jpg

Menthol_moose
06-16-2004, 08:00 PM
I dont think you can beat the 3m for all around ability.

The 37mm guns fire quicker than the stukas, though with more recoil but it does carry A-G ordinance where the stuka (g) doesnt.

If in the right situation, the 3m can get a good shot in on a fighter because the firing rate of the 37 or if your lucky the machine guns.

In real life.. .no idea probably a totally different kettle of fish. But from what ive read the build quality of the IL2 was ****e.

WereSnowleopard
06-16-2004, 09:39 PM
James,

Could you edit to add Hs-129 into poll? Please do it. Thank you.

Regards
Snowleopard

james8325
06-16-2004, 09:49 PM
well adding the hs-129 would mean taking something else out? which would u like taken out in its place? i already took out p-51, though i do use it from time to time to bomb tanks in game.

Athosd
06-16-2004, 09:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rebel_Yell_21:
I voted other, since aircraft destroyed damn few _tanks_ in World War II.

They were hell on lightly armored vehicles and transport, but a huge percentage of armored vehicles claimed by pilots were not, in fact, done any harm from the air.

http://www.303rdbga.com/art-ferris-fortress-S.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to agree with Rebel_Yell_21 - few tanks claimed destroyed by aerial rocket fire were actually put out of action. The Russians noted that air attack vs AFVs (particularly with rockets) was generally ineffectual.

Athos

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.

WereSnowleopard
06-16-2004, 10:02 PM
Ummm too soon to said depend how early tank buster aircraft come out and depend how powerful weapon against heavy armor (cannon only or rocket or bombs) and how many attacking can do against heavy armor in one sortie. Finally thing is importand is how much damage aircraft can take before go down. I will said is HS-129. For IL2 game...Typhoon and Hs-129 not flyable yet so hard to know if it is best yet. I wonder if Me-110G with 37mm gun-pod or Fw-190 with MK103 gun pods do well than Ju-87G?

Regards
Snowleopard

Mitlov47
06-16-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VOL_Hans:
And Mitlov...those 24 kills in the A-10 would have been between the GAU-8/A Avenger and AGM-45 Maverick missiles...

AGM-114 Hellfire missiles are on attack helicopters, not the jets.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoops! My bad.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087375867_dorasig2.jpg

Athosd
06-16-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WereSnowleopard:
Ummm too soon to said depend how early tank buster aircraft come out and depend how powerful weapon against heavy armor (cannon only or rocket or bombs) and how many attacking can do against heavy armor in one sortie. Finally thing is importand is how much damage aircraft can take before go down. I will said is HS-129. For IL2 game...Typhoon and Hs-129 not flyable yet so hard to know if it is best yet. I wonder if Me-110G with 37mm gun-pod or Fw-190 with MK103 gun pods do well than Ju-87G?

Regards
Snowleopard<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Me110G's 37mm gun fires only HE IIRC, great for bombers no good for tanks. The Mk103 30mm rounds have significantly less AP ability than the Ju87's 37mm (which used tungsten penetrators).
Even when these light (by AT standards) rounds penetrate a tanks armour they have limited capability to cause interior damage - a number of penetrating hits are required to ensure a kill.

Athos
FW190 Jabo pilots most commonly used bombs to take out tanks (frequently skipping the bomb into the target).

Over the Hills and O'er the Main,
To Flanders, Portugal and Spain,
The Queen commands and we'll obey
Over the Hills and far away.

Nub_322Sqn
06-17-2004, 02:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by james8325:
i knew i forgot something. i only put the p-38 cuz i couldnt think of anything else. thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could have put the Hurricane IId "Tin opener" in the list.
This one was very succesful in Africa.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~rcma/banners/Nubarusbanner.jpg

ASM 1
06-17-2004, 04:01 AM
[QUOTE]
in 1948, left for Argentina, where he worked for the State Airplane Worksand organized with other escaped Nazis a NSDAP party-like structure.

In 1951, Rudel published two booklets in Buenos Aires, "Wir Frontsoldaten zur Wiederaufrüstung" (We Frontline Soldiers and Our Opinion to Rearmament of Germany) and "Dolchstoß oder Legende" (Daggerthrust or Legend). In the first book, Rudel claims to speak for all frontline soldiers stating that they would fight again against the Bolsheviks and that Germany's "Lebensraum" (Living Space) is in the East.In his second book, Rudel condemns notonly all the soldiers who tried to kill Hitler as traitors, but also the staff officers of the Wehrmacht stating that both groups were directly responsible for the defeat. Rudel condemns soldiers because the turmoil caused by the assassination allowed the Allied forces to succeed with the Invasion of Europe, while he condemns the staff officers of the Wehrmacht because they could not see Hitler's genius in warfare and worked silently against him. Those two booklets were followed by some more of similar nature.Hans-Ulrich Rudel eventually returned to Germany in early 1950s and in 1953, published his war diary entitled "Trotzdem" (Nevertheless). There was a discussion in Germany if it should be allowed that his diary was published, because he was known as a Nazi, but in 1953, it was no longer that bad to be a Nazi.

[QUOTE]

Yes very interesting post Menthol_moose, I have to agree with Mitlov47 - whilst his abilities as a pilot are unquestionable, like all others of his ilk, he sounded like a thouroughly objectionable individual.

S!

Andrew

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v299/asm016/WW2%20Stuff/Sig_Pic.jpg

Freefalldart
06-17-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Gotta disagree with all y'all

best tank buster was the German 88mm gun

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Cuando un loco parece totalmente sensato es hora de ponerle la camisa de fuerza"
Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)

Baron_Kiptofen
06-17-2004, 05:08 AM
You know, there's a reason why I post on here infrequently, especially not in threads like this... no one can ever agree on sensible (let alone consistant) criteria by which to judge an issue. We have people arguing for the best tank killer based upon actual 'plane performance, upon number of actual vehicles etc destroyed (irrespective of opportunity etc), upon one man's personal ability in said 'plane... Then we have aeroplanes from an entirely different era sneaking in because of people's love of said 'plane.... Really, such arguments are entirely pointless. It doesn't matter whether you think you have a case or not for your favourite 'plane: For instance, everything I've ever read says that the Su-25, which was designed to fit the same role as the A-10, is overall a slightly better ground pounder. But does that automatically make it the more useful aeroplane? The Su-25 has never been used in a target rich/risk low environment like Iraq, at least not in any comparable way to the A-10. Would it be as good as the US A-10 when flown even with Soviet pilots against the US, when it could have nowhere near the freedom of an A-10 flown by the US against Iraq?
All anyone is really doing is expressing their love for a certain 'plane, and love is a strictly personal thing. Yet tell anyone their love isn't justified, and sooner or later those people start to get offended... By all means talk away. But don't expect any conclusions to ever be reached. The best ground attack aircraft of WWII? At the time, from the man whose 'plane was riddled with bullets (all of fortunately landing in unlucky places for his attacker) right the way up to the national level (where the winning side believed they had the better equipment... of course they did, they were winning) there wouldn't have been any real agreement, even when the facts (such as they are) were right at hand and of desperate importance. Because that's the nature of mankind, and all he does... Threads such as these tell us new facts, but do we ever learn to think in new ways with them? Not very often, alas... we just demand Oleg model our thoughts correctly instead.

BBB_Hyperion
06-17-2004, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I would say A10.

Anything that has its main antitank weapon as rockets doesnt really get my vote. I remember seeing here a postwar report saying that very few (only a handful maybe, I dont recall) german tanks found after the invasion were discovered to be killed by rockets. If the american rockets weren't killing them in 44, I dont really believe the russian rockets were killing many, or especially the crappy german rockets. The heavier tanks at the end of the war needed damn near a direct hit with a 500kg bomb to kill them, so I dont really know how a little rocket would do it.

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm but you really know how a hollow charged warhead works ? The PB1 and Panzerblitz 2 rockets were designed with it. As well you can see the idea in the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust how can you say they dont work vs tanks ?
VVS and USAF Rockets is another topic but useless i wouldnt say. Hitting is another problem.

But the quote is funny from Col_Tibbetts.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WereSnowleopard
06-17-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by james8325:
well adding the hs-129 would mean taking something else out? which would u like taken out in its place? i already took out p-51, though i do use it from time to time to bomb tanks in game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I understand. Also I noticed many people answered Hs-129 here. You may post new topic "Best all-around soft target ground attack aircraft of WWII". It will give some chance to P-38/47/51 even Hs-123, and other planes. I bet Il-2 may have better lead in poll.

Regards
Snowleopard

LilHorse
06-17-2004, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
stuka is **** compaired to il2. it can dive bomb and carry a large (single bomb) not a great benifit for blowing up a tank
il2 cannons, rockets, bombs all at once
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're talking "in-game" then fine. But if you're talking RL than history proves you wrong. The IL2 was indeed a very good tank buster/ ground pounder. I believe that the top 25 IL2 pilots who scored 5 tank kills and above (the highest being 84) managed amoung them to destroy a little over 700 tanks (pretty dang good). If you believe the Russian stats for the battle of Kursk (and there is great reason to doubt them, but let's assume they're true) Sturmoviks accounted for over 600 tanks destroyed. So, that means that there were many pilots who scored between 1 and 4 tank kills in the war. A very good record.

But history shows the Stuka to statistically be the most effective tank buster.

LilHorse
06-17-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mitlov47:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
That's by himself. And there were a good number of other Stuka pilots whose tank kills ran up into the hundreds. Probably four or five Stuka pilots including Rudel would match up target-wise with all the A-10s targets in GW1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin had a lot more tanks than Saddam did. If Saddam had an army as big as the Red Army, you'd have individual A-10 pilots who rivaled Rudel. I remember hearing one Warthog pilot who killed 24 tanks (not vehicles, tanks) before he had to head back to base to reload. I don't know whether that's an urban legend or not, but between the GAU-8 and Hellfire missiles, it's certainly possible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but "what if" scenarios don't count where history is concerned. You could make a case for the efficiency of the A-10. Great. But in terms of the record (ie. what actually happened) the Stuka still comes out on top. Much, of course, has to do with the circumstances of history to be sure. But there it is, and it cannot be changed.

As the post above points out, many people have a love for certain a/c. And so it is understandable based on that why they argue on it's behalf. Many people also have a dislike of certain a/c. We've always been told what a bad a/c the Stuka was. Or people dislike it because it was a German plane, or because Rudel was a lunatic Nazi. But it doesn't change the facts where this plane is concerned.

Have a poll for you fave ground pounder. But what's the point of having a poll about something which history has proven out?

[This message was edited by LilHorse on Thu June 17 2004 at 10:03 AM.]

ploughman
06-17-2004, 10:54 AM
I don't know anything about tank-busters but is the Stuka the best just on numbers killed? I mean it was a target rich enviroment it was operating in and shooting fish in a barrel doesn't necessarily make me a good fisherman does it? Or is it the best because a trained operator could, all things being equal, get more kills with that aircraft than any other anti-armour plane?

WereSnowleopard
06-17-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
I don't know anything about tank-busters but is the Stuka the best just on numbers killed? I mean it was a target rich enviroment it was operating in and shooting fish in a barrel doesn't necessarily make me a good fisherman does it? Or is it the best because a trained operator could, all things being equal, get more kills with that aircraft than any other anti-armour plane?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good point! Like Japan don't have tank buster because of lack of enemy tank as target but full of ships so they focus on anti-ship operation. German saw problem at Russian front so they rush create anti-tank weapon for air operation. Germany military learned lessons at Spain civil war soas result as they create JU-87 and Hs-123 but not though about anti-armor soon until too late.

p1ngu666
06-17-2004, 12:37 PM
before the stuka G the german soldiers didnt think stuka's where effective against tanks.
stuka's where used to destory enemy tanks that had put a hole in front line. there was hardly any depth to german defenses.
and there wasnt that many german tanks to kill either.
il2 has speed, combat loads and surviveablity and probably cheaper too.
german commanders wanted il2 clone early in war, never really arrived

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LilHorse
06-17-2004, 01:13 PM
Don't get me wrong here. In-game if tasked with having to take out tanks I'd much rather use the Sturmovik too for all the reason's pingu states.

In RL as I said earlier, if I had to do that job I'd want to be in a Jug or a Tiffy. Speed greatly helps in survival and that's what I'd be most concerned with.

Whatsmypassword
06-17-2004, 01:51 PM
Stuka could carry out one attack per sortie. If a pilot missed the target he had to return back. Il-2 could carry up to 220 PTABs (Anti Tank Avaiation Bomb) so an Il-2 pilot need not be a sniper to destroy 4 tanks FOR SURE. One PTAB bomb covers 15 square meters. 192 PTABs = 15 square meters X 192 = 2880 square meters. that was enough to hit at least 4 tanks (but just imagine if yoy unload 200 PTBAs in the concetration of tanks!). For five days during the Kursk battle in July 1943, 291 Ground Attack Aviation Disvision (291 ShAD) destroyed 422 german tanks
After the VVS used PTABs in the first time on July 6, 1943 the Werchmacht decided because of their high efficiency that these bombs (PTABs) had electromagnetic pointing mechanism.

Whatsmypassword
06-17-2004, 01:55 PM
Quite surprizingly German soldiers practically never mentioned in their memoirs P-47 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but write a lot about a fearsome Il-2. Why is that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Note that they rarely write about a Il-2s direct attack it means that not many survived Il-2 attacks.

Whatsmypassword
06-17-2004, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Don't get me wrong here. In-game if tasked with having to take out tanks I'd much rather use the Sturmovik too for all the reason's pingu states.

In RL as I said earlier, if I had to do that job I'd want to be in a Jug or a Tiffy. Speed greatly helps in survival and that's what I'd be most concerned with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed means nothing for a ground attack plane. Spped probably desirable if a ground attack plane is attacked by a fighter but since Il-2 got a rear gunner and had fighter escort from 1943 speed was not a big issue. A ground attack plane needs to hang over the battle field and accurately destroy targets. If you flies over the battle field at 600 km/hour you will unlikely properly spot targets and hit them unless a you have some laser- radar guided modern stuff.

WereSnowleopard
06-17-2004, 02:31 PM
That's correct as low speed is best than speeding. At Vietnam war, Speed is importand if know exact where targets are (use Reconn photo, FOS and color smoke) as McDonnell jetfighter F-4 fly low to aviod from Sa-2 and fast as try make itself a hard target for enemy flak. In WWII as most ground attack target don't always know where exact where they are. Werner M¶lders create world first "FOS" as he used Kubelwagen as his desk office with radio to radio his aircraft to tell where to bomb target. Hs-123 is best when fly slow to pinpoint target to attacking as in fact it can take off in winter's bad weather as other planes can not do that in same time.

Regards
Snowleopard

[This message was edited by WereSnowleopard on Thu June 17 2004 at 01:41 PM.]

[This message was edited by WereSnowleopard on Thu June 17 2004 at 02:06 PM.]

Mitlov47
06-17-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
The Me110G's 37mm gun fires only HE IIRC, great for bombers no good for tanks. The Mk103 30mm rounds have significantly less AP ability than the Ju87's 37mm (which used tungsten penetrators).
Even when these light (by AT standards) rounds penetrate a tanks armour they have limited capability to cause interior damage - a number of penetrating hits are required to ensure a kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that's accurate in real life, but in-game the 110's 37mm gun can rip open a tank with a single shot to the rear. I just busted open a half-dozen tanks in QMB no problem. (Moscow1 map if the model of tank varies by the map you choose, and you want to try it for yourself)

And with centerline-mounting for accuracy and a 60-round ammo capacity, that means a LOT of dead tanks. In game, I nominate the BF-110 w/ 37mm gunpod as the best tank-buster.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087453960_dorasigj3.jpg

Whatsmypassword
06-17-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mitlov47:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Athosd:
The Me110G's 37mm gun fires only HE IIRC, great for bombers no good for tanks. The Mk103 30mm rounds have significantly less AP ability than the Ju87's 37mm (which used tungsten penetrators).
Even when these light (by AT standards) rounds penetrate a tanks armour they have limited capability to cause interior damage - a number of penetrating hits are required to ensure a kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sure that's accurate in real life, but in-game the 110's 37mm gun can rip open a tank with a single shot to the rear. I just busted open a half-dozen tanks in QMB no problem. (Moscow1 map if the model of tank varies by the map you choose, and you want to try it for yourself)

And with centerline-mounting for accuracy and a 60-round ammo capacity, that means a LOT of dead tanks. In game, I nominate the BF-110 w/ 37mm gunpod as the best tank-buster.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087453960_dorasigj3.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In a REAL life it is a very difficult to hit a tank from a gun. Even ace snipers got less than 10% with 37 mm gun direct hits.
I read about the Il-2 with two 37 guns test results. The conclusion is that PTAB antitank bombs are much more effective antitank weapon than 37 and 45 mm guns.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/il2_test3.gif

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/il2_test4.gif

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/il2_test5.gif

In contrary when the PTAB antitank bombs were used against the 3rd SS panzer division Totenkopf in the Kursk Battle the SS division lost 220 tanks! The density of Il-2 bombardment was so high that it were recorded 2000 direct hits by PTABs!

PTAB (antitank bomb)
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/ptab.gif

Whatsmypassword
06-17-2004, 05:32 PM
Another effective "baby" was a rocket shell RS-132 (or PC-132 in Russian) see below

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/il2_06.jpg

A direct hit with RS-132.

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/bookshelf/il2/pics/il2_08.jpg

But alas the problem as with 37 mm guns is difficult to get a direct hit with a rocket shell so antitank bombs PTAB carried by Il-2 were probably the most effective antitank weapon of WWII.

PunicaDUSK
06-17-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In a REAL life it is a very difficult to hit a tank from a gun. Even ace snipers got less than 10% with 37 mm gun direct hits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In REAL life it is just more difficult to hit an enemy plane, that moves in three dimensions...

Any numbers for that, too?
10 % would be great for dogfighting in WW2.

EDIT: BTW... 2000 PTABs (direct hits) destroyed 200 german tanks, so that is 10 bombs for each tank -&gt; BUT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> One PTAB bomb covers 15 square meters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

3,87 x 3,87 meters... the ptab must have been dropped in 10-packs for each tank....

I'm confused....

[This message was edited by PunicaDUSK on Thu June 17 2004 at 04:49 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
06-17-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:

In a REAL life it is a very difficult to hit a tank from a gun. Even ace snipers got less than 10% with 37 mm gun direct hits.
I read about the Il-2 with two 37 guns test results. The conclusion is that PTAB antitank bombs are much more effective antitank weapon than 37 and 45 mm guns.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Il2 uses wing cannons, considering the weight of the projectile and the muzzle velocity nobody expects much precision.

Hs-129 on the other hand uses centerline mounted Mk-103 firing AP only shells. Mk-103 was a high velocity weapon, 860m/s, using a small 30mm shell. The accuracy was very good, also the kinetic energy (hitting power) was bigger than on most antitank weapons. Hs-129 had no problem in hitting and penetrating medium tanks.

Here's the beast with the gun underneath:

http://normandie.niemen.free.fr/avions/hs129_1.jpg

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/hs129-5.jpg

PunicaDUSK
06-17-2004, 05:52 PM
What a beauty! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

EDIT: That has to be sillicon! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Prof.Wizard
06-17-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASM 1:

http://www.kotfsc.com/thunderbolt/graphics/hs129-plate-1.jpg
Its a Henschel Hs 129B-3/Wa of 14.(Pz)/Sch.G 9 fitted with the 75 mm BK 7,5 (PaK 40L) anti-tank gun<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm, I will agree with ASM 1. The "129 with the cigar" was indeed a deadly tankbuster, surely penetrating even the thickest armors of the era. Unfortunately its small numbers never gave it a chance to prove itself and affect the war.

http://usuarios.lycos.es/FRANCISCOSOLDAN/images/hs129_ph.jpg

For the Russian side I vote the Sturmovik, hands down.

-----------------------------

Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

[This message was edited by Prof.Wizard on Thu June 17 2004 at 05:06 PM.]

WTE_Galway
06-18-2004, 12:28 AM
pretty hard to argue with a full bombload from a B29 actually

Mitlov47
06-18-2004, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
pretty hard to argue with a full bombload from a B29 actually<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But level bombers weren't used against tanks. Too inaccurate, even if you could see tanks from that altitude. A study of B-17 bombing runs found that only 1 out of 20 bombs even fell within ONE MILE of the intended target, if I remember correctly.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087453960_dorasigj3.jpg

WTE_Galway
06-18-2004, 02:12 AM
well true ... i remember reading about the B17 attacks at midway

from 20,000 feet they missed the carriers completeley (and acarrier is much bigger than a tank) but still made the japanese extremely nervous because one lucky bomb run would have taken out a carrier

Mitlov47
06-18-2004, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
well true ... i remember reading about the B17 attacks at midway

from 20,000 feet they missed the carriers completeley (and acarrier is much bigger than a tank) but still made the japanese extremely nervous because one lucky bomb run would have taken out a carrier<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But two things to think about:

1) You can at least see a carrier from 5000m (or whatever altitude they were at), even if you can't hit it. It's hard to even FIND tanks at above 1000m--I often have to make a couple passes over a battlefield in an IL-2 or BF-110 to orient myself and locate my targets, even when I'm only at 1000m.

2) "One lucky hit" on a carrier could really affect the entire war. "One lucky hit" on a tank would kill...well, one tank. No effect whatsoever on the entire war.

I think these two factors combined are why you didn't see B-17s or B-29s deployed over rural France / Germany trying to find and kill armor.

Another way to think about it: if you were a GI fighting hedgerow to hedgerow, and you just got the nasty surprise of discovering a half-dozen tanks one mile away, would you rather have a few B-29s or a few P-38s come to your aid? I know what I'd want.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/387_1087453960_dorasigj3.jpg

LilHorse
06-18-2004, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Whatsmypassword:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
Don't get me wrong here. In-game if tasked with having to take out tanks I'd much rather use the Sturmovik too for all the reason's pingu states.

In RL as I said earlier, if I had to do that job I'd want to be in a Jug or a Tiffy. Speed greatly helps in survival and that's what I'd be most concerned with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed means nothing for a ground attack plane. Spped probably desirable if a ground attack plane is attacked by a fighter but since Il-2 got a rear gunner and had fighter escort from 1943 speed was not a big issue. A ground attack plane needs to hang over the battle field and accurately destroy targets. If you flies over the battle field at 600 km/hour you will unlikely properly spot targets and hit them unless a you have some laser- radar guided modern stuff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, when I spoke of survivability, I meant my own a$$ http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Of course H.U.R. said "Speed is poison over the battlefield." But it can depend of what you're bombing and where the targets are positoned. Certainly fighter-bombers were effective in their roles. If this weren't the case the further developement of them would have ceased and the more specialized aircraft would have continued developement.

And as for German soldiers not mentioning P-47s, perhaps you shoud do a bit more reading. According to Steven Ambrose in his book Citizen Soldiers, the German troops on the Western front said that what they feared most from the air was the Allied "Jabos". That is, American P-47s and British Typhoons.

Again, though, no matter how effective Sturmoviks and Western fighter-bombers were, it still remains that Stukas destroyed more armor than any other a/c in history.

blairgowrie
06-18-2004, 08:32 AM
My vote goes to the rocket firing Typhoon.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v41/blairgowrie/FBWebpage.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
06-18-2004, 11:15 AM
@Whatsmypassword according to my lists the

The Division SS Totenkopf /II SS Pz Corps had
63 PZIIIG
8 PZ IV kz
44 PZ IV lg
15 PZ VI
9 PzBef Commandtanks
makes 139 all in all.

When you meant 3rd Panzer Div XLVIII Pz Corps
they had
7 Pz II
8 Pz III kz(short)
34 PZ III lg
17 PZ III 75
2 PZ IV kz
21 PZ IV lg
1 PZ Bef (Command)
Thats 90 all in all

Thats the unit strength on 1st July. How can they loose 200 Tanks that they dont have ?

Thats from the
The US Army's Center for Strategy and Force Evaluation represents latest Data from Russian and German sources for Kursk. They used the original unit strength reports and counterchecked these.

The Division SS Totenkopf /II SS Pz Corps
Reported damaged for 4th July to 18 July
Total PZIII 41
Total PZIV 30
Total PZVI 20
Total MediumHalftrack 3
Total Marder II 9
Total Stug III
Total 1 20 mm AA
Total 1 Mediumhalftrack with 75 mm Infantry Gun
Total 1 Hummel

Reported destroyed or abandoned for 4th July to 18 July
Total PZIII 6
Total PZIV 7
Total PZVI 1
Total amored car 20 mm 1
Total MediumHalftrack 8
Total 81 mm Mortar 1
Total MediumHalftrack 37mm AT Gun 1
Total 45/50mm AT Guns 6
Total 75 mm AT Guns 7
Total Marder II 2
Total Stug III 2
Total 20 mm AA 2
Total 37 mm AA 1
Total 88 mm AA 1
Total 75 mm light infantry gun 4
Total 150 mm launcher 2

So lets sum up destroyed 14 tanks in repair 91 for the complete Kursk campaign. You can even add the assault guns doesnt do much.
The units in repair are totals that are not representing the replacements that were available every day(a tank can be returned to service when it has been repaired). I can show the unit strength for every day of the campaign if you want.

I have this kind of strength reports for russian and german units.
Can you give me the coordinates where this attacks were so i can check which units were involved and how much of them reported airstrike hits and looses ?

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Whatsmypassword
06-18-2004, 11:51 AM
Why SS Totencopf had just 139 tanks before the Kursk Battle when all Werchmacht and SS units wre strenthened? A standard wermacht pazner division should have had over 200 tanks.

BBB_Hyperion
06-18-2004, 12:23 PM
That did change with the employment of new tanks and equipment/personal shortcommings didnt look better in other units.

For the standard tank division
Shoul be
Panzer III/IV 147
Panzer II 10
Tankhunter 9
Commandtank 15
Armoured Cars 6

These are paper values however real unit strength were mostly lower and with the requipment with heavy tanks changed in structure.

This Special unit we talk about was more a Panzergrenadier division upgrade late 42 to Tankdivision.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

Indianer.
06-18-2004, 01:27 PM
Tellermine 44.

http://www.fighter-collection.com/film/img/dark_blue_world.jpg

"Wer auf die preussische Fahne schwort, hat nichts mehr, was ihm selber gehort"

PraetorHonoris
06-18-2004, 01:45 PM
It is very interessting that infantry AT-weapons in WWII were way more efficient than they are nowadays.

Even children could use the Panzerfaust with ease and destroy lots of tanks.
Actually that happened quite often.(Hitlers last Wochenschau-appearance was when he awarded some kids with Iron Crosses for that)

An experienced Panzerschreck team was an enormous thread to the tanks.

Nevertheless the best tank destroyer in the air was without doubt the IL2 series and IL10.
Their durability and flexible loadout with effective weapons made them very dangerous.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7306/Aermelband.jpg
Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen"

LilHorse
06-18-2004, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Nevertheless the best tank destroyer in the air was without doubt the IL2 series and IL10.
Their durability and flexible loadout with effective weapons made them very dangerous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello? Anybody reading? If we are talking numbers, as in total numbers of tanks destroyed then it's the Stuka all the way. I'll give versatility to the Sturmovik. And to fighter-bombers as well.

PraetorHonoris
06-18-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LilHorse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
Nevertheless the best tank destroyer in the air was without doubt the IL2 series and IL10.
Their durability and flexible loadout with effective weapons made them very dangerous.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello? Anybody reading? If we are talking numbers, as in total numbers of tanks destroyed then it's the Stuka all the way. I'll give versatility to the Sturmovik. And to fighter-bombers as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am reading quite carefully, but as this is not my native language, I might understood the question wrong: "Which was the best tank buster"

If we are talking about whose pilots did destroy the most tanks in WWII, then I don't know the answer.
First I wanted to agree, that the Stuka-pilots did.
But, there were not that many Kanonenv¶gel out there and Rudel was an exeptional pilot.
On the other hand it is hard to see in the air wether the tank was destroyed or not.

So to be honest, I don't know.

In General, I think the Il2 and Il10 were the best aircraft to destroy tanks.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7306/Aermelband.jpg
Jagdgeschwader 71 "Richthofen"

Bomber_Dude
06-22-2004, 08:12 PM
Well, in the hands of an experienced pilot the Hs129 could be a very effectrive tank killer...
http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/hs129-2.jpg

http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/sig01.jpg

Bomber_Dude
06-22-2004, 08:25 PM
Whoops, wrong URL...
http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/hs129-1.jpg

http://www.computech-online.net/~garyb/pix/sig01.jpg

JorBR
06-23-2004, 12:56 AM
http://pedg.chollie.co.uk/images/Guestpics/BasilT/SU152.jpg

"Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

Magister__Ludi
06-23-2004, 01:11 AM
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tank.html

I think this list pretty much says it all.

BBB_Hyperion
06-23-2004, 02:17 AM
Nice Picture JorBR what was the maximum distance you could aim and hit with it ? How many shoots before on target ?

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion