Alternative Allied Tank Busters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both the Germans and the Russians kept using aircraft with hard hitting guns as tank busters right to the end of WW2. The Russians complemented this with small hallow charge bombs dispersed form special containers.
The allies tried 40mm AT guns on the Hurricane, and used 57mm and even 75mm guns for anti ship work. But for tank busting they stuck with rockets, which, as repeated over and over in recent posts, were not accurate enough.
So, what would be the ideal aircraft/gun combination for the allies?
 

Deleted member 1487

Both the Germans and the Russians kept using aircraft with hard hitting guns as tank busters right to the end of WW2. The Russians complemented this with small hallow charge bombs dispersed form special containers.
The allies tried 40mm AT guns on the Hurricane, and used 57mm and even 75mm guns for anti ship work. But for tank busting they stuck with rockets, which, as repeated over and over in recent posts, were not accurate enough.
So, what would be the ideal aircraft/gun combination for the allies?

They can't use fighter-bombers then; the reason they stuck to rockets was that was the more accurate option for a high speed aircraft. Slapping a heavy cannon on an aircraft would slow it down and unbalance it, which is defeating the purpose of using fighter-bombers, which need speed to survive ground fire and enemy fighters. So unless the Allies develop of Sturmovik they will lose slow aircraft to German AAA, which was their only weapon against the marauding Jabos.
 

Mookie

Banned
Automatic cannon. Simple as that. Germna Stuka ace Hans Rudel managed to:
2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat

Thats an army right there destroyed by one man.
And not to mention allies didnt have to care that much about their aircraft being endangered by German ones, they had air superiority
 
Automatic cannon. Simple as that. Germna Stuka ace Hans Rudel managed to:
2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 70 landing craft, nine aircraft, four armored trains, several bridges, a destroyer, two cruisers, and the Soviet battleship Marat

Thats an army right there destroyed by one man.
And not to mention allies didnt have to care that much about their aircraft being endangered by German ones, they had air superiority

Don't believe German propaganda. Rudel destroyed maybe a 10th of that (fraction of kills really killed by the Air Force estimated by allied recon units). The simple fact that he was awarded the Marat and several ships when there was at least an entire squadron which attacked those targets should be enought to question the german records. Also, it won't change the fact that an automatic canon would slow down the allied fighter bombers too much, so they would stick with rockets.
 
How about the Mosquito or Lightning? For the Mosquito the FB Mk XVIII was armoured and equipped with a 57mm Gun (plus bomb/missile load). They did not get the Autoloader quite right, thus maneuvring while firing could jam the gun. With a reliable 57mm gun - or perhaps twin 40mm guns are easier to achive - it would be no worse than the Ju 87 ground attack version. I don´t see why something similiar couldn´t be done with the Lightning.
Of course the FB Mk XVIII was considered a naval version and you still have to get the airforce adapt it for ground attack.
 
There are also the P-39 and P-63 with the 37mm cannon in the nose. They could be tank-bustering fighter bombers.
 
yeah. Hans Rudel might well e the greatest combat pilot in history, so he's not a fair comparison :)

as for a better tankbuster:

The F4U-C model, if introduced a year earlier, might work well: 4x 20mm Hispano cannon replaced the standard 6x .50 M2 machine guns.

in OTL, P-47 pilots score some knockout success by ricocheting their 8x .50s into the undercarriage of Panthers and tigers, which penetrated and then killed the crew. The sheer weight of metal from 8 .50s at the merge point was enough to go through weak top/underside armor. at the merge point, the P-47 could chop down oak trees
 
Tony William's site is one of the go-to ones for this question with his article on Tankbusters: Airborne Anti-Tank Guns in WW2 that covers the different nation's guns and an expanded article about the British Vickers 40mm Class S Gun with Littlejohn Adaptor. His one where he looks at what sort of qualities would have been best for a British WW2 Multi-Role Plane has a section on ground attack aircraft that seems pretty much on the money - twin engine, radials to better withstand damage, cockpit set well forward for good view, plenty of armour, stressed for dive attacks with dive brakes, 20mm cannon on each wing for self defence, main 40mm gun centre-mounted with a ballistically matched heavy machine gun to help with aiming and throw in the ability to carry rockets as well. Jobs a good 'un. :)
 
My question is would a better 'tank buster' be worth the effort. The Brit & US single engine aircraft included tanks as less than 5% of their kills, perhaps less than 2%. The bulk of their ground targets destroyed were trucks, cannon, supply dumps, infantry, HQ, all of which were quite vulnerable to rockets and bombs, or MG and the less capable cannon used. So, would increasing tank kills by one or two percent of the whole reduce other kills by a larger portion due to less effective ammunition vs the other targets?
 

Mookie

Banned
Don't believe German propaganda. Rudel destroyed maybe a 10th of that (fraction of kills really killed by the Air Force estimated by allied recon units). The simple fact that he was awarded the Marat and several ships when there was at least an entire squadron which attacked those targets should be enought to question the german records. Also, it won't change the fact that an automatic canon would slow down the allied fighter bombers too much, so they would stick with rockets.

Its official data in Brittish war museum.
 

Deleted member 1487

My question is would a better 'tank buster' be worth the effort. The Brit & US single engine aircraft included tanks as less than 5% of their kills, perhaps less than 2%. The bulk of their ground targets destroyed were trucks, cannon, supply dumps, infantry, HQ, all of which were quite vulnerable to rockets and bombs, or MG and the less capable cannon used. So, would increasing tank kills by one or two percent of the whole reduce other kills by a larger portion due to less effective ammunition vs the other targets?

The Germans realized that tank busting was less profitable than hitting the supply echelons, which bogged down enemy tanks pretty quickly.
 
My question is would a better 'tank buster' be worth the effort. The Brit & US single engine aircraft included tanks as less than 5% of their kills, perhaps less than 2%. The bulk of their ground targets destroyed were trucks, cannon, supply dumps, infantry, HQ, all of which were quite vulnerable to rockets and bombs, or MG and the less capable cannon used. So, would increasing tank kills by one or two percent of the whole reduce other kills by a larger portion due to less effective ammunition vs the other targets?

Not all fighter bombers needed to be the specialised AT version. The Russians tried putting 37mm (and even 45mm) on the Yak 9 and 3 for the AT and bomber Destroyer roles. Since the 40mm hurricane proved effective in Africa, a small series of 40mm armed Typhoons would seem to make sense. IMO a up armoured Corsair with two 40mm under the wings would be quite impressive.
For the "British IL2" role, I was thinking about a up armoured Fairey Firefly with the same weapons. But since the Il2 as designed from scratch to be armoured, just adding armour to an existing liquid cooled engine might no be easy.
I'll read the articles Simon recommended and think about them. I might be thinking more (again) in what would make a cool AH model than on pure effectiveness:rolleyes:
 
The Germans realized that tank busting was less profitable than hitting the supply echelons, which bogged down enemy tanks pretty quickly.

They reported that when the Russian tanks were moving to the front they would attack the logistic vehicles, but when they were about to engage they would hit the tanks to assist the ground troops. For the allies it was more a case of cancelling German counter attacks before they could be launched.
The basic Fighter Bombers could go after the soft targets, and the specialised tank hunters after the tanks.
 
Tony William's site is one of the go-to ones for this question with his article on Tankbusters: Airborne Anti-Tank Guns in WW2 that covers the different nation's guns and an expanded article about the British Vickers 40mm Class S Gun with Littlejohn Adaptor. His one where he looks at what sort of qualities would have been best for a British WW2 Multi-Role Plane has a section on ground attack aircraft that seems pretty much on the money - twin engine, radials to better withstand damage, cockpit set well forward for good view, plenty of armour, stressed for dive attacks with dive brakes, 20mm cannon on each wing for self defence, main 40mm gun centre-mounted with a ballistically matched heavy machine gun to help with aiming and throw in the ability to carry rockets as well. Jobs a good 'un. :)

Thanks. I have some free reading time this Saturday (its raining a lot in here) and I'll read them.
 
Which is directly taken from German "reports" (ie : propaganda)

Eh, there's probably some distortion there, but the real "trick" was that his squadron let him get credit for most of those kills, while their official contribution was much less than it should have been. That, plus the insane number of sorties he flew means that those numbers are probably closer to the truth than you'd think. Oh, and no one ever questions Simo Hahya, do they? His feats were much crazier.
 
My question is would a better 'tank buster' be worth the effort. The Brit & US single engine aircraft included tanks as less than 5% of their kills, perhaps less than 2%. The bulk of their ground targets destroyed were trucks, cannon, supply dumps, infantry, HQ, all of which were quite vulnerable to rockets and bombs, or MG and the less capable cannon used. So, would increasing tank kills by one or two percent of the whole reduce other kills by a larger portion due to less effective ammunition vs the other targets?
Certainly not all of them since the Hawker Typhoons and Tempests provided sterling service and would be able to deal with a wider variety of targets, but say have one in ten planes as specialised tankbusters perhaps? In Normandy where you know you're going to be drawing in large amounts of armour towards you I would have thought some might have been useful. Tony's article about a multi-role aircraft does try to work around things by having a common stock plane with variants to act as long range fighter, ground attack aircraft and service in the Fleet Air Arm but even without that I think they'd have been useful - the trick would be to balance things so that you have a small number that can still create a useful effect without taking up too many resources and unduly impinging on the number of Typhoons and Tempests.


Thanks. I have some free reading time this Saturday (its raining a lot in here) and I'll read them.
Seems like where isn't it in Europe at the moment? Blowing a gale and tipping it down over here in the UK as well.
 
Gloster F.9/37 with twin Pratt & Whitney R-1830 1200hp engines firing an underslung 57mm 6 pounder Molins gun mounted on centerline fulfills Tony Williams' criteria. Suitably armored against ground fire, self-sealing fuel tanks, and able to survive with the loss of an engine, the Gloster also is a smaller target than Mossie or Beau. Local air superiority is required for successful operation, and flak suppression escort wouldn't hurt.
 
in OTL, P-47 pilots score some knockout success by ricocheting their 8x .50s into the undercarriage of Panthers and tigers, which penetrated and then killed the crew. The sheer weight of metal from 8 .50s at the merge point was enough to go through weak top/underside armor. at the merge point, the P-47 could chop down oak trees

The Tigers and Panther tanks had iirc 25mm of belly armour. There is no way a 0.5 API round which can penetrate around 20mm of armour at 200 yards can richochet off a hard surface deforming and or tumbling in the process and then penetrate 25mm of armour plate at an angle of say 50 degrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top