Alternative Allied Tank Busters
- Thread starter AdA
- Start date
- Status
Deleted member 1487
Except it didn't enter production until after WW2 ended in Europe. The Mosquito idea seems the best to me, though the P-38 was probably just as good an attack aircraft as the Saab 21 and was used in that role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning#Specifications_.28P-38L.29
The Browning 37mm cannon had a fairly low muzzle-velocity and wouldn't have worked very well in a tank-busting role.
Good Choice, If they had just sorted the Taurus engines it would have been ok. Possible it to keep the tow 20mm Cannon, or replace then with two 0.5mm Brownings with lots of tracer loaded to ballistically match two belly mounted 40mm S guns. Add the rockets and they can deliver a world of hurt. Just think of a smaller, faster and more manouverable Beufighter!!!!
The Polikarpov VIT-2 of 1938 was clearly a step in the right direction...
it looks a lot like this Fokker from a few years before it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.XXIII
a good tankbuster might have been the fokker G1 enough space for guns.
maybe 1 or 2 40mm bofors 40L60 guns.
although the original design would have benefitted from better engines and heavier guns. (8-10 0.50s, or even 4 20mm or 23mm guns)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_G.I
Wasn't it too small to take any of the larger more powerful engines and would have required pretty much a complete redesign to fit any serious equipment? IIRC that was the answer that came up in previous threads where the Reaper was put forward.
HEre's some information from battlefield studies on Allied tank busters.
http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt
Basically, WA air attacks caused morale failures in the troops far more then then a direct kill on a tank. German tankers ran away when under attack instead of staying in their tank and risking destruction. Once the tank was abandoned, it was rarely remounted or recovered.
http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt
Basically, WA air attacks caused morale failures in the troops far more then then a direct kill on a tank. German tankers ran away when under attack instead of staying in their tank and risking destruction. Once the tank was abandoned, it was rarely remounted or recovered.
Riain
Banned
What counts as a 'busted' tank? Of course the classic penetration of the hull or turret is 'busted', but what about knocking off the tracks or a road wheel, or stopping the engine by damaging the coolant? Does that count as 'busted'?
What about cumulative damage? Since planes attack in squadrons and do multiple passes; after 4 or 5 attacks a tank has a crewmember or two wounded or dead, a track broken, a roadwheel damaged and the coolant system punctured, does that count as 'busted'? If so then there's little to no need for the magic bullet that can reliably penetrate the turret and hull of tanks.
What about cumulative damage? Since planes attack in squadrons and do multiple passes; after 4 or 5 attacks a tank has a crewmember or two wounded or dead, a track broken, a roadwheel damaged and the coolant system punctured, does that count as 'busted'? If so then there's little to no need for the magic bullet that can reliably penetrate the turret and hull of tanks.
The F9/37 was originaly designed to have 2 forward firing 20mm cannon and a retractable quad 303 mg dorsal turret. One prototype was flewn with two 20m nose cannon and 3 20mm dorsal cannon in a 'no allowance mount. This would indicte that not only was there roon for the bigger arment as suggested but the COG postion where the turret had been designed to be would have been ideal location for the breahes and hence amunition location. Rather like the Hawker Henley the F9/39 appears to have suffered from the AM not realy knowing what they wanted.
Sior
Banned
http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/2-Airplanes/Allies/3-UK/03-AttackAircrafts/AW-49/AW-49.htm
Armstrong-Whitworth AW.49
Ground attack aircraft paper project proposed in 1942.
It was to be powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin X or Napier Sabre IV in a pusher position.
Armstrong-Whitworth AW.49
Ground attack aircraft paper project proposed in 1942.
It was to be powered by a Rolls Royce Merlin X or Napier Sabre IV in a pusher position.
Contrary to most beliefs, the 37mm gun in the Airacobra and Kingcobra was a very poor choice for anti tank work since it was low velocity (2,000 fps at the muzzle) weapon with poor penetration. Anti-tank 37mm ran around 2,500-3,000 fps at the muzzle. The Il-2 23mm produced ~2,950 at the muzzle and the 37mm Flak 18 used by the Luftwaffe in its gun pods was ~2,700 at the muzzle.
The WAllies didn't like dedicated ground attack single engine aircraft, far preferring the multi-use aircraft that could operate without escort. A flight of P-47s could pickle off their ground attack weapons and handle themselves quite nicely against any Luftwaffe fighters that might come along, same went for the Typhoon The Luftwaffe tended to agree with this, as the replaced their Ju-87s with ground attack Fw-190s whenever possible.
A dedicated ground attack that would be, by far, the most potent, would be the B-25H "solid nose", either as built or with 6-8 20mm autocannon replacing the .50 cals. This version could carry 8 rockets as well as the cannon as well as 3,000 pound of bombs (short range mission, from hard surface runways). Another very good choice would be the Beaufighter or the Mosquito (although this type was so valuable in its other roles that availability is questionable).
The A-26 would also have been interesting. There was a version proposed with wing guns as well as the solid nose, it also had more weapon load available than the older B-25. Any specialized version would probably not be ready for prime time before the end of the war.
Three main problems I can see with that are 'tis ugly as feck, it's liquid cooled with the Merlin being in very high demand whilst the Sabre had development troubles and didn't start getting things ironed out until English Electric took them over at the very beginning of 1943, if it's only being proposed in 1942 will it be able to be developed fast enough to be actually deployed before the war ends?
Driftless
Donor
I'll put in a vote for the Whirlwind. When the Whirlwinds were used at low altitudes, the 4x20's were effective in ground attack. A comparatively small target too.
The Peregrine engines were a problem, but in hindsight, they had a couple of years to work out an alternative before a real tank buster was needed. That was a somewhat predictable timeline. The British knew they weren't going back on the offensive right soon, and their experience against the panzers should have indicated a need.
I believe the Whirlwinds were coming into squadron use late 1940. In the OTL, the timing was bad for their coming out party, with the shortage of ready-use aircraft, and high demand against Rolls Royce for the Merlins. You use the 200+ originals on hand, and sort out whether you can successfully redesign around one of the Bristol Radials or a P&W 1830, or even the (Packard)Merlin by 1942.
If the Whirlwind was out of the picture, then the Beaufighter would probably be the next best choice. Sturdy, capable of carrying all kinds of firepower, twin radials, etc.
As Weitze pointed out the Fokker G1 could have worked too, if they had been available. Big enough airframe to refit with weapons as needed.
The Peregrine engines were a problem, but in hindsight, they had a couple of years to work out an alternative before a real tank buster was needed. That was a somewhat predictable timeline. The British knew they weren't going back on the offensive right soon, and their experience against the panzers should have indicated a need.
I believe the Whirlwinds were coming into squadron use late 1940. In the OTL, the timing was bad for their coming out party, with the shortage of ready-use aircraft, and high demand against Rolls Royce for the Merlins. You use the 200+ originals on hand, and sort out whether you can successfully redesign around one of the Bristol Radials or a P&W 1830, or even the (Packard)Merlin by 1942.
If the Whirlwind was out of the picture, then the Beaufighter would probably be the next best choice. Sturdy, capable of carrying all kinds of firepower, twin radials, etc.
As Weitze pointed out the Fokker G1 could have worked too, if they had been available. Big enough airframe to refit with weapons as needed.
Last edited:
maybe true for one bullet. but this is 8 of them merging, in a high output stream. one .50 won't slice through an oak tree either, but the P-47 could do so with a burst.
The statement about ricocheting bullets into the undercarriage of tanks comes from a TV interview with a P-47 pilot.
- Status