Alternate tank-busters and other aircraft

I know that IOTL the Germans used the old Heinkel He 50 as a tank buster for much of WWII. As near as I can tell they were fairly effective. Their slow speed and excellent handling made them very accurate and the units equipped with them scored well compared to those using JU 87s and the like. Perhaps the Germans realize this and develop a full blown major production run of biplane dive bombers which see extensive service on the western front. Maybe if it was designed late enough in the war Hitler would even order the thing be given Jet engines to make it even more unusual.
 
I do have this idea for a biplane, WW1-era "tank buster" aircraft for an ATL extended WW1 where one side uses tanks more often and the other side comes up with said aircraft to deal with them; sort of like an early 20th century expy of the A-10 Warthog.


Lookup 'Davis Gun'
 

Deleted member 1487

I know that IOTL the Germans used the old Heinkel He 50 as a tank buster for much of WWII. As near as I can tell they were fairly effective. Their slow speed and excellent handling made them very accurate and the units equipped with them scored well compared to those using JU 87s and the like. Perhaps the Germans realize this and develop a full blown major production run of biplane dive bombers which see extensive service on the western front. Maybe if it was designed late enough in the war Hitler would even order the thing be given Jet engines to make it even more unusual.
The He50 was not used as a tank buster. It was used as a night harassment bomber like the Soviet Po-2 the 'night witches' flew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_50
In spring 1943, following the success of the Soviet VVS's Night Witches units against the Wehrmacht Heer's frontline encampments while flying their Polikarpov Po-2 biplanes on nocturnal harassment raids, surviving He 50s were rounded up from training schools and delivered to night ground attack units operating on the Eastern Front. The He 50 was used to conduct night harassment sorties on the Eastern Front until September 1944, when the units were disbanded.

If they were going to use any biplane it would be the HS-123 as a CAS aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#World_War_II_.28Eastern_Front.29
The greatest tribute to the Hs 123 usefulness came in January 1943 when Generaloberst Wolfram von Richthofen, then commander-in-chief of Luftflotte 4, asked whether production of the Hs 123 could be restarted because the Hs 123 performed well in a theater where mud, snow, rain and ice took a heavy toll on the serviceability of more advanced aircraft. However, the Henschel factory had already dismantled all tools and jigs in 1940.[3]
 
I do have this idea for a biplane, WW1-era "tank buster" aircraft for an ATL extended WW1 where one side uses tanks more often and the other side comes up with said aircraft to deal with them; sort of like an early 20th century expy of the A-10 Warthog.

The closest a/c that comes readily to mind is the SPAD S.XII, mounting a 37mm cannon, for the armament, and Junkers J-2 for the aircraft. The cannon made the geared V-8-powered SPAD a bit heavy, and the all-metal structure made the Junkers a bit heavy, so that's two bits heavy. There would have to be a perceived need, certainly, and some juggling of existing technologies to come up with the ultimately suitable machine and, as always, just a bit more power. I should also mention that an auto-loader would be convenient as well, since the SPAD's cannon was single shot breech loading, and firing it filled the cockpit with smoke and fumes.
 
The alternate tank buster for the RAF - P-39 with 37mm cannon removed, and, if need, two .50s removed, and the Vickes 'S' gun is installed to fire through the prop shaft. Add some armor under the coolers, and later the Littlejohn adapter for better AP results.
 

Archibald

Banned
How about handwaving the US early mis-fires (pun intended) with 20mm guns and give the P-47 4x20mm's Hispano's? Or as long as I'm in full conductor mode on hand-waving problems away; the perpetual pre-war favorite 4x23mm Madsen's?

Quite incredibly there is no Wikipedia page on the 23 mm Madsen gun. Yet a lot of pre-WWII US aircrafts were designed with that gun in mind. IT seems to have vanished without a trace - leaving US fighter without a proper gun: the P-39 37 mm was too heavy and too slow.

A Madsen 23mm TL would be interesting. Without the weight and center of gravity issue the P-39 might have been a far better aircraft. P-38 would have packed more punch early on.

23 mm would have packed more punch than the hispano 404 or the German MGs.
 
Quite incredibly there is no Wikipedia page on the 23 mm Madsen gun. Yet a lot of pre-WWII US aircrafts were designed with that gun in mind. IT seems to have vanished without a trace - leaving US fighter without a proper gun: the P-39 37 mm was too heavy and too slow.

A Madsen 23mm TL would be interesting. Without the weight and center of gravity issue the P-39 might have been a far better aircraft. P-38 would have packed more punch early on.

23 mm would have packed more punch than the hispano 404 or the German MGs.
About the only other source I have been able to find is a vague reference on Anthony Williams site, and that's unclear as to even which cartridge the US 23mm would have been using. The original Madsen or "Other"?
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/collecting 23-28mm.htm
 
At any rate, here goes the nex proposal. Say that RLM/LW buys the Fw 187. It might serve as a base for general-purpose high performance fighter bomber, with a cannon under centreline for AT work. If radial-powered version is required, the G&R 14N should be an unproblematic fit.

that's everyone's favorite (unproduced) aircraft! my understanding F-W had quite a bit of problems getting Condor into serial production circa the timeframe you are projecting? along with launching FW-190?

MY question would be what if they equipped the FW-189 with the above mentioned French G-R 14 radials in a lightly-armored(?) version that was proposed (the A4 & E versions in a mash-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_189)

and continued production of HS-123, at least into 1940's
 
The alternate tank buster for the RAF - P-39 with 37mm cannon removed, and, if need, two .50s removed, and the Vickes 'S' gun is installed to fire through the prop shaft. Add some armor under the coolers, and later the Littlejohn adapter for better AP results.

Bell_P-39K-L_internal.jpg

It looks like the .50s have to go, and the Littlejohn is a bit of a stretch. It would have been better if the RAF had found the results of testing more positive. There's always the unproduced APCR projectile.
 
Even with modern tanks, top down attacks, whether from aircraft or some of the ATGM that are designed to attack from top down, have an easier time due to armor being thinnest on the top. For most WWII tanks a 20mm AP round from above can be quite adequate, 37mm is "overkill" in most situations. The trade off is in weight of the weapon(s) and also ammo capacity. Given accuracy issues in aerial attack, if the ammunition supply is small, the efficacy of an attack by one aircraft is limited.
 
Several OTL aircraft, that might've gave come to frutition with a twek or two.
The ANT-58 was a predecessor of the Tu-2 family. Powered by two V12 engines was faster (390 mph at 8 km in early 1941, 300 mph at SL) than fighters of the day. It had a problem - the AM 37 engines were unreliable. So, ITTL, there is no time vasting, but the AM-38 gets installed. The resulting bomber is no longer as fast at altitude as the ANT-58, however the low altitude speed is increased.
link
link 2

The AM-38 was installed IOTL on two MiG-3 prototypes, achieving 600 km at 3 km of altitude, 540 km/h at S/L. Legacy coolers were not managing to keep the cooling under control, since engine power was some 30% greater than on the usual MiG-3, so a bigger coolers are needed. Now that we're at it, don't wait until 1942 to install two 20mm under cowling, do it from day one.
 
Top