If the Germans were aware of the T-34 and KV-1

Sure, you just need the right aircraft and mounting. But for tank busting you need aircraft that were low and slow, but capable of mounting the bigger guns. The HS129 should have been that aircraft, but it was too small, too underpowered, and had unarmored engines, which is death for CAS. So IMHO given the aircraft available the HS123C with air to ground rockets or a variety of bombs (including napalm) with 20mm cannon, like a smaller biplane A1 Skyraider was the way to go. And it didn't use cannons for tank busting, just bombs and rockets.

If I'm about to go 'low and slow', up-engine the Hs 129 as per OTL (question is whether a decent number can be available by mid/late 1941), or use Ju 87. Hs 129 with proper engine needs also the proper gun, start with 3,7 cm until 5 cm is available. Ju 87 can start with two 3cm cannons, armor under the cooler(s); switch to 3,7 when available. The Bf 110 with 5 cm should be a good can opener, too, if a bit too expensive.
The Hs 123 of any flavor is a no-go as all-year around sttacker; rockets and bombs on any aircraft are either good idea or bad. If good, stick them on Ju 87/Hs 129/Bf 110, if bad don't bother.
Stating the Hs 123 and Skyrider in same sentence will not propel the Hs 123 above it's limits.
 

Deleted member 1487

If I'm about to go 'low and slow', up-engine the Hs 129 as per OTL (question is whether a decent number can be available by mid/late 1941), or use Ju 87. Hs 129 with proper engine needs also the proper gun, start with 3,7 cm until 5 cm is available. Ju 87 can start with two 3cm cannons, armor under the cooler(s); switch to 3,7 when available. The Bf 110 with 5 cm should be a good can opener, too, if a bit too expensive.
Proper engines or not the Hs129 had a number of design flaws like unarmored exposed engines that were very easily put out of action with even MG bullets despite having radial air cooled engines. The 5cm is probably overkill all things considered the BK 3.7cm was just fine for most use, the bigger guns only came about because they needed more stand off range due to increasing Soviet AAA fire. A 3.7cm Bf110 should be fine if it can get close enough, but again the range issue...which could probably be dealt with by having an increased length 3.7cm weapon. Part of the reason the modern 30mm Avenger works so well is that it is an L77 gun, which gives it a 1200m/s muzzle velocity and a more than 1km range. The effective range of the BK37 is only 500m and an L57 weapon. Make it an L77 and it should be able to have a 1km range and have an effectiveness outside the range of most accurate return fire. You could probably do the same with the MK101/3 and get a much lighter weapon than the BK50.

The Hs 123 of any flavor is a no-go as all-year around sttacker; rockets and bombs on any aircraft are either good idea or bad. If good, stick them on Ju 87/Hs 129/Bf 110, if bad don't bother.
Stating the Hs 123 and Skyrider in same sentence will not propel the Hs 123 above it's limits.
How do you figure? It was desired IOTL because it was an all weather/year 'round 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'm not sure how much you're going to get out of a longer barrel. It'll help, but at the end of the day, there's a lot less propellant behind the 37mm than the 50mm. Beyond a certain point, you get diminishing returns, plus a long barrel is going to add drag, cock up your center of gravity, etc. I'll have to grab the exact ammunition stats, though, don't know them off the top of my head.
 
Proper engines or not the Hs129 had a number of design flaws like unarmored exposed engines that were very easily put out of action with even MG bullets despite having radial air cooled engines. The 5cm is probably overkill all things considered the BK 3.7cm was just fine for most use, the bigger guns only came about because they needed more stand off range due to increasing Soviet AAA fire. A 3.7cm Bf110 should be fine if it can get close enough, but again the range issue...which could probably be dealt with by having an increased length 3.7cm weapon. Part of the reason the modern 30mm Avenger works so well is that it is an L77 gun, which gives it a 1200m/s muzzle velocity and a more than 1km range. The effective range of the BK37 is only 500m and an L57 weapon. Make it an L77 and it should be able to have a 1km range and have an effectiveness outside the range of most accurate return fire. You could probably do the same with the MK101/3 and get a much lighter weapon than the BK50.

There is no such thing as overkill ;) The Hs 129 will have easier time lugging around the 'mechanized' 5 cm than the 7,5cm as in OTL. Please note that I don't inted to wait until the BK 50 is available. Vs. the 3,7cm, the advantage is that even without tungsten thr AP shell stands chance. But, granted, the airborne 3,7cm will be very useful in 1941.
The Hs 123 was also without armored engine, and was also without armored cockpit. Vs. Ju 87 there is no rear gunner.
There was no range issue with 3,7cm, it was used on Stukas from mid-war on to a good effect.
However, Germany has in production a 'magnum 3,7' ammo and AA gun for the needs of Kriegsmarine, ~750 g shell/shot at 1000 m/s - muzzle energy much greater than the ordinary 3,7 cm ammo. So 'mechanize' the single-shot 3,7cm SK C/30 and there is a fine airborne AT gun. Length of the muzle is firmly connected with weight/volume of propellant used, as well as with size/weight of the shell/shot.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.php

A good deal of AT performance of A-10's cannon was due to use of DU ammo.

How do you figure? It was desired IOTL because it was an all weather/year 'round CAS aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#World_War_II_.28Eastern_Front.29

During the best part of the year the unit comprised by Hs 123s will carry far less ordnance or have a far lower AT capability than a force comprised by Ju 87 or Hs 129.
 

Deleted member 1487

There is no such thing as overkill ;) The Hs 129 will have easier time lugging around the 'mechanized' 5 cm than the 7,5cm as in OTL. Please note that I don't inted to wait until the BK 50 is available. Vs. the 3,7cm, the advantage is that even without tungsten thr AP shell stands chance. But, granted, the airborne 3,7cm will be very useful in 1941.
The Hs 123 was also without armored engine, and was also without armored cockpit. Vs. Ju 87 there is no rear gunner.
There was no range issue with 3,7cm, it was used on Stukas from mid-war on to a good effect.
However, Germany has in production a 'magnum 3,7' ammo and AA gun for the needs of Kriegsmarine, ~750 g shell/shot at 1000 m/s - muzzle energy much greater than the ordinary 3,7 cm ammo. So 'mechanize' the single-shot 3,7cm SK C/30 and there is a fine airborne AT gun. Length of the muzle is firmly connected with weight/volume of propellant used, as well as with size/weight of the shell/shot.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_37mm-83_skc30.php

A good deal of AT performance of A-10's cannon was due to use of DU ammo.
Not really, it isn't any better than Tungsten Carbide, it's just cheaper and more plentiful, while being incendiary. The actual armor penetration values aren't determined by the density of the metal as much as how fast you can throw it at a target, the density determines how well it can penetrate without shattering when hitting the target. The Hs129 was pretty garbage for the CAS role because of how vulnerable the engines were in the design. But yeah the BK37 was still highly workable until about 1943 and then the only issue is increasing Soviet AAA making stand off/long range firing ability critical. Hence the 'long' 30mm to get the same penetration at a distance. I did forget the other issue that led to the BK50 was the loss of tungsten, so requiring a turn to regular APCBC shells to get the same penetration at a distance. A 'long' 30mm or 37mm would require tungsten alloys to be viable for the role, which if they just aren't available will make them unworkable for armor busting. The BK37 relied on the tungsten shell, without it it was useless, hence the shift to the BK50. The 'magnum' 37mm certainly fits what I was talking about earlier and certainly a bad-ass weapon, but by 1943 the lack of tungsten means the round would just shatter, not sure if the 37mm APCBC would be enough. Still, it would be worth a try.

The fuselage even if unarmored of the HS123 did offer protection to the engine, more so than the HS129 ones exposed on the wing. Plus the bigger engine was able to handle damage better I think, that seems to have been the case with the HS123 IOTL and the FW190. The HS129 didn't have a rear gunner and that didn't matter, most were lost to ground fire. Same with the Hs123.


During the best part of the year the unit comprised by Hs 123s will carry far less ordnance or have a far lower AT capability than a force comprised by Ju 87 or Hs 129.
The HS129 had LESS carrying capacity than the HS123. The Ju87 had more, but couldn't really handle ground fire as well and was too vulnerable to enemy fighters even with it's rear gunner. The JU87G with BK37s was extremely vulnerable and were generally pretty difficult to fly. They required total air superiority to really function. At that point the FW190F/G was necessary to survive. Early in the war in the east it would have been ok, but by 1943 it was too late to be that useful. Meanwhile by 1943 Richthofen, the ground support specialist, was asking for them to be put back into production, not more Ju87s or Hs129s.
 

Deleted member 1487

Depleted uranium is also phyrophoric, and has the advantage of not being needed for machine tools and other indusrtial applications. Of course, the Germans couldn't make depleted uranium (though I suppose regular would work just as well in practice).

Edit: Depleted uranium is actually denser than tungsten carbide, 19100 kg/m3 vs 15630 kg/m3.
I think that is alloyed depleted uranium shells, because natural uranium is less dense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
Its density is about 70% higher than that of lead, and slightly lower than that of gold or tungsten.

I wonder why the density wasn't realized as militarily useful even without the radioactive/nuclear potential being at issue. If base uranium is nearly as dense as tungsten, it's utility as a penetrator should have been realized and the Germans had a bunch of it thanks to mining in Bohemia.

I've read on the internet, so take it with a massive grain of salt, that the Germans did experiment with uranium penetrators in WW2:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9342/did-germany-produce-ammunition-with-depleted-uranium
http://ftr-wot.blogspot.nl/2013/05/solving-historical-mistery-help-required.html
 
Wiki lists the density of tungsten as 19250 kg/m3, which is marginally higher than pure uranium. I doubt ~.5% difference is going to make much of a difference though. Tungsten carbide is significantly lower than uranium.

(there's very little difference in the density of natural and depleted uranium, since U-235 makes up less than 1% and has only about 1.5% less than U-238).
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiki lists the density of tungsten as 19250 kg/m3, which is marginally higher than pure uranium. I doubt ~.5% difference is going to make much of a difference though. Tungsten carbide is significantly lower than uranium.

(there's very little difference in the density of natural and depleted uranium, since U-235 makes up less than 1% and has only about 1.5% less than U-238).
So uranium would be an alternative to tungsten penetrators in WW2. Seems the Germans might have experimented with it at the end of the war when tungsten was not an option. They had a bunch of low grade ore available if they wanted to mine it for that purpose, so they theoretically never had to run out dense penetrating materials if they could process it well enough.
 
Germans had a bunch of it thanks to mining in Bohemia

Uranium Oxide and metallic Uranium are two different things.

The US made more metallic Uranium by 1942 than the Germans would make in the entire War, but even that was equivalent to around 3% of the Tungsten the US had access to for the whole war.
And not even the US could make as much HVAP as they wanted.

The Germans didn't have the low cost Ames Process that Frank Spedding developed, either
 

Deleted member 1487

Uranium Oxide and metallic Uranium are two different things.

The US made more metallic Uranium by 1942 than the Germans would make in the entire War, but even that was equivalent to around 3% of the Tungsten the US had access to for the whole war.
And not even the US could make as much HVAP as they wanted.

The Germans didn't have the low cost Ames Process that Frank Spedding developed, either
The lack of US HVAP was a choice and one resulting from them deciding to supply most of the machine tools of the Allied cause. Their production of machine tools, not to mention their size and capacity, simply dwarfed everyone else in the war, which required probably nearly all US tungsten.

As to uranium production do you have a source on their production, I haven't seen that. AFAIK the US had to source their uranium from Belgian Congo, while the Germans had a least one mature mine in Bohemia, plus more (not sure if undiscovered as yet) in East Germany early the Sudeten mountains.

Not sure about what process the Germans were using for uranium ore processing, but they had decades of experience working with it, as did the Belgians with their processing of Belgian Congo ore to make Radium.
 
...
The Hs129 was pretty garbage for the CAS role because of how vulnerable the engines were in the design.
...
The fuselage even if unarmored of the HS123 did offer protection to the engine, more so than the HS129 ones exposed on the wing. Plus the bigger engine was able to handle damage better I think, that seems to have been the case with the HS123 IOTL and the FW190. The HS129 didn't have a rear gunner and that didn't matter, most were lost to ground fire. Same with the Hs123.

Fuselage can't protect the engine from ground fire, since most of the shells/bursts are arriving from either sides or from front. The 'bigger' engine is still just one engine. Rear gunner can tell pilot of imminent danger and deny the enemy pilot from easy firing solutions. 'Job' of the fuselage is also to protect pilot, that was done far better in the Hs 129.

The HS129 had LESS carrying capacity than the HS123. The Ju87 had more, but couldn't really handle ground fire as well and was too vulnerable to enemy fighters even with it's rear gunner. The JU87G with BK37s was extremely vulnerable and were generally pretty difficult to fly. They required total air superiority to really function. At that point the FW190F/G was necessary to survive. Early in the war in the east it would have been ok, but by 1943 it was too late to be that useful. Meanwhile by 1943 Richthofen, the ground support specialist, was asking for them to be put back into production, not more Ju87s or Hs129s.

The Hs 129B-3 was capable to lug around a 705 kg (+ ammo) heavy BK 7,5 - some 50% greater than max load of the Hs 123.
The problem with all these 'low and slow' tank busters is that they require at least air parity, if not air superiority if results are expected, along with tolerable losses. Be it Hs 123, 129 or Stuka. This is why my favorite tank buster would've looked like Lagg-3-37, or P-39 with a better cannon.
Not Richtofen (not that he actually tried), nor anyone could deny that cannon-armed Ju 87 or Hs 129 actually worked against Soviet tanks, and Hurricane IID against German tanks.
That Ju-87G was pretty dificult to fly - probably, when compared with Ju-87D without bombs, no surprise there. But then, Ju-87D without bombs is of no use to the Axis war effort.
 

Deleted member 1487

Fuselage can't protect the engine from ground fire, since most of the shells/bursts are arriving from either sides or from front. The 'bigger' engine is still just one engine. Rear gunner can tell pilot of imminent danger and deny the enemy pilot from easy firing solutions. 'Job' of the fuselage is also to protect pilot, that was done far better in the Hs 129.
The fuselage is another layer of armor even if not intended as such. Yes the bigger engine is still one engine, but the experience of the FW190 and HS123 show that it worked out much better than for smaller radials that were exposed without a fuselage in between. Rear gunners made little difference to Ju87s or Bf110s when single engine fighters got on them. Nape of the earth flying turned out to be a better defenses against fighters, but made ground fire a problem.

The Hs 129B-3 was capable to lug around a 705 kg (+ ammo) heavy BK 7,5 - some 50% greater than max load of the Hs 123.
The problem with all these 'low and slow' tank busters is that they require at least air parity, if not air superiority if results are expected, along with tolerable losses. Be it Hs 123, 129 or Stuka. This is why my favorite tank buster would've looked like Lagg-3-37, or P-39 with a better cannon.
Not Richtofen (not that he actually tried), nor anyone could deny that cannon-armed Ju 87 or Hs 129 actually worked against Soviet tanks, and Hurricane IID against German tanks.
That Ju-87G was pretty dificult to fly - probably, when compared with Ju-87D without bombs, no surprise there. But then, Ju-87D without bombs is of no use to the Axis war effort.
The BK75 heavily overloaded the HS129 and it was a failure as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129#Hs_129_B-3
While this new variant, the Hs 129 B-3, was theoretically capable of destroying any tank in the world, the added weight worsened the aircraft's general performance and was inferior to previous variants.[1]
From June 1944, only 25 examples of the Hs 129 B-3 arrived at front-line units before the production line was shut down in September (a small number were reportedly also created by converting B-2 aircraft). In the field the B-3 proved deadly, but its small numbers had little effect on the war effort.
I mean if it could get the round on target the target was screwed, but getting it there such a heavy load that it was the worst version of an underpowered, low performing aircraft is pretty bad to the point that only 25 were ever made. The HS123 could have lugged around an overload too, if it were willing to totally compromise any flying characteristics it had. The HS129 had the issue of being so low performing that it was vulnerable to both fighters AND ground fire. Cannon armed tank busters were a bust for the Germans given their designs and even the LaGG-3 version was a bust. The P-39 wasn't used for tank busting, it had a low velocity 37mm for bomber killing. The Ju88P with cannons that was trying to do an impression of the B-25 didn't work out either. Maybe the Bf110 or Fw187 with center line mounted cannon and dive brakes could work, but in WW2 it was either HEAT cluster munitions, HEAT rockets, or napalm that was the best option for tank killing. The Ju87G was a poor aircraft that had little success except for behind German lines trying to kill breaking through enemy tanks where German fighters could gain local air control, same with the Hs129B-2. Such things could only work in the East where there was low force density given the vast expanses of terrain and local air superiority could be seized even in 1944 by the Germans.
I just got this book and it is excellent discussing the history of CAS and BAI, it gets into what worked and didn't and the fighter-bomber was the best option in WW2:
https://www.amazon.com/Strike-Sky-H...486486019&sr=8-1&keywords=strike+from+the+sky
For the Germans though in the West even fighter-bombers couldn't do their job due to enemy air superiority and AAA by mid-1943, so the only working option would be to have something like the SU-7, but that was beyond the technology of the day.
 
I think that is alloyed depleted uranium shells, because natural uranium is less dense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium


I wonder why the density wasn't realized as militarily useful even without the radioactive/nuclear potential being at issue. If base uranium is nearly as dense as tungsten, it's utility as a penetrator should have been realized and the Germans had a bunch of it thanks to mining in Bohemia.

I've read on the internet, so take it with a massive grain of salt, that the Germans did experiment with uranium penetrators in WW2:
http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/9342/did-germany-produce-ammunition-with-depleted-uranium
http://ftr-wot.blogspot.nl/2013/05/solving-historical-mistery-help-required.html

A few comments... My understanding is that the Germans in world war two were unable to produce a useable uranium AP projectile. (This understanding of mine comes from following discussions on other Internet forums so it may or may not be correct, but it seems reasonable to me given the German shortages of tungsten and access to uranium.)

Reportedly modern DU projectiles have an inherent "self sharpening" property that increases there effectiveness.
 
...
The BK75 heavily overloaded the HS129 and it was a failure as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129#Hs_129_B-3

I mean if it could get the round on target the target was screwed, but getting it there such a heavy load that it was the worst version of an underpowered, low performing aircraft is pretty bad to the point that only 25 were ever made.

Please, don't turn the Wikipedia quotes into what they are not, nobody ever said that Hs 129 was a failure.
After the Allies gained a chunk of France it was only a question of a day when Hs 129 production was to end due to having no French engines to install them on finished airframes. I can also play Wikipedia game: "In the field the B-3 proved deadly, but its small numbers had little effect on the war effort."

The HS123 could have lugged around an overload too, if it were willing to totally compromise any flying characteristics it had. The HS129 had the issue of being so low performing that it was vulnerable to both fighters AND ground fire.

Looks like the Hs 123 was immune to both fighters and ground fire.

Cannon armed tank busters were a bust for the Germans given their designs and even the LaGG-3 version was a bust. The P-39 wasn't used for tank busting, it had a low velocity 37mm for bomber killing. The Ju88P with cannons that was trying to do an impression of the B-25 didn't work out either. Maybe the Bf110 or Fw187 with center line mounted cannon and dive brakes could work, but in WW2 it was either HEAT cluster munitions, HEAT rockets, or napalm that was the best option for tank killing.

I'm not sure why you mention the OTL P-39 (that have had the low velocity cannon) despite me suggesting a 'P-39 with a better cannon'? The high velocity cannons were used to the good effect for tank busting, so you might add them to your list of what worked, while removing the HEAT rockets.
Too bad there is no reference that Lagg-3-37 was a bust.

The Ju87G was a poor aircraft that had little success except for behind German lines trying to kill breaking through enemy tanks where German fighters could gain local air control, same with the Hs129B-2. Such things could only work in the East where there was low force density given the vast expanses of terrain and local air superiority could be seized even in 1944 by the Germans.
...

The poor Ju 87G racked hundreds of Soviet tanks. IIRC this thread deals about Eastern front.
 

Deleted member 1487

A few comments... My understanding is that the Germans in world war two were unable to produce a useable uranium AP projectile. (This understanding of mine comes from following discussions on other Internet forums so it may or may not be correct, but it seems reasonable to me given the German shortages of tungsten and access to uranium.)

Reportedly modern DU projectiles have an inherent "self sharpening" property that increases there effectiveness.
Any idea why they couldn't? They had experience working with the metal.
Modern DU self sharpening properties are in regular uranium metal, it's not just DU related or even the design of modern penetrators.

Please, don't turn the Wikipedia quotes into what they are not, nobody ever said that Hs 129 was a failure.
After the Allies gained a chunk of France it was only a question of a day when Hs 129 production was to end due to having no French engines to install them on finished airframes. I can also play Wikipedia game: "In the field the B-3 proved deadly, but its small numbers had little effect on the war effort."
Why, because it disproves your point? ;)
Nobody ever said the HS129 was a failure? You sure about that? The Germans only made 25, including conversions from B-2s. They could have converted all remaining B-2s into B-3s if they wanted or thought they be useful, but alas they did not for some reason...perhaps because they were so low performing that it was pointless. They kept making more until September 1944 too.

And I said the B-3 was deadly...when it was even able to get to target and not be slaughtered due to being a dog in the air that made the JU87G seem nimble.

Looks like the Hs 123 was immune to both fighters and ground fire.
Nope, just more able to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

I'm not sure why you mention the OTL P-39 (that have had the low velocity cannon) despite me suggesting a 'P-39 with a better cannon'? The high velocity cannons were used to the good effect for tank busting, so you might add them to your list of what worked, while removing the HEAT rockets.
Too bad there is no reference that Lagg-3-37 was a bust.
Because there was never a P-39 with better cannon and the attempt to do so with the LaGG-3 was a failure that the Soviets dropped. There never was a successful motor canon tank buster ever developed by anyone; the Hurricane tank buster was also a dog in the air and only functioned well against the Japanese where they didn't face enough fighter or ground fire to make them useless; their utility against German ground targets was limited to the very easy North Africa theater, but moving beyond that it was not used because of it's vulnerability. Even the A-36 Apache found it really hard to operate in Italy despite having air dominance over the Germans. Even the Mosquito Tsetse with autocannon was only used against Uboats and small German surface ships.
Cannon armed tank busters generally had a rough time surviving against ground fire, while rocket armed fighter-bombers were much more likely to survive and do damage.

WTF are you talking with the LaGG-3 not being a bust? I linked to a source the last time you brought that up.
https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=LaGG-3-34
According to various estimates, between 40 and 65 LaGG-3 Series 34 planes were built.
But the 37 mm NS-37 cannon significantly increased the plane's weight and affected its center of gravity, which seriously reduced its flight characteristics. In addition, the plane's structure poorly withstood the cannon's strong recoil. Further production of this model was stopped in connection with the unacceptable drop in its flight characteristics.

There were none made after 1942 despite the VVS having increasing air superiority.

The poor Ju 87G racked hundreds of Soviet tanks. IIRC this thread deals about Eastern front.
Source and proof?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Any idea why they couldn't? They had experience working with the metal.


Sorry I don't recall the details from the other forums.

Perhaps however a reasonable analogy is that turning iron ore into high grade steel AP projectiles requires relevant experience and alloying materials. I suspect the Germans were lacking in both vis a vis Uranium AP projectiles during the later stages of world war 2 ?
 
Why, because it disproves your point? ;)

It is about you, not about me.

Nobody ever said the HS129 was a failure? You sure about that? The Germans only made 25, including conversions from B-2s. They could have converted all remaining B-2s into B-3s if they wanted or thought they be useful, but alas they did not for some reason...perhaps because they were so low performing that it was pointless. They kept making more until September 1944 too.

Post the source that says the Hs 129B was a failure.
Why would the Germans bother with an aircraft that is bound to be left without spare parts for it's engine in very near future? Producing a modification, install it, and then leave the modified aircraft once the spare parts are no more does not seem like prudent planning.

Nope, just more able to take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

Too bad that opinion of yours does not take the pilot survivability into account.

Because there was never a P-39 with better cannon and the attempt to do so with the LaGG-3 was a failure that the Soviets dropped. There never was a successful motor canon tank buster ever developed by anyone; the Hurricane tank buster was also a dog in the air and only functioned well against the Japanese where they didn't face enough fighter or ground fire to make them useless; their utility against German ground targets was limited to the very easy North Africa theater, but moving beyond that it was not used because of it's vulnerability. Even the A-36 Apache found it really hard to operate in Italy despite having air dominance over the Germans. Even the Mosquito Tsetse with autocannon was only used against Uboats and small German surface ships.
Cannon armed tank busters generally had a rough time surviving against ground fire, while rocket armed fighter-bombers were much more likely to survive and do damage.

Again, it was my proposal that P-39 with a bigger/better cannon would've been an useful tank buster, not that such aircraft existed. Seems like my English is very bad today. USA and UK will never make a motor-cannon tank-buster (bar P-39) because of type of V12 engines used.
Survivability of a tank-buster is dependant on the qualities of aircraft and pilot, not whether it has a cannon or rockets.
The A-36 have had a great time in ww2, especially when compared with another dive-bombers. Even served as escort for B-25s in MTO, per Ethel's book about P-51s.


WTF are you talking with the LaGG-3 not being a bust? I linked to a source the last time you brought that up.
https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=LaGG-3-34

My source, the 'Soviet combat aircraft of ww2' book by Gordon and Khazanov disagrees with unsourced claim on that article. But if you don't want LaGG-3-37, the Yak-9T might fit in.


There were none made after 1942 despite the VVS having increasing air superiority.

Has a lot to do with engine switch, from V12 to twin-row radial. Also with availability of Yak-9T.

Source and proof?

Perhaps this qualifies, even when allowed for overclaims (from here):
"On 5 August 1944, Rudel claimed 11 tanks destroyed, earning him his fourth mention in the Wehrmachtbericht. Rudel's number of tank kills had now reached 378, including 300 destroyed with the 37 mm cannon."
Please note that this is just about a single pilot.
 

Deleted member 1487

It is about you, not about me.
Uh huh.

Post the source that says the Hs 129B was a failure.
Why would the Germans bother with an aircraft that is bound to be left without spare parts for it's engine in very near future? Producing a modification, install it, and then leave the modified aircraft once the spare parts are no more does not seem like prudent planning.
There was only 25 ever built, including conversions from B-2s. The BK75 overloaded the aircraft and made it very suceptible to both ground fire and enemy fighters. When I get home I'll check out my copy of "Panzerjäger!" by Mark Pegg to see what it has to say. But if it were so great they would have made a lot more and converted existing Hs129s when they ran out of engines.
If the argument is that an aircraft that only existed after the necessary technology for it was developed when it was too late to make a difference, then it is not a viable aircraft for earlier in the war.


Too bad that opinion of yours does not take the pilot survivability into account.
No worse than the Hs129. Certainly better performing than the 50mm or 75mm laden HS129.

Again, it was my proposal that P-39 with a bigger/better cannon would've been an useful tank buster, not that such aircraft existed. Seems like my English is very bad today. USA and UK will never make a motor-cannon tank-buster (bar P-39) because of type of V12 engines used.
Survivability of a tank-buster is dependant on the qualities of aircraft and pilot, not whether it has a cannon or rockets.
The A-36 have had a great time in ww2, especially when compared with another dive-bombers. Even served as escort for B-25s in MTO, per Ethel's book about P-51s.
I'm sure if such an aircraft were possible and wasn't too vulnerable it would have been...but there is a reason why such an aircraft with obvious utility was not built by anyone IOTL. The Germans tried with the Me109, but even the experimental MK103 rig you mentioned in the last thread on this was never viable at any point in the war. The Germans couldn't get one to work, the Soviets didn't think the LaGG-3 with 37mm motor cannon was worth making (despite making the Shturmovik of all aircraft), and the Wallies never really tried (the P-39 was a bomber killer, not a tank buster). The A-36 was the last dive bomber to really have a shot and it even despite Wallied air superiority couldn't function against German ground fire. Dive bombers were not really a great idea outside the Eastern Front where low force density ratios made them viable until about 1943.

My source, the 'Soviet combat aircraft of ww2' book by Gordon and Khazanov disagrees with unsourced claim on that article. But if you don't want LaGG-3-37, the Yak-9T might fit in.
I'll see if I can find the book, but what does it say specifically? How many were made and how long did they serve for?
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/yak9t.shtml
Not much info about them, how many were made and used? And since we are talking about German aircraft which do you think could be converted to do something similar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman-Suranov_NS-37
This says it was tough to hit targets with it.

Has a lot to do with engine switch, from V12 to twin-row radial. Also with availability of Yak-9T.
But not German aircraft.

Perhaps this qualifies, even when allowed for overclaims (from here):
"On 5 August 1944, Rudel claimed 11 tanks destroyed, earning him his fourth mention in the Wehrmachtbericht. Rudel's number of tank kills had now reached 378, including 300 destroyed with the 37 mm cannon."
Please note that this is just about a single pilot.
Rudel was a notorious overclaimer and over on the Dupuy forums his claims about ground attack successes at Kursk were debunked with Soviet accounts of coming under attack by German cannon armed aircraft. Claims from and about Rudel are highly suspect.
 
Top