Best Ground Attack Plane of WWII

[GregP]

I see the best/worst fighter, bomber, and transport in here, so I thought I'd take an opportunity to put a plug in for the ground pounders.

For my money, I nominate the Repiblic P-47 with its eight 12.7 mmm MG and ability to both dish out and take punishment.

If I had more information on it, I might nominate the Ilyushin IL-2. All I know about it is that they made over 36,000 of them and it was very hard to shoot down. Truthfully, I haven't seen much information on its combat effectiveness as a ground attack plane, though I'd imagine they were effective or the USSR would not have made so many.

The Typhoon / Tempest would rank right up there, but the P-47 was around in greater numbers longer with its 8-12.7 mm armament, so I infer more "targets of opportunity" for the P-47's than for the Hawkers.

What do YOU think?

[simon]

Hmmm, well I'd say just because it was built in greater numbers doesn't mean it was better, maybe the type as a whole achieved more, but based on the logic of numbers you could say the B-24 was better than the B-29...

Personally I'd say for light anti-vehicle work the Tempest's 20mm were better than the Browning .50 cals.

Going purely by the statistics the Il-2m is actually a pretty poor aircraft, ignoring the armour which was thick, but not impenetrable and in any case only protected the underside of the aircraft, and as is quite well reported not the poor rear gunner. It was slow, had poor defensive weaponary, and had a poor ceiling.

I'd vote for the Yak-9 anti-tank version (Think it was the Yak-9T but not certain), with a 45mm cannon in the nose and provision for rockets and bombs it could take out quite a range of German tanks, whilst retaining the speed and manouevrability and lighter weapons to take on other aircraft.

Runners up, in the fighter-bomber category would be the Thunderbolt, Tempest and the often overlooked Hurricane MkIIE/MkIV. For the dedicated ground attack plane, I'd say probably the Henschell Hs129, Il-2m, then Ju87G. I really haven't been able to find out enough about the He177P (Complete with 75mm cannon in the nose), or the Ju88P (75mm cannon in a disposable arrangement similar to that in the Hs129B) to be able to say, my guess is they were good, or at least effective, although not built in large numbers.

[Corsarius]

I'll vote for the HS129, because I really do like it.

Thinking of which, I have recently seen a 'front view' photo of just the nose/cockpit of the HS129 and then the Su-25 'frogfoot'. There is more than just a superficial resembalence there, I assure you!

Maybe it's why I like the Sukhoi product so much...

[GregP]

So, you guys are voting on the plane you THINK was the best or on the plane that achieved the most destruction in the war?

I think the plane that achieved the best combat record was the best. You could have the greatest attack plane in the world, but if you only made one and never precipitated any damage to the enemy, who cares?

The P-47 destroyed more ground targets than any other Western Allied aircraft. I can't really compare it with the Hs-129 without data. The Yak-9T was a VERY hard hitting. What did they DO? I have little to no Russian information on sorties , armoer, transports, or other ground vehicles destroyed by Yaks, much less the Yak-9T.

The B-25 also had a version modified in the Pacific to mount a 75 mm Cannon and they sank several Japanese destroyers and other shipping. I used to work with a guy who was a crew chief on one. He said they only used old, war weary B-25's (Pappy Gunn's squadron), and that the aircraft were good for 10-15 shots before the recoil made ovals out of the rivet holes in the aircraft's skin and the planes had to be scrapped since they were literally coming apart after less than 20 shots (the cannon had no recoil-absorbing capability, so it was transmitted to the entire airframe).

Whether or not this is true, I can't say, but his name was Paul Cherry and he had plaenty of authentic photos of the palne and the effects of the recoil.

[Corsarius]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

So, you guys are voting on the plane you THINK was the best or on the plane that achieved the most destruction in the war?

I think the plane that achieved the best combat record was the best. You could have the greatest attack plane in the world, but if you only made one and never precipitated any damage to the enemy, who cares?.


OK. The way I work these things is one-on-one. You seem to have a broader view of things, which would lead (in sufficient quantities) us to have the Bristol Bulldog IV as the greatest aircraft of an alternate WWII as maybe England and it's allies just built nothing else, and sent ten thousand of them everywhere in each sortie.

I mean, fine, it would have been outperformed and outgunned at every turn, but hey, it would have been the plane that won the war: Lanchester's Law in action.

Ergo, you choose the P-47 not as it is a fantastic plane (which it is, and one of the few american planes I really like), but because of tonnage destroyed/ammo expended/etc.

It is my belief that to favourably compare them, you would have them lined up, theoretically, with cloned pilots that act identically, and sent individually to do a specific task. Whichever aircraft completed the task in a superior manner becomes the 'best'. After all, this is only speculation.

So while the P-47 is a good contender, I would put the Tempest ahead of it, as well as the Henschel.

As for things like the monstrous B-25 with the mega-gun, and the He-117 likewise (and, if I recall, a Japanese toryu with a 75mm gun, but that was for shooting B-29s), these aircraft are really in a seperate area, something like 'anti-shipping platform', rather than the ubiquitous 'air to ground'.

Hmmm. Rambling a bit, but I think saying the best 'air to ground' is almost like claiming a 'best fighter'. After all, aren't bombers air-to-ground? [:p]

[simon]

I've got to agree with Corsarius here, quantities do not equate to quality. Who is the better shot? The machine-gunner who expends a 1,000 rounds per minute, therefore probably scoring more actual hits on targets, or the Sniper who fires a single bullet an hour, but hits with every one?

Don't forget just because an aircraft was effective in whichever role it ended up in, does not necessarily mean that they were the best. It could mean as was the case with many Soviet and American aircraft in particular that they were available in sufficient numbers that the enemy were overwhelmed, that the training of their pilots was superior, the training of the enemy pilots was inadequate, or a combination.

I make my choices based on performance data available and where possible actual experiences and accounts, and OK I think for the most part none of us can help a little national bias.

If you take the combat record and divide it by sorties flown you would have a more meaningful figure, since this would give a rating per flight, meaning that you don't get a default winner just because it flew far more missions, but for most aircraft this detail is not easily accessible, or still cloaked in mystery and propaganda as is the case with many Soviet aircraft.

OK if only a few of an aircraft type were made it makes it far more difficult to assess it's capabilities, and makes a "Rogue" entry too influential, this is why I would only tend to use this method for aircraft that were built in significant numbers, up to individuals to determine what this means.

My understanding of the He177P was that was intended for anti-tank work, carrying the same modified Pak-40 as the Hs129, although like I say, I have no solid information on this.

Going OT, but theI think it the Ki67 "Hiryu" or "Peggy" with the 75mm gun was an experimental lash-up of which few were made, it proved incapable of reaching the altitudes or even matching speeds with the B-29s it was supposed to intercept, and as far as I'm aware never even flew a combat operation. In any case the combination of an apparently inaccurate handloaded cannon and bulky, slow bomber was supposedly virtually impossible to aim.

Definitions are pretty hard. I'd say a Bomber is an aircraft designed to attack a target on the ground with bombs.

A Dive-bomber is an aircraft which delivers bombs in a diving attack.

A Ground Attack aircraft is one which attacks enemy ground combat formations with cannon, rockets, bombs or missiles, with the intention being tactical support of friendly ground units. Anti-shipping is the same, except the targets must be shipping.

There is a bit of overlap here, especially between Dive-bombing and Ground Attack or anti-shipping aircraft, but these are what I use as a rule of thumb...

Oh yeah, apologees for the ramble too...

[tenmmike]

ill pick the il-2 and end of war il-10 as the two best dedicated ground attack a/c......any study of these 2 dedicated a/c will show their merits.. the hs -129 was a disapointment in performance..although the idea was good, the p-47 was used as ground attack and was good but not a true ground attack a/c

[simon]

I'm not overly convinced by the arguments that the Il-2m and Il10 were necessarily so superior. I still lean to the opinion that they were adequate, but that basically the Russians could afford the casualties. My own cursory studies of the Il-2m seem to indicate that it was far from invulnerable or even an impressive performer, and was slow, had poor manourevrability and a poor ceiling.

Why then was it so successful? To me I think the answer lies in the fact that around 36,000 of them were built, not a great aircraft, but it just had the ability to swamp the enemy.

The Petlyakov Pe2FT Peshka was a much better machine alround, but tends to get much less publicity.

Welcome onboard, tenmike.

[tenmmike]

thanks for the welcome ..i think the ft was a light bomber http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/pe-2ft.html perhaps this is the version your talking about http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/pe-2sh.html ........ gotta go ill come back to argue later LOL

[GregP]

I understand what you guys are saying, and there is some merit to it, but I strongly disagree in principal.

The Martin-Baker MB-5 and the Commonwealth Ca-15 were absolutely stunning piston fighters, but did nothing for the war effort. So, while technically they may have been the best of the best, they actually did nothing to win WWII.

The P-47 may not have been designed as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, but certainly destroyed more targets than any other US or British ground attack aircraft, if only because there were more of them available sooner than there were Typhoons and Tempests, so they flew more sorties. The P-47 flew 423,435 combat sorties. The next closest American single engined aircraft in Europe was the P-51 at 123,873 sorties.

I have no data on the British aircraft, but seriously doubt the Typhoon or Tempest come cloase to the P-47. So, while they may, in fact, have been better-quality ground-attack planes, the P-47's did more damage and contributed more to the war.

In any 5-year war, there is a lot of technical development. The best machine may well be the last one produced, but it certain that it was not available for the bulk of the war.

What kept the UK alive during WWII? The Liberty Ship. Would anyone seriously that it was the best freighter ever made? Nope. But it DID deliver more cargo than any other type of vehicle used in WWII.

OK ... rambling.

Getting back to it, the IL-2 / IL-10, and the P-47 were the major Allied ground attack aircraft of WWII, Typhoon and Tempest notwithstanding. They simply did more to win the war ... ergo, they were the best of the best at WINNING THE WAR. If any German ground attack machine was even close, it failed miserably since it DID NOT DESTROY OR STOP the attackers. We pushed into Berlin and won.

I fail to see how the Henschel can even be considered. It had horrible flight characteristics and was pretty much ineffectual in the outcome. That pretty much describes a loser. The Ju-87 did more for Germany than the Hs-129, and it couldn't survivie in the absence of air superiority by the Luftwaffe.

Being a pilot, if I had to choose one to fly in WWII, I'd take a Tempest due to weight of fire per second, muzzle energy, and the reliable radial engine. But if I wanted to fly one and attack something in in 1942 I'd be out of luck since they hadn't been invented yet.

Combat results speak for themselves. Go back to the statement made earlier by someone, "the Mustang couldn't do what a Spitfire could do, but it could do it over Berlin." Ditto the P-47, IL-2, and IL-10. They did it EVERYWHERE to ANYTHING that looked like a target.

So, exactly on what are you basing your opinions in here? Only the "potential" of a design? if so, then the Germans surely had the technological edge and made many more experimental prototypes than anyone else. That also cost them valuable resources that MIGHT have helped their beleagured forces had it not been diverted thusly.

C'mon guys, the Hs-129 doesn't even figure as a major player in a single battle victory that I know of, much less the war.

The P-47, IL-2, and IL-10, on the other hand, figure prominently in anyone's book on ground attack in WWII.

They desrerve their reputations because they earned them in combat.

[Corsarius]

they were also, in general, numerically superior and enjoyed support that the other aircraft lacked.

*bangs head against wall*

I can certainly see your point of view. As a historian, it is accurate to a fault and I support it. You work strongly with Lanchester's law, and hey, it hardly ever fails.

But what can we do to make you view a comparative analysis of these aircraft one-on-one?

[GregP]

Comparative analysis one on one is fun and I freely admit that the latest models of any aircraft were probably, though not necesarily, better than previous models.

If we want a purely one on one comparison, then I suppose I'd choose the Hawker Tempest V as the best ground attack plane of WWII.

The Tempest Mk V came out in April 1945, threw 6.5 kg of fire per second, and had a muzzle energy of 2300 kW.

The P-47B came out in Mar 1942, threw 4.85 kg of fire per seocond, and had a muzzle energy of 1860 kW.

The Henschel Hs-123 came out in 1942. I don't have a source for the numbers but, if my calculations are correct, it threw out 8.61 kg of fire per second (impressive) and had a muzzle energy of 1275 kW. The low muzzle energy is the result of low muzzle velocity for the 20 mm cannon.

The Ilyushin IL-2 came out in 1940 (IL-10 in 43). It threw out 1.55 kg of fire per second and had a muzzle energy of 545 kW. However, the 2 7.62 mm MG fired forward and the single 12.7 mm MG fired rearward, so it could only deliver a fraction of these numbers to any single place. It was underarmed and the "puch" was the bomb.

The IL-10 had 2 x 7.62 mm MG and 3 x 20 mm Cannon, so it addressed the LI-2's light fire power. It could put out 3.84 kg of fire per second with a muzzle energy of 1560 kW firing forward, and had a single 20 mm cannon firing rearweard. MUCH better that the IL-2.

Of these, the Tempest Mk V wins on energy delivered to the target, and the Hs 123 wins on kg of fire per second. With the Hs 123's low energy, I'd give the nod in destructive power to the Tempest any day. Also, the Tempest was a pleasure to fly while the Hs 123 was quite sluggish and was a handful in combat, where slow-responding aircraft are not appreciated.

So, My picks would be, in order:

1. Tempest Mk V
2. P-47
3. IL-10
4. Hs-123
5. IL-2

Many of you will note I neglected the Typhoon. The Mk IB came out in May 1941, threw 5.2 kg of fire per second, and had a muzzle energy of 2010 kW. However, the Napier Sabre was unreliable until well into 1944, and I would NOT have wanted to fly in it until then.

If we throw it into the fray, it would come in at number 2 with everything else sliding downward a notch. So, for ground attack, I prefer the radial to the inline simply for reliability and ability toi take damage and get home.

OF Corsarius, that an evaluation one on one of the major ground attack types used by the USA, UK, and USSR, with the Hs 123 thrown into the fray for comparative purposes.

There was also a dedicated tank-buster version of the Ju-87 with some very hard-hitting cannon under the wing, but there were few of them and they weren't used much as ground attack machines.

The radial engined versions of the Fw 190 were also pretty good ground attack machines. The 190A-3 threw out 5.2 kg of fire per second with muzzle energy of 1210 kW. Not bad, but it was not used anywhere near so widely against the Western Allies as the P-47 was used against the Germans. I'd estimate that most of the ground attack 190A-3's were used on the Soviet front, where they were head and shoulders better than the IL-2, but could be shot down much more easily than the IL-2.

If we add the Fw 190 A-3, I'd place it about 3rd or 4th on the list.

To me, the Hawker Tempest wins this one easily. The Germans were lucky that Sea Furies weren't available in large numbers before they surrendered. If they had been, they would have wreaked destruction and mayhem everywhere they went ... at about the same level as the Tempest Mk V, but somewhat faster.

[tenmmike]

just a note here iv posted my thoughts( well i didnt just links lol) on this in the il-2 thread...youll note in the second link is a fairly nice comparison of why the author gives a fair eval of the p-47 comparrison with il-2 along with fairly intresting other points....albit short the arguments are about what i would write it must be noted that the il-2 flew pure ground support with the aircraft spending enormus times in costant attacks on german lines....greg i believ you weight of ammo throw is of only the early mods and doed not includ the 23 mm versions may i sugest you go to this link ( man i sure am posting lots of links haha)http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-pe.html

[simon]

Actually the Tempest MkV was in service a year or so later (I don't have my books at the moment, so can't say for certain), the April 1945 model was actually the later radial engined MkII, it does cause some confusion that the MkII entered service later than the MkV and never actually saw operational use during WWII.

Most of my information disagrees with what you have as the armament for the Il-2 though, especially the main production version the Il2m which I understood carried a 7.62mmR ShKAS in the gunner's position and either 4 23mm NS23 cannon or 2 37mm NS37 cannon in the wings. Again I'm going purely by memory here, I'll check my books when I get the chance.

Also, you comment that the Il-2 was mainly dependant on bombs to cause damage. Well, I'd say that is basically true of the P-47, the Browning .50 cal HMG is a good weapon for air to air, but against anything more heavily armoured than a Kubelwagen it's bullets would just bounce off. The 20mm Hispano MkV at least could take on light armour and stand a chance of damaging it, but for anything else you either need rocket projectiles, bazookas, or bombs. The former weren't available for western aircraft until around early 1944.

Finally to pick up on a typo, because I'm just that kind of person ;), the ground attack plane was the Hs129, not the Hs123 which was a parasol winged army co-operation and tactical reccon aircraft in around the same class as the Lysander.

[tenmmike]

simon.. PLEASE REVIEW MY LAST 2 POST on this thread AND TELL ME YOU THOUGHTS ( disregard caps)

[GregP]

Oops! You're right Simon ... Hs 129! Damn!

You may well be right about the IL-2 as well, but I have 4 different sources for its armament, and they all agree. They also stated that the installed armament "varied a bit."

If the bulk of the IL-2's had the forward firing cannon, then I would move it up in the list depending on where the weight of wire and muzzle energy put it. It also gets GREAT marks for serviceability. Basically, I had it ranked low due to the apparently flimsy armament. If THAT changes, then the evaluation changes.

I stringly disagree with your statement about the 50-calibre MG. In most of my sources, the 50-cal MG ranks as the most destructive weapon overall employed in WWII.

I have seen films of P-47's blowing locomotives off the track, sinking small boats, and straffing a destroyer until it was dead in the water, so I must disagree. The muzzle energy of the P-47 is second ONLY to the Tempest in power, and would shred most any armor except perhaps a Tiger tank or a T-34. I have seen films of P-51's taking out Panzer tanks with gunfire.

So, I'm not too sure where you are coming from with that statement about the 50-cal being a weak gun. I shot one in the military and hit a 55-gallon drum half filled with concrete at 1000 yards. It threw the barrel about 20 feet in the air and rolled it another 100 yards before it stopped. That was from about 2 hits.

If it's is true the 50-cal is weaker than I think, then the films I have seen are lying about the aircraft type in the gun camera attack. That could be true, too, but the targets hit sort of "went in many directions." Old films have a way of becomming "unidentified" as time goes by.

My sources are pretty specific on armament, and they are as quoted above in my earlier post, but I am not opposed to the idea that they may well be wrong. A LOT of what I see on the internet is WRONG, even on supposedly "authoritative" sites. The same may well be true for books. When you are researching, say, the Fw 190 A-3, there aren't a lot of difinitive sources left alive, so you are left with historic documents which may well be wrong to start with.

I stand open to moving the IL-2 up on the list. If the weight of fire and muzzle energy place it anywhere near the Tempest, then it may well be number one. The IL-10 didn't have that mush firepower, so I kind of doubt the IL-2 would surpass the Tempest either, but it may well be higher than where I placed it, especially considering the serviceability, ability to operate when other couldn't, and the sheer numbers available. It might well be number 2 or 3, depending on the forwward-firing guns. I don't have much to say about rearward firing armament. It was a necessary additional weight and, if it served to prevent astern attacks from fighters, was well worth the weight penalty ... but it did not add much to the offensive power of the aircraft ... the Westland Beach Straffer notwithstanding.

[GregP]

OK, I did some more digging and came up with several sources that agree with the fact that the IL-2 probably had 2 x 7.62 mm MG in the wings and 2 * 23 mm cannon in the nose.

Taken at cyclic rate of fire, that would produce 5.58 kg of fire persecond .... putting the IL-2 right near the top. But, the 23 mm cannons were synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, and so actua,lly delivered less than cyclic weight of fire. Still, let's say it went from 5.58 kg per sec all the way down to 4.8 kg per second. That's enough to move the IL-2 into second place on the list, in my opinion.

I stand corrected, but fall abck on sources that disagree. It may well be that the very early IL-2's had the light armament and the production lanes had the heavy hitters aftrer testing of the prototypes. I can't say, but I do acknowledge that if the IL-2 DID have the 2 * 23 mmcannons, it was a fearsome ground attack aircraft. Coupled with its other good points, that may well move it into first place ... especially given the survivability of the airframe.

This is FUN! Makes me THINK! Thinking beats taking someone else's word for any day of the week!

Thanks for pointing out some potential errors, guys. I appreciate it and have revised my opinions accordingly.

I shudder to tjhink of the destruction it could have caused if equipped with 4 * 23 mm cannons. I bet the german tankers are glad it didn't have that, too. If it DID, then not a tank would be safe, and if THEY aren't safe, neither is anyone ELSE.

[tenmmike]

im bumping simon on his above post......greg the il-2 had no guns in the nose..... also some late model il2 had 37 mm cannons in replace of the even very nice later 23 mm.. il-2 m the later being the VYa 23mm cannon

[GregP]

Hey guys,

Got a very nice and tactful email from tenmmike disagreeing with me in regard to the powqer of the WWII 50-cal MG (Browning M2). He apprarently has quite a bit more experience than me at military arms.

He doubted the claim about the 55-gallon barrel being hurled about. I answered him that we DID shoot the 50 (can't say if it was an M2 or an M3) and the barrel DID move as I stated. I did allow that maybe the firing range instructor was full of crap when he claimed it had concrete in it. They didn't let us out on the live-fire range after we shot.

I also asked him if the M3 had more power than the M2. No reply as yet, but my sources all say the M3 had more muzzle energy. I was under the impression they shot the same round, so the "more muzzle energy" claim doesn't make sense unless the M3 shot a 50-cal round with more powder in it. Barrel length will add or subtract SOME energy, but not as much as the difference I see claimed between the muzzle energies claimed for the P-51D and the F-86A ... both of which had six 50-cal (12.7 mm) MG installed. The P-51 had six Browning M2's and the F-86 had six Browning M3's.

Any comments?

Also, haven't any of YOU seen the straffing flims from P-47's and P-51's where they decimated targets? I see 'em on the Discovery Wings channel sometimes, but have also seen them on WWIvideo documentaries in the past.

Again, any comments?

Last, I also was informed via email that the IL-2 did NOT have any nose cannons. If that is the case, we are back to the question, "Exactly what forward-firing armament DID the Ilyushin IL-2 have in the main variants, and what were the firing characteristics?"

Any Russian people in this forum? What do YOU think?

When I saw an IL-2 outside Moscow, I confess I was more interested in the AIRPLANE than the armament. I can't really recall paying any attention to the armament. I was much more interested in the cockpit layout, the airframe, THE ARMOR (couldn't MISS it! ... looked like a flying safe. I'd swear it looked to be, maybe, half an inch think or more!), and the engine / propeller combination. It was very crude, but looked like it would work in any conditions. Of course, they never TRIED them in the desert ... but that's another story, huh?

Most internet sources claim the IL-2 had one 7.62 mm MG for the observer. Then I see a claim for two 7.62 mm MG in the wings, another claim for two 7.62 mm MG in the wings and one 23 mm cannon (location unspecified), and another claim for two 7.62 mm MG in the wings and two 23 mm cannons in the nose! I even found one place that claimed four 23 mm cannons in late models!

Now I'm REALLY confused. Maybe they had ALL these armaments, depending on who Jospeh Stalin threatened on that particular month. Maybe the armamanet changed when they moved production east after the German advance. Maybe it changed in light of battlefield success (or lack thereof).

At this point, I'm not too sure anymore.

I AM sure that anything diving at you with eight 12.7 mm MG should scare the hell out of you unless you are in a VERY well armored tank.

Again, comments?

[Corsarius]

OK, I'm at work and thus away from my library, but to my knowledge the IL2 always had both forward MGs as well as cannon. Rockets were added later.

A curious peice of info that I heard was the MGs on later models of IL2s were merely used as rangefinders for the cannon. I think (maybe) they had 4x20mm...

[tenmmike]

ok iv pulled my post on the il-2 thread here dont have much to add to this but here is a fairly nice link http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/il-2.html and http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/il2-art2.html please read them both also greg check your mail for m-2 m-3 info...post back if you need more info as i can get even more detail if need be ...S!

[simon]

Well tenmike's post more or less matches up with what I understood, although the Soviets were masters of improvisation so I'm sure that they wouldn't have shied away from using whatever weapons happened to by lying around if there was a shortage of the usual NS23 or VYa cannon.

Greg, on the subject of the .50 cal let me just ask you one thing. If it was really so destructive, why did any of the combatants bother arming their tanks with cannon? Simple answer is it wasn't. Blowing Locomotives off their tracks, yeah OK, I'll go along with that, providing you acknowledge that locomotives whilst tough, are basically unarmoured civilian vehicles and in all liklihood it may have been damage once the rounds had penetrated the loco that cuased it to go off the rails.

Trains are surprisingly unstable in any case, a difference in height between one rail and the other of just 1 in 90, that's a bit more than 1 cm per meter is highly likely to cause a 100mph train to derail itself with no other outside intervention. I'm a techical officer on the railway, so I can be pretty certain of this, since it's part of my job.

Also you don't say what tanks you say being destroyed. Any of the Sturmgeschutz models, flak-panzers, Panzer MkI, MkII or MkIII were fairly poorly protected and could well have been destroyed, a MkIV, Pnther, Tiger or King Tiger would be basically impregnable to .50 cal fire, unless you happen to have a handly supply of depleted uranium.

How do you know they were decimated? Or even destroyed? Tank crew typically strap a large amount of kit to the exteriors of their vehicles, including fuel drums, so seeing pieces apparently flying off, and even the tank apparently bursting into flame is not necessarily a guarantee that you've even damaged it.

Tenmike, our sources seem to broadly agree, so that's a positive sign. :)

Lastly to Gregp, Military small arms instructors are almost inherently liars. Not meaning to sound unduly harsh, but they have to stress to their trainees the very real dangers of the equipment they're using so they tend to exaggerate, however I had one instructor who told us that a 5.56mm round from an Sa80 will kill at up to 2 miles, despite the fact that a simple extrapolation of a graph which I had of the characteristics of the bullet (Reproduced from FN in Belguim) showed that if it carried on slowing at the same rate as it did between 1/4 and 1/2 mile, then it would carry less impact than a ballpoint pen gently thrown across a room!

[Victor]

I would like to make a correction Simon. The Hs-123 was not an army cooperation aircraft, but a dive-bomber. An obsolete one, but a dive bomber. It did however provide a nasty surprise for the Red Army in late 1941. Its sturdy undercarriage allowed it to operate from less evolved airfields in difficult weather conditions. See "Black Cross/Red Star" vol. I for more details.

Regarding the Hs-129. Some said that it was generally a failure. I won't agree. At least for its service in the Romanian Royal Aeronautics (ARR). It was probably the aircraft that saved more Romanian, German or Soviet infantrymen from death or capture then any other in ARR inventory. The 24th Infantry Division in late 1943 would bea good example. The 8th Assault Group pilots made even up to 8 sorties/day and kept the Red Army forces at distance from the retreating masses of disorganized Romanian soldiers and saved the poor bastards. Many would be surprised of what this aircraft could do. In September 1944, the same pilots managed to help several hundread NCO students hold the position at Paulis against almost impossible odds.

[GregP]

Great posts guys.

The 50-caliber (or calibre in UK?) was quite destructive.

The difference between a cannon round and a machine gun round is simple: the cannon round is explosive and the MG round is not.

So, there were, in fact, 20 mm machine guns and 20 mm cannons.

They put large-bore cannons into tanks because tanks were invented in WWI to evacuate trenches the other side was occupying and blow things up. Tranches weren';t a big issue in WWII, but other targets were. Buildings, factories, other tanks, fortified pillboxes, anything that needed destruction. To do so, you would naturally pick the best round for the job, a cannon round.

However, most tanks were also equipped with MG that fired along the same site line as the cannon, so the gunner could employ the MG when facing smaller targets ... to save the fewer, heavier, and bulkier cannon rounds for later. Many tanks, if not most, were also equipped with a flex-mount MG so the tank commander or designated gunner could defend aound the tank against small arms fire when necessary (I wouldn't want to do so myself ... too vulnerable).

Let's remember that a 20 mm Vulcan rotary gun can fire solid projectiles or explosive, tracer, API, etc rounds. When it fires solid rounds, it can saw the wing off an airplane, cut a building down, or destroy anything not impervious to a 20 mm MG round.

In most cases, there is NO TARGET that is impervious to a Vulcan. One that is for a limited time would be a modern main battle tank. Ergo, the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II ... firing, you guessed it, solid depleted Uranium MG rounds.

So, let's keep this in perspective.

The 50-caliber MG (1.7 mm) was a very destructive gun against almost all targets. Against some, it wasn't particularly effective in the time afforded the operator to shoot it, and explosive rounds were used against those targets. Sometimes LARGE explosive rounds. Up to 18 inches and well over a ton in weight. Think: "Battleship."

The aircraft designed to take out armor almost ALL had both MG and cannons. The designer would be an idiot if there weren't a switch allowing for selection of either weapon set or both.

Why waste cannon rounds on troops? Why waste MG rounds on tanks when you HAVE a cannon?

In air-to-air combat, use BOTH to help you survive! If either one gets the target, YOU WIN.

Cannon rounds were more prone to accidents, were heavier, and were larger. So storage and transport were issues. I'd say that any WWII commander would want everyone who could reasonably do so to use a MG, and the rest use a cannon.

Unfortunately, combat does not allow you to deploy your weapons after inital contact with the enemy, so the distribution of MG / cannon was determined BEFORE combat, based on the expected targets to be encountered.

That explains MG + cannon armament for fighter bombers and the distribution of firepower in a an Army squad, platoon, etc.

Ground attack plane all had MG and cannons, and probably used only MG to strafe troops ... on the way outbound ... and cannon to strafe armoer ... again, outbound. Inbound to home, they probably used both since there was no real point in landing with ammunition still in the trays.

Since I didn't fly combat in WWI, I'm guessing there, but that's the wau I'd do it if given the choice ... conserve ammo putboud and expend it inbound.

Anyway ... enough rambling.

[GregP]

Err ... 50-cal is 12.7 mm, not 1.7 ... typo ... yet AGAIN!

[tenmmike]

greg the fact that a round is a solid projectile does not make it a mg round... it is anti armour/ armor piercing round if that solid shot logic is followed are you saying a 30mm du round or a 120 mm du sabot is a mg round? generaly the cannon designation comes in around the 13-15 mm area irregardless of explosive content .. i am going to post a link for all to see this is a excellent site for aircraft weapons please look at the whole site and see the quality of this site.. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html make sure after you read the 1st page that you click on all th other things in the box at the bottom .. once again this is a excelent site take your time and read it will show you stuff yall may have never seen before ....tell me what yall think......S!

[Corsarius]

I bow to GregP's superior knowledge of ballistics, but I would like to make a couple of breif corrections:

The cannon on the A-10 is 30mm, not 20mm, and fires projectiles roughly the size of a milk bottle. Owie. This gun and feed is approximately six metres long, and the aircraft built around the weapon.

The Avenger cannon is getting a little elderly, and to my understanding the 25mm cannon in the AV-8 harrier series is slated to take over from the venerable 20mm rotary.

hang on.. isn't this a WWII forum?

[tenmmike]

???Corsarius are you reading my links ??..........also the projetile of the warthog is not the size of a milk bottle ..the entire round is.... it is simple the GAU -8 fired a du round with a dia of 30mm im am confused of these simple mistackes when things are shown in a simple and straight forward manner .. please men read the links.. im not understanding, how thing that are presented to you in a easy format ..if you dont believe the things i link you to please state so i will provide more links or quotes from whomever you wish and yes this ww2 iv givin links to a excellent site for ww2 weapons.. please look at them..Corsarius if this seems rude im sorry its not ment that way......mike

[GregP]

Hey all I'm trying to say is thath most cannon rounds are explosive and most MG rounds are not.

The distinction between a MG and a cannon blurs somewhat, depending on who is talking. Some say it happens at 20 mm and some say it happens at 30 mm and some say it happens whe the rounds get explosive. I'd say MOST sources make the distinction at about 20 mm or so, and tennmike says.

Once you get to a size suitable for the Navy battleships, they were called "guns" again. Go figure.

Since this IS a WWII forum (as pointed out above), despite my prediliction to type WWI instead, I'll say one more thing and then let this subject go.

7.62 mm (30-cal) MG were a joke on an aircraft in WWII except to strafe troops. They didn't deter much. The 12.7 mm (50-cal), if used in 6 to 8 gun sets, was quite effective at the point of convergence. Anything 20 mm and over was probably enough to give pause to any machine in the theater, provided it didn't shoot you down first.

Battleships and Destroyers had a bad tendency to do just that to attacking aircraft, but is was a rare tank that shot down an airborne attacker, not that it didn't happen ... but the odds were definitely better than attacking ships.

I stand with the Tempest as the best ground attack plane in WWII, but will entertain thoughts of the IL-2 if anyone can settle the forward-firing armament question.

Meanwhile, some really good information has been imparted in this discussion, and I thank you all for participating. I ave met the enemy, and he is ME, so I'llmove on to another subject.

So, someone post someting interesting!

Simon, please let me know if you can find the wing area for the Fairey Delta 1. Wing area info on the Swiss FFA EFE N-20.2 Arbalete would also be appreciated. A pic of the EFE N-20.1 would also be nice. My shot of it is a model!

[tenmmike]

greg ill go along with most of your tempest thing although one caviate..low exposed radiater..lack of time exposed to german AAA.. but like you say it may be time to move on but although i still think il-2 ill try and consider the your pick in more depth ......... thanks all for nice discusion ( forgive my spelling)..i have a brain but write like a 8 yr old lol

[simon]

The distinction between cannon and machine gun happens at precisely 15mm. Anything 15mm and greater in calibre is a cannon, anything less than 15mm is a gun, simple as that. The distinction was chosen because 15mm was judged to be the smallest projectile that could practically contain an effective explosive charge. Nobody mention exploding bullets please, these are completely different from explosive bullets, and although a 13mm or 12.7mm machinegun round could contain an explosive charge conceivable it was judged that this would be largely ineffective and impractical.

There is no blur it is a clear cut line, 14.99mm and you're technically a machine gun, 15.00mm and you're a cannon.

The confusion arises because people assume that anything that is automatic must by definition be a machinegun.

Machineguns, in the region of 7.7mm were far from a joke. If they were the Battle of Britain would not have been won since the RAF fighters of the time were entirely equipped with these, and successfully used them to shoot down many Luftwaffe aircraft in spite of their cannon equipped Bf109 and Bf110 escorts. I'm sure you can quote examples where machineguns had apparently little effect, however I've also read of a gunner who walked off his crashlanded B-17 with a gut wound from a 30mm shell so that's not always too helpful.

The .50 calibre, or for that matter the 13mm which was in basically the same class, was singly ineffective against armoured targets above selfpropelled guns and light tanks, even the US M113 and the British AFV432 could resist .50 calibre to the front and these are lightly armoured.

The reason the .50 calibre was so ineffective was that to penetrate the sort of thickness of armour WWII tanks had, especially the likes of the Panzer IV, Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, T-34, even the likes of the Sherman and Matildas, you need a relatively high impact energy per projectile with a solid projectile or to carry enough explosive within the shell to blast through the thick armour if you're firing HEAT.

As I'm sure you know the impact energy can be quite easily calculated by using the velocity and weight of each projectile, so although the .50 cal has a high velocity, the low weight of the round, even for a solid AP round gives a relatively low penetration.

To disparage a popular myth, armour can not be worn down except in exceptional circumstances, like using literally millions of rounds, and it's no good saying that firing a great number of lighter rounds will penetrate armour simply by weakening the same point because a) even then thousands of rounds would be required, and b) all rounds deviate from the point of impact, so infact even if you fire a hundred rounds all you're really doing is ever so slightly, probably insignificantly weakening a hundred diferent points, each around 1/4 of a square inch in size.

The 30mm GAU Vulcan is a different case since the Depleted Uranium round has such a high mass that it more than conpensates for the relatively small size of the round.

WWI tanks largely did not infact carry cannon to deal with bunkers, those were left to flamethrower teams, sappers and assault pioneers, WWI tanks mostly carried large numbers of machine guns to deal with enemy infantry and support advancing friendly infantry.

By WWII Tanks increasingly had to be able to deal with each other so large caliber high velocity cannon, gradually getting larger as the war progressed were used. Yes these could be used in infantry support, but in practice the preference was to use larger caliber lower velocity howitzers were bunkers and soft targets were carried.

Greg, you bring up the subject of ships, again here where enemy armoured warships are encountered, and especially where they are the same class as each other solid shots were still used, why? Because of the higher armour penetration factors. Only Bombs and torpedoes were a practical alternative.

I'm not saying the .50 calibre was a bad weapon, it wasn't. A good rate of fire and a heavy slug meant that it was more than capable of taking on most aircraft, with the added bonus that it had a high enough impact energy to penetrate most aircraft's armour and damage the component underneath.

Overall the 20mm cannon was a better weapon because although the .50 cal had to actually hit the component to damage it the explosive nature of a cannon shell meant that it only had to hit near the component then the explosion and shrapnel would do the rest, plus the 20mm had a rate of fire and velocity comparable to the .50 cal. The 30mm cannon and above typically were only any use against bombers since they had a slow muzzle velocity and relatively low rate of fire, although here when they hit the results could be dramatic, a Luftwaffe study at the time indicated that only 7 30mm hits were required to down a B-17 compared to 200 20mm hits or in excess of 1,000 13mm machinegun hits.

However I'll repeat this again for the sake of completion, if you want to take out something like a Tiger, or even a Panzer IV, you need heavy cannon, bombs or rockets, a heavy machine gun just wont do it! A Flak Panzer, Panzer MkII, yeah, quite possibly although even then a 20mm cannon will do a far better job of it..

Finally, Greg, I don't doubt your .50 calibre vs Oil Can story, but Concrete is very brittle, it isn't solid heat treated steel armour, and a tank isn't going to explode the same way the can did.

I'm sorry about the lengthy reply, but this isn't something I wanted to let rest just yet, since I personally believe the point of view expressed is erroneous.

[GregP]

Simon, I support your right to disagree. It is a fundamental right I grant to anyone. You make good, logical points. I simply disagree. No excited feelings or anything like that.

But I support your right to state your position, and think that I will not fight it too hard since this is not a fight I particularly care about. After all, it is only a term used to describe airborne weapons, and all I really care about is the rate of fire, the projectile weight, the muzzle velocity, and whether or not the round is solid or explosive. Effective range is also important.

If you want to call 15mm and over a cannon, OK. Just give me the specifications and I can go from there.

I can see you are "into" weapons. I am "into" aircraft and ariframe performance much more than weapons.

Rate of climb, time from engine-start to lift-off, Transient turn performance, sustained turn performance, roll-rate, vectored thrust performance, and off-boresight weapon capabilities are VERY interesting to me.

Comparing 12.7 mm MG to 20 mm weapons is not, so I decline to increase the discussion ...

[simon]

For the record at heart I am a wargamer and in particular I find the whole of WWII and the later wars of the 20th century fascinating. I try to balance my knowledge through the various arms, right the way down to individual infantrymen, or up to the largest Battleship.

Small arms I developed a slightly greater knowledge of due to the fact in my late teens I wrote a Dark future Roleplaying game which centred around actual weapons, part of that was a database of more than 1,000 firearms for players to choose between.

Personally I think, especially if you're going to start going into ground attack in any real detail you've got to consider the actual characteristics of the weapons, including down to the penetration factors, however equally I respect your comments that that is something that just isn't interesting to you, so after this and unless anyone else chooses to post on the matter, I'll drop it.

I would like to add that it's not a matter of what I chose to call a cannon, through the studying I did of firearms for the roleplaying game (Which incidently proved popular with the players, but is now sadly confined to a dusty attic), I came across this definition in a book written by a weapons expert.

One other point I wish to add is that postwar the USN especially and USAF to a lesser extent increasingly built aircraft with 20mm cannon, rather than the good old .50 cal, so even they must have acknowledged the general superiority of the 20mm.

Finally, actually on reflection I haven't seen masses of footage of P-47s and P-51s destroying panzers with their machinegun fire, what I have seen in the main is footage from unspecified aircraft attacking light targets such as trucks, Anti-aircraft positions and parked planes. Of course this could be just a gap in my knowledge...

Oh, and looking back on previous posts, of course Victor is correct the Hs123 was a bi-plane dive-bomber... Can't remeber what the designation of the army co-operation plane was, but the one I was thinking of was another Henschel plane.

[Victor]

That would be the Hs-126. :D

[tenmmike]

my mistake ..no text/////////////victor do you have a link or somthing i can read in regards to your hs-129 and nco school battle? if not can you provide a very short account?

[GregP]

Hey Simon,

You're right. I'm into airplanes, not guns ... though I do have a few of them myself. This is quite interesting since I collect and shoot small arms.

I do no own any aircraft automatic weapons ... though I have shot some.

A while back in my life, I was married to a nice lady who was the director of communications for a telecom compay in Arizona. As a result, we had "guests" from all over the world into our house as a normal course of business.

We had Russians, Chinese, Mongolians, Phillippininos, and folks from the UK.

As a question from a complete neophite, I asked one of the British guests if he would like to go shooting with me in the Arizona desert (used to live in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.). He got all incensed and accused me of being seditious. I said, "No, I own these weapons legally, and we can shoot them if you want to do so." He just went ballistic and I simply said,"OK, let's do something else ..." in the end, we went to dinner.

I had offered to take him out and shoot my .303 Enfield Mk II, 9 mm Sten Mk II, 30-06, and .223 Ruger Mini-14 ... plaus a few others, and he went ape on me.

So, as a real question and NOT a condemnation of British people in general, are most British people against gun ownership, or what?

Really, no knock on you at all. I'm just asking. I own guns and will always do so. The government can't have them. I'll fight if necessary.

I own the Sten SMG legally as well as all the OTHER guns I have, and we can go shoot wherever we want ... within the law. Can you say that this is something that upsets a British citizen? Or was this possbily an individual reaction and not representative?

Just curious ... no flames, OK?

Seriously, I shoot about 3 - 5 times per year, sometimes out in nature, and sometimes at a range. Last time was at a Police range with Police present. No big deal, at least over here.

[simon]

Sadly the answer is yes. Unfortunately there have been two serious incidents involving legally held firearms one in Dunblane in 1995 or 1996 where a number of children were killed, and the other in Hungerford in the 1980s where one man when on a killing spree with an AK-47.

In each case the national press went ballistic (pardon the pun), and in spite of the views of many senior policemen that bans would achieve nothing, each time another type of weapon was banned outright. In the first case it was all semi-automatic rifles except .22 rimfires (So you can only use bolt actions, or automatics whose gas parts have been welded shut), in the latter it was all pistols except blackpowder types.

Interestingly in each case the question has never been addressed as to how the individuals concerned actually got their firearms licences, as neither should have been granted one, but a trial by media meant that anyone interested in shooting became demonised.

Personally I'd probably snap your arm off if I were offered a chance to go shooting, I used to shoot Pistols prior to the ban, and always enjoyed it.

Once more however we drift off topic...

[Corsarius]

I'm with Simon on this one.

Look up "Martin Bryant" or "Port Arthur Tasmania" and you will find the worst ever massacre in the world perpetrated by a gunman. 30-odd people dead by one crazy volvo-driving surfie with a couple of semi-automatic rifles.

Personally, I've always blamed it on the fact he owned a volvo 244-series.

As a result, Australia no longer has semi-autos save for the military or other specialist occupations (such as buffalo or kangaroo shooting). Even a .22 rimfire cannot be bought in semiauto.

I grew up 'out bush' and thus grew up with firearms of all sorts. Some people went a bit 'gun crazy' but most people here subscribe to the 'one shot = one kill' rule. Spraying bullets around wildly in the general vicinity of the target is best left to (no insult intended GregP!) americans.

I have even worked as a 'roo shooter for a short while, and I felt no need to up my rate of fire from my bolt-action M98 Mauser. A friend had a SKK (an AK-47 copy) and I must admit that emptying a 30-round clip in a few seconds is fun, but when every bullet costs nearly a dollar, and tails aren't worth a whole lot (you get paid by the tail) so you don't really want to go round doing that. Most Aussies feel a bit of contempt to anyone who feels the need for a semi-auto in civilian applications, it's just a general thing, I'd say.

[Victor]

The German-Hungarian forces strated their attack on 13 September 1944. Their objective was to push back the 1st Romanian Army and establish a defensive line on the Carpathians. The Romanian units retreated because they lacked air and artillery support and even an appropriate natural obstacle. Elements of the Brandenburg Division penetrated 20-30 km behind Romanian lines, but were stopped by the 19th Infantry Division at Resita and Turnu Severin. The 9th Cavalry Division, with support from the 14th Infantry-training Division, which had just arrived, managed to resist in front of the 4th SS Police Division and the 7th SS Mountain Division, that were aiming to take Timisoara. The only important success of the German-Hungarian offensive was the occupation of Arad, by the Hungarian 1st Armoured Division. To prevent an Axis offensive on the Mures Valley, the 1st Army organized the "Paulis" Detachment from a battalion of students from a military school, a battalion of the 96th Infantry Regiment and some 122 mm field guns and 4 AT guns. Its mission was to block the enemy advance in the Paulis area. On 14 September, units from the Hungarian 1st Armoured Division and the 6th Reserve Division started the assault. In spite of numerical superoirity they made no progress and, on 17, arrived a Soviet motorized battalion from the 53rd Army. In the following days, the German and Hungarian troops had to retreat after the Romanian-Soviet counteroffensive started. The "Paulis" Detachment lost 377 soldiers and the Hungarians 1,287 men and 23 tanks.

Now about the Hs-129s at Paulis. On 16 September, the 8th Assault Group intervened in the support of the Pãulis Detachment, which was struggling with its feeble forces to hold back the 1st Hungarian Armored Division. 8 vehicles were destroyed by the five Hs-129s, in the first pass. During the following days the Romanian assault aircraft returned many times to Pãulis. On 17 September, 8 Hs-129s dive-bombed the Axis armored attacked, destroying 8 tanks. After releasing the load, they emptied their guns and machine-guns in the enemy infantry positions.

[GregP]

One single reply to the shooting question, then back on topic.

I don't feel the need to "up my rate of fire" to get more "targets." Plain and simple, it's fun. That's all. With my Sten, I can reduce an old washing machine to scrap in a few magazines.

Single shot, I'm as deadly as anyone in the world. I just LIKE autos ... against targets, not people. I own automatics and single shots, and like them both. For accuracy, I choose abolt action any time. For fun, gimme' an automatic weapon.

Also, it is illegal to kill people with guns unless they are directly threatening your life and there is no other reasonable way out of the situation (if someone invades my house at night and threatens my life, I have the right to shoot him, and would do so without hesitation if threatened ... otherwise, there are better ways to deal with a trespasser). So, most people who kill people in civilians situations with guns are largely committing illegal acts ALEADY COVERD BY EXISTING LAW. Why ban guns because people can't control themselves? Makes more sense to execute the convicted killers and sell tickets. At least it would act to deter REASONABLE person. Unreaonsable people who wish to do so will ALWAYS find a way to kill, guns or no guns.

One last point, since we have kept such records in the U.S.A., no legally owned machine gun has ever been used in the commission of a crime. I the 1920's Al Capone never legally owned ANY machine gun. Why punish the law-abiding citizens for a criminal's act?

Back to the forum ...

We have a new Russian member of the forum. Any nominations for the most adaptable Russian aircraft of WWII? I proposed the Tu-2 or Pe-2, but chime in here. Surely, if there ever was a location where necessity was the mother of invention, it must be in Russia where great distances combined with poor weather and transportaion infrastructure made aviaiton a real boon to the people.

[CAPILATUS]

Hi, agein, GregP! Where you are!
Thank you for introducing me.


I will say that again
Concerning Pe-2, Tu-2. As far as know they mainly were used as diving bombers like German Shtuka and they were used mainly for targets were difficult to destroy, like bridges. Almost all the job did IL-2! Pe-2 and Tu-2 were too expensive for that!
So I can't nominate, non of them!

About the topic of the discuss. As you all gentlemen know, real graund attacker was only one IL-2/10, like now only two of them: Su-25 and A-10 both are excellent aircrafts and designed according to one conception - to destroy a target. That's the difference to DESTROY or not attack only.

Now, gentlemen, tell me please, what aircraft could "hung", circle over the battle for an hour and survive! Non! Exepting IL-2. That's why it had huge loses but some of them could return home. I can't say about others. They were excellent planes but only for purposes that thay could do. I think you understand I'm coming from... Most of them including even Russian Su-2 used Mosquito's tactic - sudden strike, then shift their .. from there till solders call for fighters! Otherwise the attackes should not be effective against protected targets. It's historical fact, gentlmen, and nothing could be done with this. Yes, I'm very pleased, this "terminator" was built in Russia, though I was born in Kazakhstan... Ooo! I'd like to shoose Mosquito I really do like it-perfect lines and shapes, but I've got to be unbiassed.

I suggest to put IL-2/10 on the first place due no opponent and to start disscus about the second place, or the first place in nomination STRIKE aircraft.

Knowing almost nothing about Tempest, and P47 I would shoose
1) I-16 among Russian planes and FW190 about others. Very difficult to compare both as I-16 was used mainly till 1943.

Thank you for reading that. :)

[GregP]

Hi back to you Capitalus,

The IL-2 / IL-10 are , without doubt, two of the most difficult-to-shoot0down aircraft of all times. From your statements, I deduce the tactic was to hit the Germans, then circle waiting for another target of opportunity to appear. I had not heard that one, but it makes sense.

In the West, many Russian (Actually Soviet) tactics are regarded with suspicion since there were so many casualties in the "Great Patriotic War" that we call World War II. It strikes me that there MUST have been some really GOOD tactics used by the Soviets, too, since the you eventually gained the upper hand and won the war along with us.

The tactic of circling until another target appears would not work for most aircraft since they were and are quite fragile ... but the IL-2/IL-10 were NOT fragile, so that would be a natural tactic I had not considered.

Thanks for pointing it out. I would NOT have thought of it.

[simon]

I've just been looking through the posts for a comment that someone made and have noticed an error in one of my own posts [:I]. I said that the Tempest MkV was in service a year later than April 1945, that infact should have read a year earlier! It seems odd that the MkV was in service in early 1944, whilct the MkII had to wait untill April 1945, but I think this was because of problems getting the engine on the MkII ready. In any case the two were supposedly comparable, except that the MkII had better range.

Corsarius, I've been digging around and have found another reference to the Hs129's unusual weapons. According to another of my books they were indeed triggered magnetically, but the weapons consisted of recoilless projectiles (Rockets perhaps?) in smoothbore tubes (Note that this doesn't even say barrels).

I'm guessing that either the Warbirdsresourcegroup drew on an erroneous source, or misinterpretted the above and came up with "Smoothbore Recoiless Rifles".

[Corsarius]

Yes, I'll pay that. I always thought it was a recoilless 'tube', similar in action (if not concept) to the forwards-firing system of the Natter interceptor: Ie, a one-off shot that once expended needed to be reloaded when returned to base. I don't even know how many tubes/shots the thing had.

Sorry if there was any confusion there.

[simon]

I'd kind of assumed the same, either that or a downwards firing system similar to the SG500 on the Me163. No confusion, really, I'd also read they existed or were used but just couldn't reconcile the contradictory statement from the Warbirdsresoucegroup of "Smoothbore Recoilless Rifles", like I said originally, a barrelled weapon can either be a Smoothbore or a Rifle, but cannot by definition be both! A rocket in a tube is a different matter.

I believe the Hs129 carried 6 each side, although I've not seen any pictures of this so can't say for certain, I also don't know whether they were fired individually or as a salvo, or whether the pilot had any kind of manual over-ride for the automatic system, or for that matter how sensitive the automatic system was (Smiles as he thinks of squadrons of Hs129's blasting an enemy tin can into the next life!)...

My guesses are; they were salvo fired in batches of six giving each pilot 2 shots at a target, there wasn't a manual overide (unless needed to ditch the weapons in an emergency?), and they were set for a target no smaller than say a Kubelwagen or Jeep. These are just my uneducated guesses, if anyone actually knows any different please feel free to chip in!

[Corsarius]

When I was digging up the info for this, I found a pic of the thing being loaded. I'll see what I can do to find it again.

I understand that it was switched on just before/during the attack run, and the pilot just flew over the target, the trigger being actuated by a magnetic detector similar to MAD used by anti-submarine aircraft these days. If the thing didn't go off, he switched it off and went round again.

I also understand from what I have read that Soviet tankers held this weapon, above all others, in the highest regard and fear, and seeing what it can do (punching vertically through the relatively thin armour of the turret top) I'm not really surprised. Even something like the Panzerfaust or Panzerschrenk could only hit a few places that would do significant damage, and then only to the tank, really. This sucker could gut a tank and crew and there was nothing anyone (except maybe the fighter boys) could do about it!

Thinking of anti-tank weaponry, Whatever happened to the good old PIAT? I really liked that thing, especially as it was a 'stealth' anti tank device because there was no muzzle flash or rocket plume. Compared to it's contemporaries, I thought it was great!

[simon]

I think what killed off the PIAT (Projectile Infantry Anti-Tank), was the limited potential for further development. Yes, it was flash and noise free which was a distinct bonus, but by Korea it had really reached the end of it's useful life as both it and the US Bazooka rockets were largely unable to harm the Chinese T-34s in service with the North Korean and Chinese Armies.

The PIAT, unlike powered rockets like the Bazooka, couldn't really have it's range or explosive charge improved because it was spring powered, so to improve either, or both would make the thing too difficult to use, or mean it took too long to reload. However for it's time, which was basically WWII, it has to rank as one of the most effective and popular Anti-tank weapons available.

Carrying on OT, and kind of crosslinking into my other thread, the AT weapon I always liked the thinking behind was the Sticky Bomb.

[Cyberon]

No-one mention the Stuka dive-bomber. It should be in your Top 5 list, Greg. You know why ? They played a significant role in the collapse of the allies in the east (polen) 1939, north (denmark, norway) , west (Low countries, France), South (Balkans,Malta and Afrika) and the east again (Russia, Barbarosssa). While not the best of the best they helped the Panzer-divisions signifantly to achieve succeses. Hitler would not have come sofar without them. Reason that they didn't win the war from them is not that it wasn't good enough, there were simply not enough of them and losses became higher and higher because of loss of Air-supremecy. Remember Kursk 43' for example ? Roughly 2000 german airplanes were scraped together from all corners, still meeting a Russian Foe with roughly 10.0000 Airplanes. As you say, 36.000 Il-2 were build. Does that make it the best Ground-Attack plane ? Afcource not, it simply tells you that they needed them in such huge numbers to get the job done. Why else make so many ? More important; how high were the losses ?

So what do you want, the best groud-attack plane of WWII (1939-1945) or the most numerous/builded war winning one ?
And even then, "best" is so relative over a 5 a 6 year period. In 39' perhaps the Stuka was best. Later on the Il-2, Typhoon or Tempest.

[GregP]

Hi Cyberon,

Good point. The Ju-87 was probably the best dive bomber in the world in 1939. It well might have been the best in 1944, too.

Unfortunately, it could survive only with local air superiority, as was amply demonstrated on several occasions. If they HAD local air superiority, the Ju-87 remained a very effective weapon ... probably until the end of the war.

The Allies took the lesson to heart, and designed ground attack planes that were not necessarily dedicated dive bombers, but rather could carry some ordnance, hit hard with a lot of guns, and could defend themselves once they shed their bombs. I speak, of course, of the P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest.

I tend to gloss over the dedicated dive bombers because, in general, they were so single-purpoose. Most were not any good at air combat, though the Douglas SBD Dauntless DID fill in as a fighter for the Navy in the Pacific for a short while until we got some real fighters to the fleet, and there have been many instances of excellent individual airmanship on all sides.

So, I'll start a new thread on the best dive bomber! The Ju-88 should figure prominently there.

[Cyberon]

Seems your vision of a ground attack plane is other then mine. Stuka's Ju-87 are extreem good ground-attack planes in my mind. You actualy say so yourself; they were so single-sided :D

Dive-bombers are attack ground (targets), right ? That makes it a Gorund Attack plane, period. So it fits the category. If you intention is to look for the best Fighter/Bomber or whatever multi-purpose role a plane can do, thats fine by me. But you cannot say a Ju-87 ins't a Ground attack Plane, it is. It's a very specialized Ground-attack plane, very effective to knock out/disable At-guns, Inf-guns and Armor. Besides this, the IL-2/** was a straight copy of it. The Russian seems to be impressed by the Ju-87, noticed the lack of defence of it and enhanced the concept.

[GregP]

Good points, Cyberon. I simply disagree.

I think the Ju-87 was used mainly as a dive bomber, but was later modified with some big cannons as a tank buster when it bacame apparent to the Germans that they needed a tank buster.

Anyway, I don't think the Ju-88 was anywhere near the same class of ground attack plane as the P-47, Typhoon, or Tempest were. Feel free to disagree with me, but these three aircraft were harder hitting with the forward-firing armament, carried more bombs, were WAY faster, flew higher, and were, in the end, resounding successes.

The Ju-87 was slower, less well armed, unable to defend itself against enemy fighters, and ... despite its early successes, was a failure at its intended role in the end. It was never able to destroy ground targets at will after about early 1943, at least in the West, since Allied fighters had the upper hand.

So, on what do you base your claim it was the best? Other than straight dive bombing, every one of the threee alternative picks I mentioned were better than the Ju-87.

And that is why I didn't mention it in my ground attack thread.

OH yeah, there were 860 Tempests in WWII, 3,315 Typhoons, 5,700 Ju-87's, and 15,677 P-47's.

Early in the war, as I already said, the Ju-87 was something to be reckoned with. When we discovered how vulnerable it was, it was relegated to the Russian front or wherever the Luftwaffe had local air superiority ... and those places got smaller and smaller pretty quickly, on the Russian front as well as in the West. In the end, say ... 1945, it was almost a death sentence to fly one except in very marginal weather which is, in itself, a dangerous thing ... Hans Ulrich Rudel notwithstanding.

[Cyberon]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Good points, Cyberon. I simply disagree.

I think the Ju-87 was used mainly as a dive bomber, but was later modified with some big cannons as a tank buster when it bacame apparent to the Germans that they needed a tank buster.
Indeed, a dive-bomber. Which had a tactical role in close-supporting the Panzegruppe. While not a 100% tank-buster in the first place the Germans found out quickly that it could do this very well. Note they contributed a great deal in the breakthrough of the western campaign.

Anyway, I don't think the Ju-88 was anywhere near the same class of ground attack plane as the P-47, Typhoon, or Tempest were. Feel free to disagree with me, but these three aircraft were harder hitting with the forward-firing armament, carried more bombs, were WAY faster, flew higher, and were, in the end, resounding successes.
Afcource it isn't, the Ju-88 is developed as a light bomber, i didn't even know the Germans used it as Groud-attack plane. Not hard too understand do why it's performance was poor. ME400's were the close-support ground-attack planes.

The Ju-87 was slower, less well armed, unable to defend itself against enemy fighters, and ... despite its early successes, was a failure at its intended role in the end. It was never able to destroy ground targets at will after about early 1943, at least in the West, since Allied fighters had the upper hand.
The Germans depended on Air-superiourity too much; agreed. Therefor they didn't have the need for heavily armored/gunned Bombers/ground-attack planes. Never to destoy... ?? what do you think they were doing, poppin smoke ? Really i can't follow you're defenition of "ground-attack"

So, on what do you base your claim it was the best? Other than straight dive bombing, every one of the threee alternative picks I mentioned were better than the Ju-87.
where do i say it was the best ? What i know of reading and all Tv-doc. they did a good job for the germans early on in the war. From 1939, 1940 and even in 1941 (russia mostly) they have proved their value. That it did not have the impact at the end: winning lies not in the concept but above all to Goerings and Hitlers stupidety fighting on two fronts and a late start of full wartime production; which we all know now cost them deerly. point2: What a comparison :( every three of them came much later in the war. Stuka's came from the design table way before 1939...

And that is why I didn't mention it in my ground attack thread.
Sure you may do so, but i still think you're giving the Stuka Ju-87 not the credit it deserves. Afterall, wasn't it you who started about effectiveness and how much were build. Besides that; the best one is most of the time the latest developed one as a rule of tumb.

OH yeah, there were 860 Tempests in WWII, 3,315 Typhoons, 5,700 Ju-87's, and 15,677 P-47's.
in the end: the Allies had of everthing much more then the germans. This comes as no suprise. So lookin at numbers tells us nothing but only the produktion capabilety/willingness of a Country/Nation.

Early in the war, as I already said, the Ju-87 was something to be reckoned with. When we discovered how vulnerable it was,
Not only that it was vulnerable, another major factor were the Germans fighters Me109e who couldn't live up the task properly defending them from enemy fighter of england. Barely enough fuel for a defending role the stuka's virtualy had to act. upprotected over England. They tried it once with a huge formation and payed the price. This doesn't make it a bad ground-attack plane. it makes it a ground-attack plane which is vulnerable and needs protection. What you speak of is another question: what is the best FIGHTER with GROUND-ATTACK abbillities.


it was relegated to the Russian front or wherever the Luftwaffe had local air superiority ... and those places got smaller and smaller pretty quickly, on the Russian front as well as in the West. In the end, say ... 1945, it was almost a death sentence to fly one except in very marginal weather which is, in itself, a dangerous thing ... Hans Ulrich Rudel notwithstanding.
Which other German plane was safe in those last days, not too much bombers anyway [:o)]

[GregP]

Yet another good point!

The German planes that were safe in 1945 were probably the Ta-152, the few He-280's and the Me-262 (provided the jets were runnning and there was sufficient fuel, that is). Maybe the He-219 since it mostly flew at night anyway.

I think the Bf 109 and the Fw 190 will always be in the forefront of great WWII fighters, close to the top if not there. We can rail at the Bf 109 all we want, but it shot down more enemy planes than any other fighter aircraft in history, so it HAS to have something going for it, even if the "somethng" is better pilots, better training (at least at first), and the opportunity to do so.

The Germans certainly had the best technical weapons for most of the war. They had two of the best fighters, the best tanks (until the advent of the Russian T-34 anyway), and the best submarines. I think the STG44 was the best infantry automatic weapon of the war anmd even some time after the war.

What they lacked was leadership and political savvy in a world wide environment. Their faults were too numerous to mention here, but their technical genius was never in question at the time, nor is it now.

[simon]

Cyberon...

Well I understood that the Me210 was the version largely developed as a light bomber and ground attack plane whilst the Me410 was used mostly as a bomber destroyer. I'm also not terribly convinced the Il2 was a copy of the Stuka, since their are so few similarities, and the early versions actually had a poorer defensive armament than the Stuka, especially the earliest single seaters!

The Ju88 was used in any anti-tank role in limited numbers as the Ju88P with a disposable 75mm Pak-40 in a ventral pack, and without wishing to start the whole armament issue again, the overall weight of fire is not important when considering anti-tank capabilities. To follow the logic through a battery of 100 .22 rimfire machineguns is never going to harm a tank, but their weight of fire per second will be impressive.

I'm also not sure that Rudel is a good example of the Stuka not being a death trap since he was shot down umpteen times, had no legs, one arm and was blind in one eye!

The He280 prototypes had according to my sources been crated up and destroyed in bombing raids by 1944, so I doubt they could be considered safe!

I would also say that the Ju87s did not have to act alone over England, they were heavily escorted, as much as 3 Bf109s per Stuka, which would have been more than enough to defend a fair sized formation of Ju88s or He111s, the fact was that the Stuka was just too poorly protected and too slow to stand a chance in the face of RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes. The targets the Ju87s were facing along the south coast were well within the escorting range of the Bf109 and they still couldn't survive.

I do however agree with you about the numbers. Just because an aircraft was produced in huge numbers does not make the individual planes good, just the type overall effective, which is an entirely different matter. Only if you divide bombload or kills by sorties flown do you get a representative figure per aircraft. Anything else and you just hand the trophy by default to whatever was built in the greatest numbers.

I'd also say that the Stuka was probably the best dive-bomber of the war and in the role it was employed in, I would say that it can be fairly considered a ground attack plane. That is a little open to individual interpretation, but that's what makes these forums so much fun!

[Cyberon]

Well, the Me109 was a good fighter. And yes, they guarded the Ju-87 well. But their biggest drawback was the action-radius. A Me109 at best conditions (no interception underway) had enough fuel left for 30 minutes to support the bombers, when attracted and engaging the RAF-fighters the half hour (at most!) was over before you know it. Supporting missions deeper in England became just because of this a difficult and risky task. The reason for this is also the poor performance of the other fighter, the ME110 which supposed to support the JU-87 at those missions. Goering and his Luftflotte discovered that the ME110 wasn't a match for the Hurricanes and spitfires.

Still, despite the heavy losses the Luftwaffe endured during the "battle over england" they almost crushed the RAF. One of the reasons for this is dat it became a CITY-bomber tactic in the end instead of keeping hammering those strategic targets.

With copy of the Il-2 i don't mean a exact replica; the russion simply "borrowed" the concept :D

[GregP]

Hi Simon!

I only meant to imply that Hans Rudel survived the Ju-87. I was not aware that he used himself as a crash test dummy or attacked incoming fire with his face!

Anyway, it SHOULD be safe to say that all aircraft that actually made it into production were, at least, decent at their assigned tasks. We have shown in our "Worst ----- of WWII" threads that this assumption is not necessarily the case. We have also shown a plane that was the "best" in 1939 was not necessarily even a contender in 1944. It all depended on the improvement and update process in place at the time. Late model Spits were a FAR cry for the Spirfire I. The same cane be said for most other types.

So, I grant this: The Ju-87 was a great dive bomber when it first came out, but was not systematically improved to keep up with the evolving threat. Junkers, to their credit, DID design updates but, much like the Americans did later in the war, the RLM or SOMEONE in the German command declined to interrupt the production flow of existing designs to implement new ones. Given the way the war turned against Germany, would probably have been better for them to "fix" the Bf 109's shortcomings than to monkey with the Ju-87 anyway.

The Ju-88 was, in my opinion, one if the most adaptable planes of the war (along with a few notable others), and can be considered a "great plane" in its own right. It was used in many guises, include ground attack, and performed at least acceptably in most if not all of them.

I'd say that all sides of the conflict had inspired designs at least some time on the war ... even Finnland (though it didn't reach production ... see the Prettiest Plane of WWII thread), so it is very difficult to pick the "best" of anything out unless you narrow the scope.

I tried to do that with this thread, but apparently not well enough. Still, responses have been interesting, and all have merrit. We have found a fan of almost every type that fought! And that speaks well for the general caliber of designers in WWII, if nothing else.

Fun, huh?

[Cyberon]

Personally, i liked the mosquito more. That twinbody airplane is just a work of art to see [8D]
Anyways, read some of Germany "blitzkrieg" tactics and refreshed my mind. The dive-bomber isn't born as a ground-attack plane, so on this part you're right. They needed close artillery support for their Panzer-divisions on the advance. Since the classic artillery coudn't follow quick enough the dive-bomber concept was born; a high-precision close-artillery support weapon. So it isn't a strategic bomber, it isn't a ground-attack plane but something in between; a as we now know "divebomber". Long-range pin-point precision artillery, much more accurate then the conventional bombers. Sure you can call a plane the best ground-attacker of the war, only not the whole war. Simply because most of them if not all surved the whole period. To base your judgement on the "war-winning" machine is incorrect too, simply because if you do so every german machine isn't the "best". For exmaple; the MG34 and later the MG42 were overall the best heavy machineguns of the war, but they didn't WIN it ;)

Also when you call the IL2 a groudn-attack plane, the Stuka should it be too. As you say, from 1943 onwards they used it in that role.
How effective the Ju-87 at that point in war was, i dont'know. But calling it a bad ground-attacker because it couldn't defend itself properly against fighters is wrong. Why do i say this ? Well, if you think the Ju-87 is bad, the A10-Avenger(dunno if i have the right one here, it was the slow Tank-buster they used) the americans used in de Gulf-war is rubbish too. How good would it be without proper Air-support [?]

[tenmmike]

the a-10 actuly does ok in a to a fights ..at close range its no fighter but it has sidwinders... im a former infantryman 7 yrs and i loved to see that ugly but beutiful badass over my a.o... gau-8 awesome bbbbvvvvvvvvppp

[GregP]

From what I have read, the A10 will do just fine in fighter v fighter combat ... especially if the attacker is dumb enough to slow down and fight.

The A-10 migh have a problem with high speed passes or long-range missile attacks, but any fighter stupid enough to come down and fight at low speed is in grave danger. One hit from a "yank killer" round will shred most aircraft.

[CAPILATUS]

Hi guys!
Just came back from the days off. Had some fun reading your discussion. Good for new opinion, hi, cyberon!
OK. So, I've taken the good book of IL's planes. It's written for air engineers (five authors!) and as I couldn't buy it in a sale I "borrowed" it, don't ask me where, ha-ha! You may ask me any question concerning construction of the aircraft in details.
Greg, you asked me about the ammor.
From planes built in series:

IL-2 of 42-43'
2x20 (SHVAK) or 2x23mm (VYA) cannon
2x7,62 MG

1x12,7 UBT firing back



IL-2U March 43'
2x37mm (NS-37)
2x7,62 MG

1x12,7 UBT

IL-2U's under Kursk battle for just first 5 days destroyed 422 tanks where were first time used specially developed PTAB bombs against the tanks. One IL-2 could take 192 bombs of 1,5 kg each.

Only these modifications were built 36163 planes.

In January 45' were built and tested in battle some IL-2 with 2x45mm (NS-45) cannon. The production was stopped due no point by the end of the war.


Some of the history.
By the war began, USSR had 249 IL-2.
IL-2's were firstly used in 1941, 1st of july under Bobruysk.




IL-10 44'

4x23mm (VYA) cannon

1x12,7 MG UBT

were built (not exact no.) more 5000

Any questions, gentlemen?

P.S. About A-10. As far as I know A-10 was considered in Russia as a Very "serios plane". If it would be a "rubbish", it couldn't be so high evaluated. By the way. Some ideas built in A-10 and Su-25 borrowed from IL-2.

[tenmmike]

not ww2 ......what does this plane look like ? http://www.a-10.org/photos/Photos50009/YA9.jpg http://www.a-10.org/photos/Photos50009/YA-9-3d.jpg this is the plane that lost out to the a-10 can you name a SU that looks ALOT LIKE THIS

[Romantic Technofreak]

The best? Not every had the chance. Too early, too late, no need, wrong place, wrong time. 14 ground attackers or planes of comparable tasks follow. Each of exceptional performance (at least in my eyes), each had deserved a career, no one really got it.

1. Beech XA-38 Grizzly
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/grizzly.htm

2. Bell P-63 Kingcobra
http://www.warbirdalley.com/p63.htm

3. Breguet Br. 693
http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/br693.php

4. Caproni Ca. 331 Raffica
http://www.regiaaeronautica.it/aerei/ca331.htm

5. Curtiss BT2C
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/bt2c.htm

6. Douglas XA-42
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/bombers/b4/b4-2.htm

7. Douglas BTD-1 Dauntless II (Data from "Gustin")
Type: BTD-1
Function: torpedo bomber
Year: 1943 Crew: 1 Engines: 1 * 1680kW Wright R-3350-14
Wing Span: 14.61m Length: 6.20m Height: 4.14m Wing Area: 34.65m2
Empty Weight: 5851kg Max.Weight: 8618kg
Speed: 554km/h Ceiling: 6340m Range:
Armament: 2*g20mm 1451kg
http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF30.htm

8. Douglas XTB2D-1 Skypirate (Data from "Gustin")
Type: XTB2D-1
Function: torpedo bomber
Year: 1945 Crew: 3 Engines: 1 * 3350hp P&W R-4360-8
Wing Span: 21.34m Length: 11.13m Height: 14.02m Wing Area: 56.21m2
Empty Weight: 8348kg Max.Weight: 15767kg
Speed: 546km/h Ceiling: 8500m Range: 2013km
Armament: (7*mg12.7mm 3630kg)
http://www.mozeyoninn.com/Ginter/NAVAL/NF36.htm

9. Lockheed XP-58 Chain Lightning
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/chainlit.htm

10. PZL P-46 Sum
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/7252/sum.htm

11. Rikugun Ki-93
http://www.j-aircraft.org/xplanes/hikoki_files/ki93.htm

12. Rogozarski R-313
http://www.yumodel.co.yu/history_of_yugoslav_aviation/r313.htm

13. Sukhoi Su-6
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/su-6.html

14. Sukhoi Su-8
http://worldatwar.net/chandelle/v3/v3n2/su-8.html

[GregP]

Nice list of obscure types!