Best Attack Aircraft

[RRAM]

Originally posted by -ammo-


Evidently that is not true..the title says "the best". I agree that the P-47 is a better choice than the IL-2. Event eh AH population agrees with that:)

Apples to oranges. Il-2 was designed to be a TankHunter, and this it did with unequalled efficiency (maybe the Ju87G, but the Junkers was far from being as well armored as the soviet plane).

p47 was more a general attack plane than the Il-2. It could do many things better, but a P47 would never hunt tanks as a Il2 did.

 Anyway I'd rate A-26 invader FAR Above than the P47 as attack plane.

[Nilsen]

IMO the P47 and the Typhoon was the best all round groundattack planes. What makes them eaven better than the IL series is that Typhoon was a fair fighterplane and the P47 was among the best fighters.

[Innominate]

Germany got gangbanged!!!

[Kweassa]

It can hardly be doubted that Soviet Russia fought the hardest, most fiercely, paid all the bitter prices and among three major Allied powers dealt the single largest crushing blow against the totality of "Germany" itself.

 Germany had a choice before 'Barbarossa' started. After Russian soil was stepped on, they no longer had any sort of choice but to keep on fighting until the inevitable defeat came. In my opinion, the war in Europe was already won before USAAF started major operations in 1943.

 Could the war have been won without the US? I think so. It'd have taken a lot more time, a lot more destruction and deaths, but it would have been won. Could the war have been won if Germany and USSR kept the non-agression pact? I think not.

[-ammo-]

We are starting to sway away from the topic. "best attack AC of the era"

The thunderbolt is a very logical choice. It carries a massive amount of ordinace for a single engine fighter-bomber. It has speed and toughness for survivability, only one pilot is lost in the case of a casualty, destroyed inumerous amounts of ground targets, and was produced in huge numbers.

obviously this is a very subjective topic. But I think it is a conclusion that *Wings* came to that is logical.

Ram-- *Tanks alone* does not the best attack AC. IL-2 was a good tank hunter, but was also pretty juicy target for LW fighters and AAA.

[udet]

i agree with the P47. However, before that, from 1941 to 1943, the Hurricane IIC was the best attack aircraft.

[Karnak]

The category is not broken down enough.

udet,

Was the Hurricane Mk IIc better than the Mosquito Mk VI?  In 1943 they were both active.

Which aircraft was best changed more frequently than every 3 years.

[udet]

karnak...u notice the post mentions only single engine planes. I think they meant light attack aircraft, cause otherwise we get into the realm of A20,JU88, even B25 and so on...

[Tony Williams]

IMHO, there wasn't an ideal single-engined attack plane in WW2. All of the candidates had significant flaws:

The Il-2 was very well armoured and armed to knock out tanks, but it was vulnerable to fighters. The Stuka G was in the same class, but less well protected.

The P-47 was a fighter-bomber rather than an attack plane; it could defend itself against enemy fighters but, although very tough by fighter standards, it had nowhere near the protection of an Il-2, and it was generally ineffective against tanks - its guns couldn't hurt them and its bombs couldn't hit them (with the odd lucky exception). IMO, a complete all-round attack aircraft MUST be able to deal with tanks.

The Hurri IID could hurt tanks (until the Tiger came along) but was pretty defenceless against both fighters and flak.

The Yak-9T with that NS-37 could hurt tanks - all of them - and could defend itself against fighters, but it wasn't armoured against ground fire because that wasn't its purpose in life.

I spent a little time on my discussion forum a while back specifying an ideal WW2 single-engined attack plane. It needed to have fighter-like performance and hadling but good protection (including an air-cooled engine) and the ability to carry one powerful cannon for anti-tank use (the only reliable way to nail 'em...). The configuration I came up with was a twin-boom pusher with a radial engine and a cockpit right forward for best forwards and downwards visibility (think DH Vampire with a prop). The gun would run right through the centre of the fuselage with the barrel between the pilot's legs to avoid attitude changes on firing. Supplementary guns could be mounted on the cockpit sides. The wing would be basically a high-speed fighter type, but with extensive slots and flaps for semi-STOL performance in rough fields and good lifting ability of bombs and rockets. Undercarriage would be tricycle, long-stroke and heavy duty. The cockpit would be an armoured bathtub.

A modified version (less armour, more fuel, 3x20mm) could have made a good naval fighter-bomber.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[HoHun]

Hi Tony,

>IMHO, there wasn't an ideal single-engined attack plane in WW2.

Actually, I think the category "attack aircraft" didn't even exist in WW2. (In WW1, it had existed - the Junkers J-4 with its steel armour tub actually was the first operational "Stormovik" :-)

The Stuka was a strategical bomber, designed to attack targets far behind the frontline with pinpoint precision.

The Il-2 was designed and used for what today is called Battefield Area Interdiction, attacking communications, supply facilities and troops on the move behind the frontlines.

Most fighters were pressed into service as fighter bombers, but "fighter bomber" in fact was a category of its own.

The types that were orginally meant to provide was today is called Close Air Support were very different aircraft: The Luftwaffe had the Henschel Hs 123 Schlachtflieger, an obsolescent biplane. The RAF had its Army Cooperation aircraft, of which the Westland Lysander (fitted with bomb racks on the stub wings) might be considered a good example.

Of course, these types proved insufficient or even ineffective, but the rest of the air force didn't have the doctrine for operating in close support, and it took them long to acquire it. In the end, the former types were used in the Close Support Role, but it still did not become their primary role, so I wouldn't consider any of them as attack planes anyway.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Apar]

Could the war have been won without the US? I think so. It'd have taken a lot more time, a lot more destruction and deaths, but it would have been won. Could the war have been won if Germany and USSR kept the non-agression pact? I think not.

Right on Kweassa.

Germany signed it's death sentense when they started Barbarossa. The LW killed huuuuuge ammounts of Russian aircrafts in a couple of days (about half the Russian aircraft capacity, most of them on the airfields and pilots on leave) but they lacked long range bombers to take out the Russian resources to build new ones. Russian aircraft production picked up the losses in no time.
I think that the lack of long range bombers and capable long range escorts was Germany's biggest problem throughout the whole war.

[Masherbrum]

Ammo, are you sure about only one casualty in the GA role?  (I'm not doubting you, I can't fathom it I guess! lol)  If that is the case then wow, is all I can say, wow.

MAsher

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
IMHO, there wasn't an ideal single-engined attack plane in WW2. All of the candidates had significant flaws:

The Il-2 was very well armoured and armed to knock out tanks, but it was vulnerable to fighters. The Stuka G was in the same class, but less well protected.

The P-47 was a fighter-bomber rather than an attack plane; it could defend itself against enemy fighters but, although very tough by fighter standards, it had nowhere near the protection of an Il-2, and it was generally ineffective against tanks - its guns couldn't hurt them and its bombs couldn't hit them (with the odd lucky exception). IMO, a complete all-round attack aircraft MUST be able to deal with tanks.

P-47's flew more than 546,000 combat sorties between March 1943 and August 1945, destroying 11,874 enemy aircraft, some 9,000 locomotives, and about 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks. Only 0.7 per cent of the fighters of this type dispatched against the enemy were to be lost in combat.

[RRAM]

Originally posted by Krusher


P-47's flew more than 546,000 combat sorties between March 1943 and August 1945, destroying 11,874 enemy aircraft, some 9,000 locomotives, and about 6,000 armored vehicles and tanks. Only 0.7 per cent of the fighters of this type dispatched against the enemy were to be lost in combat.

Krusher you know what's the meaning of the word "Overclaim"?


in another topic, and talking about single-engined planes only, the best WWII attack plane 1941-43 was the early Fw190F/G . I also think that the best single engine attack plane of WWII was the Fw190, but that can be argued because the P47 was also a very good one.

Matter of tastes, I guess.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Tony,

>IMHO, there wasn't an ideal single-engined attack plane in WW2.

Actually, I think the category "attack aircraft" didn't even exist in WW2. (In WW1, it had existed - the Junkers J-4 with its steel armour tub actually was the first operational "Stormovik" :-)

The Stuka was a strategical bomber, designed to attack targets far behind the frontline with pinpoint precision.

The Il-2 was designed and used for what today is called Battefield Area Interdiction, attacking communications, supply facilities and troops on the move behind the frontlines.

Most fighters were pressed into service as fighter bombers, but "fighter bomber" in fact was a category of its own.

The types that were orginally meant to provide was today is called Close Air Support were very different aircraft: The Luftwaffe had the Henschel Hs 123 Schlachtflieger, an obsolescent biplane. The RAF had its Army Cooperation aircraft, of which the Westland Lysander (fitted with bomb racks on the stub wings) might be considered a good example.

Of course, these types proved insufficient or even ineffective, but the rest of the air force didn't have the doctrine for operating in close support, and it took them long to acquire it. In the end, the former types were used in the Close Support Role, but it still did not become their primary role, so I wouldn't consider any of them as attack planes anyway.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hi Henning,

Well. I wouldn't want to get too hung up on precise titles and definitions. By "attack plane" I presume from the context that the original poster mean one which was intended to operate over or near the battlefield in support of ground operations. It must therefore be expected to soak up small arms fire and be reasonably tolerant of light flak hits, and carry a range of armament capable of dealing with the usual battlefield targets, from infantry to tanks.

By this definition the Ju-87G with its BK 3,7 guns was certainly an attack plane.

The best design to see service was IMO the Hs 129, although in practice it was crippled by the unreliable engines. However, it was a twin-engined plane (despite being smaller and lighter than the P-47) and we have been concentrating in this thread on singles.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/