Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: midnight Target on July 10, 2002, 05:28:45 PM
-
Discovery Wings channel did it again. Their panel of experts decided on the best "attack aircraft of the various eras. Here is their choices:
1939 - 1942 Stuka
1943 - 1946 P-47
1946 - 1961 A-1 Skyraider
1961 - 1971 A-4 Skyhawk
-
ive seen the programme too... dont agree with all choices but that just opinion and ive never flown any of them..hehe..
-
discovery wing is a bit to popular
-
... and the winner for all time was the P-47. I was scratching my head too.
-
I don't see how they can pick any of those WW2 planes over the Il-2 and Il-10.
Skyraider was a worthy choice though.
-
It's not "best", they're looking for the ones that had the greatest impact.
-
Originally posted by Innominate
It's not "best", they're looking for the ones that had the greatest impact.
I find it hard to imagine that 36,000 Il-2s had less impact than the P-47...
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Tony,
Yes, but in the US, I think in the UK as well, the East Front is pretty much dismissed by the popular culture and this show was aimed at popular culture.
Most Americans think that the USA won WWII with some help from the Brits. They have no comprehension of the scope or significance of the Eastern Front.
In my opinion, Russia defeated Germany, with support from the USA and the UK and its Commonwealth. The USA defeated Japan, and had some support from the UK and its Commonwealth.
What D-Day really accomplished wasn't defeating Germany, that was already inevitable, but rather allowing the western part of continental Europe to remain free of Soviet control.
-
P-47 is a lot faster and carries a lot more ordnance than either the IL-2 or IL-10. That makes it significantly better in my mind.
Hooligan
-
Hooligan,
The show was apparently not talking about the individual capability of the aircraft, but how much affect it had on the course of events.
-
Russia could not have defeated Germany without Britain still being in the war by 1941.
-
thats a tough call - the commies did a real good job of shifting their industrial production east of the Urals, and they were never hurting for population to fight the war...hiltler vs. stalin head to head match up - flip a coin, i say
-
Winner of all time A-10
The P-47 was one bad motherf.......
Masher
Hey, they're both Thunderbolts!
-
The russians won the ground war
The allies the airwar
Thanks to endless bombing of the german industries
the russians found less resistance in armour
The fact that germany lost their desert war made them on the lose to ( no oil)
Also not being able to invade england at the beginning of the war
is a milestone to
Russia made pacts with germany and japan, they where not out there to save the human race. It more looks like they wanted to conquer the world to.
None of the less their effort was a great help beating the axis.
The allies just had more fronts to fight on
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Hooligan,
The show was apparently not talking about the individual capability of the aircraft, but how much affect it had on the course of events.
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:)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Germany got gangbanged!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
i agree with the P47. However, before that, from 1941 to 1943, the Hurricane IIC was the best attack aircraft.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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/
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
I think I've seen the Wings episode as well, and it struck me as being a list of the aircraft "with the most impact on events".
If that's the case, I think a good argument could be made for the SBD and its role at Coral Sea, Midway, Santa Cruz and the Eastern Solomons. Tally up its record to Fall of 1942, and I think you end up with the following, at a minimum:
Sunk:
CVL Shoho (Coral Sea)
CV Akagi
CV Kaga
CV Hiryu
CV Soryu
(all Midway)
CVL Ryuho (or Ryujo, can't remember)
(Santa Cruz or Eastern Solomons)
Damaged at one time or another:
CV Shokaku (Coral Sea, Santa Cruz, Eastern Solomons)
CV Zuikaku (Santa Cruz, Eastern Solomns)
CVL Zuiho (Eastern Solomons)
Etc., Etc., Etc.
Without the SBD, Port Moresby is taken in May, 42 by the Japanese, Midway probably never happens, and the entire Pacific War is changed, forcing U.S. to divert more resources to the PTO to protect U.S. West Coast.
Just a theory on my part :D
-
Originally posted by 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
No, that is not true AFAIK.
In fact, I was watching a History Channel documentary exclusively about the P-47. Pretty gritty and obscure film documentary, not that crappy patriotic propaganda on Discovery.
A Jug pilot was telling the story of a pilot who got back in his jug from a ground attack mission. HIS WHOLE SQUAD WAS SHOT DOWN. He was the only survivor. When he got out of the plane, he pulled his .45 1911 out and emptied it on the plane's cockpit.
He was instituted on a mental hospital.
That whole squad were casualties, and this was not the only time it happened.
P-47 suffered heavy losses on the ground attack role.
The jug was a good bomber/attack plane, but the most significant attack plane, in history, is the IL-2 Sturmovik. BY FAR...[/i]
-
Hi Tony,
>Well. I wouldn't want to get too hung up on precise titles and definitions.
I just meant to point out that the planes were measured against a yardstick that was unknown throughout WW2 :-)
To get back on topic, I'm not so sure there was a large difference in the ability to withstand battle damage between the Il-2 and the Ju 87. The Il-2 featured wooden wings and a wooden tail, so while its crew was protected very well, the aircraft itself was more vulnerable to cannon fire than the all-metal Junkers. I'd speculate against small arms fire, the Il-2 probably won out, but if AAA was encountered, the Ju 87 had its advantages, too. (With the introduction of all-metal construction for the late-war Il-2, it certainly became superior, though.)
By the way, I've been looking for data on the Il-2's 23 mm VYa cannon in your book. You're only listing AP/I ammunition - was this the only round available (making the gun a specialized tank buster), or were there other rounds, too, and you only mentioned the most typical one?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I meant to illistrate the difference between a multi-crew AC such as an A20 or Mosquito versus a single crew AC like the P-47. A P-47 goes down, one casualty, the other you lose two or more.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I meant to illistrate the difference between a multi-crew AC such as an A20 or Mosquito versus a single crew AC like the P-47. A P-47 goes down, one casualty, the other you lose two or more.
It came out wrong, it seemed like you were saying only one guy died in a P-47 in ground attack missions during the war.
-
In the Joint Fighter Conferance of 1944 the best fighter/bomber catogory was voted on by a very large group of Miltary and contractor pilots. The results were
1. F4U-1D <=== 32%
2. P-47D-30<== 19%
3. Mosquito<== 14%
4. F6F-5<==== 12%
5. F7F <===== 11%
6. P-51D<==== 7%
7. P-38L<==== 5%
In the catagory of best strafer the P-47 was chosen #1 with 41% of the vote.
-
Originally posted by Animal
It came out wrong, it seemed like you were saying only one guy died in a P-47 in ground attack missions during the war.
ammo said
only one pilot is lost in the case of a casualty
Your just stupid, but we all know that and take it into account..so no harm done.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
In the Joint Fighter Conferance of 1944 the best fighter/bomber catogory was voted on by a very large group of Miltary and contractor pilots.
Judging by the list, for "Joint" read "USA". The Mosquito is the only odd one out, and it didn't really compare with the others.
There is a natural tendency for people to favour the equipment from their own country, partly perhaps from nationalism, partly because they know it better.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Originally posted by HoHun
By the way, I've been looking for data on the Il-2's 23 mm VYa cannon in your book. You're only listing AP/I ammunition - was this the only round available (making the gun a specialized tank buster), or were there other rounds, too, and you only mentioned the most typical one?
There was an HEI weighing just under 200g which carried 16g HE and incendiary mix, and an HEI-T which carried 11g. These were used in both the VYa and the NS-23 (the NS-23 cartridge was just the 14.5x115 anti-tank round necked-up to take the VYa's shells).
The percentage HE weight in Soviet shells was relatively low. They obviously relied more on fragmentation damage than blast.
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Your just stupid, but we all know that and take it into account..so no harm done.
you're ¦¬þ
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Your just stupid, but we all know that and take it into account..so no harm done.
*in a whiny voice*
Stop making me look stupid in front of the guys!
*runs away*