Anti-Tank Aircraft (AGAIN)

Split from "Best Tank Destroyer"

The best tank destroyer is any plane carrying the typhoon missile , or did you mean Tank vs Tank

 

What's a Typhoon missile? If you mean the rockets that Typhoons were equipped with these were next to useless because they were so inaccurate.

 

I think I read somewhere that post war test indicated that if a tank was hit by rocket such as the Typhoon used then the tank became geography ( as in landing in very small pieces in the surrounding ) but the percentage of rockets that hit was very low.

 

Back in WW2 the value of planes versus tanks wasn't overwhelming yet; the greatest achievement of the tactical air force was the disruption of columns, soft-skinned vehicles and fixed positions.

 

Typhoon missle , not deadly!! , tell that to all the tanks it destroyed

 

Not wishing to sound unduly sarcastic here, but what is the "Typhoon Missile"? I'm asking because I genuinely haven't heard of it.

If it was the Rocket projectile, then no it was not that deadly because it was so inaccurate. If one hit then yes, it was devastating, but that was the difficulty getting one to connect with a target!

 

Typhoon missile in WW2 ?! :lol: Thats a modern missile buddy !

Edited by Moderator

KBO

 

The rockets used by WWII aircrafts were terribly inaccurate, and the number of tanks they destroyed was negligeble. Based on the number of Tigers and Tiger IIs destroyed by them, we're talking 5-7,5 %.

Christian

 

Presumably the back of a Tiger I and II have been vulnerable to the 40mm A/T guns on the Hurricane IID......

.......so why not fit them to Typhoons?

 

Because terribly inaccurate missiles aren't used to shoot small targets such as tanks but rather to make an entire row of tanks and support vehicles duck for cover by having the ground erupt all around them. Or of course to silence an artillery position, or flatten a defensive line.

Anti-tank aircraft of WW2 carried guns. Rockets and bombs weren't made for that purpose.

 

because you then have an aircraft that can only shoot tanks. In Normandy, and the later campaigns in Western Europe, there were not that many German tanks (compared to those in the East) and they were generally very well camouflaged. Rockets were a good solution, because they can take out anything, from a Kubelwagen to a Tiger II (if they hit!), whereas specialist AT guns are a complete waste of time against a convoy of lorries.

 

A convoy of lorries? I'd say for any ground attack aircraft that would count as a Christmas has come early situation particularly if their all driving along a road so you can riddle them all in one pass.

 

It would do, but if your armament is 2 x 40mm AT guns (solid shot) and one .5 inch mg for spotting purposes, you'd feel a little useless.
If you had 4 x 20mm & 8 x 60lb rockets or 8 x .5 inch & 8 x 60 lb rockets then you'd be jolly effective.

 

On anti-tank and ground attack aircraft:

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=562
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1026
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=768
http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1467

 

Would the extra power available to a Typhonon enable it to carry more than a 0.5" MG for spotting purposes?

 

I think the bottom line of Ricky's last answer sounds about right for a Typhoon. The two 40mm plus 0.5 MG sound more like the the AT Hurricane.

 

Yes, the twin 40mm is for the Hurricane... I was using that as my example.
If you have a dedicated AT plane, why bother with extra guns?
If the plane is AT & anything else, then maybe, but would having 2 large (& heavy) underwing pods + full mg / cannon armament put too much weight (& therefore stress) on the wings?
Or would simply having rockets be best, as the 40mm cannon would be unused in 80% of the missions flown (my 'drempt up' statistic! ).

Edit - um, could this be split off, we have got sidetracked yet again...

 

In 75mm the biggest shell size used used in aircraft for the AT role?

 

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm for details of all of the airborne anti-tank guns, their performance and the aircraft which carried them.

It includes this photo showing the AP ammunition for various German aircraft guns.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

Simonr 1978 , a standard P-47 Thunderbolt carried 6 to 10 of these missles , id say that around 80 to 90 percent of them missed the target , but either way they'd end up destroying at least 1 or 2 enemy vehicles . And take into account the allied air superiority , thousands of attack planes with a handful of these missles could do a lot of widespread damage , well i see your point on there inaccuracy , but i think the allied commanders took into account the number of allied planes , the number of missles it could carry , and the lack of air resistance the germans had(due to their concentration of resources trying to combat the heavy bombers), but none the less it ended up taking out a lot of german vehicles , so it did what it was supposed to do .