"they're tank busters sir, P-51's" was there

A-10's

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-655-5976-04,_Russland,_Sturzkampfbomber_Junkers_Ju_87_G.jpg (114KB, 800x514px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 800x514px

>>33147167

>>33147167
I remember my dad looking at me after we saw this in theaters and saying "They should've been P-47s."

File: 8PdJx3C.jpg (14KB, 400x257px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x257px

>>33147167
In that time period? Anything capable of dropping PTABs. It was the first DPICM

>>33147192
wow, you're actually bringing up that shit...

>>33147196
It's the only remotely capable aerial tank-buster at the time. Dive-bombing isn't accurate enough to take out tanks, despite the amount of claimed kills(all unsubstantiated by later surveys) this way. All the P-47s and P-51s in the Western front killed approximately 0 tanks.

File: 15238f9634a65bb03a7fc8efd7aff6fe.jpg (414KB, 2354x1285px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 2354x1285px

That nose-mounted cannon packed quite a punch.

>>33147225

Couple things

Dive bombing was accurate enough to take out tanks, since 500lb bombs could kill a tank from simply landing near one.

However, P-51 and P-47 did not dive bomb, if these planes pursued a dive to the degree where accurate delivery of munition was possible, they'd be unable to pull out of the dive and crash into the ground, since they didn't have dive brakes.

Being able to dive bomb well took a ton of practice, practice that the fighter jocks not only though was below them, but also wasteful of airframes, fuel, and bombs. When P-51 and P-47 did CAS, they mainly did so with rockets and guns, which were easier for the pilots to use.

File: F-82-Twin-Mustang-4.jpg (37KB, 700x340px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 700x340px

>>33147167
>The only thing better than one mustang is two stuck together

File: P108_in_volo_3.jpg (9KB, 801x389px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 801x389px

>Tank buster
>Not having a 102mm ship buster

>>33147260
That was more of an early PCA fighter

File: 1466752840813.jpg (44KB, 600x324px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x324px

>>33147167
>Not paking a fucking PAК 40 under your fuselage

>>33147167
The old man's memory was flawed.

File: P-47_Thunderbolt_42-25068_2012_(7977124689).jpg (3MB, 3872x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3872x2592px

>>33147167
>>33147190
Yeah, it's not even a question.

>>33147167
IL-2s and Ju-87s, and Hs.192s were all much better for that role. Funny, how something made to be an attacker is better at being an attacker than something designed to be something else.

>>33147243
>Dive bombing was accurate enough to take out tanks, since 500lb bombs could kill a tank from simply landing near one.
>However, P-51 and P-47 did not dive bomb, if these planes pursued a dive to the degree where accurate delivery of munition was possible, they'd be unable to pull out of the dive and crash into the ground, since they didn't have dive brakes.
So much wrong in one post.

File: IMG_0313.jpg (74KB, 1022x403px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1022x403px

I'm thinking.

G Stuka, were the cobras even used for tankbusting?

>>33147167
Any plane that can drop napalm and strafe.

More tanks were killed in korea by aviation thanks to napalm then any other vehicle.

P-47 pilots overestimated their kill rate against ground targets by a factor of three.

>>33147630
>by a factor of three.

>"The evidence gathered by the Operational Research teams indicated that very few tanks were destroyed by air attack. A British War Office analysis of 223 Panther tanks destroyed in 1944 revealed that only fourteen resulted from air attack (eleven to RPs and three to aircraft cannon). During the Mortain battle of 7-10 August, the RAF and USAAF launched sustained attacks on a German armoured column over a period of six hours, claiming 252 German tanks destroyed or damaged in nearly 500 sorties. It was subsequently discovered that there had only been a total of 177 tanks or tank destroyers deployed by the Germans and just 46 of those were lost, of which only nine could be attributed to air attack (seven to RPs and two to bombs). During the German retreat from the Falaise pocket later in August, the RAF and USAAF claimed 391 armoured vehicles destroyed. Shortly afterwards, the battlefield was examined and only 133 armoured vehicles of all types were found, of which just 33 had been the victim of any sort of air attack. In the retreat to the Seine, large numbers of armoured vehicles were left behind and Typhoon pilots alone claimed 222 destroyed, but only thirteen out of 388 AFVs examined were found to have been knocked out by RP attack. In the Ardennes salient, just seven out of 101 knocked-out AFVs were definitely or possibly attributed to air attack, compared with claims for 90. It should be noted that in the prevailing circumstances of a continuing retreat, there was no question of the German Army having recovered any damaged tanks in these later actions, in fact the battlefields were often littered with undamaged tanks abandoned by their crews."

>>33147192
so Po-2?

>>33147234
Except P-39s were never used against tanks.

>>33147713
Never would be a great exaggeration, many shit happened during war. But yeah P-39 squadrons with P-39 been premium soviet fighter were mostly assigned to air-to-air roles.

>>33147685
Hmm... even worse then

File: Cash Me Outside.png (1MB, 1439x1400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1439x1400px

I believe the A-10 is a better tank buster.

>>33147597
>were the cobras even used for tankbusting?

No thats a myth created by US pilots trying to think of why the Russians liked them so much and what they were doing with them. In reality the Russians had German bombers to shoot down, and that's what they liked the canons for.

Neither the P-39 nor P-51 were ever used for extensive ground attack, they were both terrible at it

>>33147685
Yeah. But the ever present air threat kept the Hun tank commander buttoned down, kept Hunnish infantry away because the tanks were bomb magnets, prevented attempts at fixing broken tanks since they're sitting duck etc. So, even though direct kills by air attack were few, they greatly contributed to victory.

>>33147190
>anno domini 1944+73
>not having seen Empire of the Sun
>not understanding Spielberg's massive erection for P-51s
>not understanding director signature

>>33148171

Spielberg's signature is giving every movie a father-son conflict arc as his way of grappling with his abandonment issues towards his dad.

>>33148279
You forgot his "oy Vey remember the six gorillion goy!"

>>33148035
Isn't that what artillery does too and cheapo

>>33148279
>raiders
>temple
>AI
>Bridge of Spies
>Lincoln
>Tintin
>The Terminal
>Jurassic Park
>1941

look at all those movies without daddy issues.

>>33147167
How many were lost to ground fire? Inline vee engines were particularly susceptible to ground fire.

>>33147997
I've always heard it attributed to a translation error. The Russians used them as "low level attackers" or something like that which sounds a lot like ground attack but really meant they were used as offensive fighters.

File: 1375904580599.png (26KB, 775x591px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 775x591px

>>33147997

>P-51 were ever used for extensive ground attack

I heard recently that most of the P-51s lost in Europe were from ground fire. The water cooled Merlin couldn't take any damage or it was going down. Usually when coming back from a bombing escort they'd expend their ammo on targets of opportunity on the way back to England.

>>33148815
That too, I know in Bud Anderson's book he talks about his training days in the P-39, and then wrongly assumes the Russians used the cannon for ground attack and figures that's why the VVS liked them so much. US pilots never had much contact with He-111s and the like over the western front, so bomber killing isnt something that springs to mind when they recall flying fighters.

>>33148862
Yes, inline engines, especially with the P-51 and how its radiator runs the bottom length of fuselage are highly easily damaged. Again, in Bud Anderson's book, he talks about the rare time he was tasked with ground attack during and after the start of D day, and describes how terrible he and his flight were at it, and never hit anything with their bombs and were more than glad when they were tasked back with escorting bombers again. They were not at all comfortable using their Mustangs for ground attack, nor any good at it. IIRC, D-Day was the first time he had even flown with ground ordinance since his training days, it just wasn't something they were accustomed to.

>>33147181
You don't know how to use apostrophes.

You also don't know the A-10 was outdated before it was even in service.

File: world-war-ii-planesa-ircraft-font-b-typhoon-b-font-font-b-hawker-b-font-font.jpg (258KB, 2048x1267px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 2048x1267px

>TFW when no one mentioned the Tiger Killer..

File: Bazooka_Charlie.jpg (45KB, 514x293px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 514x293px

>"Gee Charlie, how'd ya get your nickname?"

>>33149087
>points to his dick

Also I blow up tanks with a Piper Cub, no big deal.

>>33149065
Tigers, Panthers, Crocodiles, Grizzlies, Rams, etc.

>>33147167
Jabo 190s have the speed, agility, protection, and armament options of bombs, cannons (30s), and rockets.

File: A-10_BTFO.jpg (139KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1024x683px

>>33147167

File: OT-62 TOPAS_(3).jpg (21KB, 500x328px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x328px

>>33147192
>>33147243
>>33147284
> PTAB
> DPICM
> CAS
> PCA

The correct way of using an acronym is to fully spell-out the acronym when it is first used and then use the acronym itself later in the text;

“The elite Polish Tank Amphibious Battalion crossed the Moskva River on April 1st 1940 and after the battle, the PTAB took up positions in Red Square."

>>33149042
>agm-65s
>'outdated'

>>33151833
What airplane in the inventory can't carry Mavericks? I was talking about the beloved shitgun that can barely harass a T-62.

>>33147344
>mfw it was all a dementia fever dream

File: P-47 Strafing Tiger Tank.webm (822KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 1280x720px

P-47 JUGG!

>>33152443
yeah! fuck the amish

>>33147519
ironically the allies would have been better served with a dedicated ground attack considering their total air supremacy.

unlike the stuka which get shot down like crazy.

>>33149065
also greatly exaggerated in terms of killing tanks.

but you don't need to kill the tanks when you knocked out all the soft target.

File: F-111.jpg (2MB, 3780x2700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3780x2700px

>>33147167
no contest

>>33151858
>I was meming about the weapon that isnt even meant to kill tanks, nor is the A-10s main weapon system

We know

File: Hurricane_Mk_IID_photo.png (973KB, 1024x475px) Image search: [Google]

973KB, 1024x475px

>>33147167
>I hate north africa.
>Fuck axis armor
>I just want to take a nap.
>These S guns are heavy.
>At least they're not catapulting me off merchant ships again.
>When this tour is over I want to go back to bombing the french countryside.
>They'll probably give me nightfighting duty.
>I hate nightfighting duty.
>I miss shooting down Heinkel's. And Junkers. Messerschmidts too.
>Is that Spitfire-chan on the tarmac?
>I hate Spitfire-chan.
>I do all the work in Battle-of-Brittan and he gets all the pussy.
>Is that a faggot navy officer down there?
>They're going to catapult me off ships again, aren't they?

File: spot the navy pilot.jpg (75KB, 634x470px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 634x470px

>>33152765
>>They're going to catapult me off ships again, aren't they?

kek

>around Airdales watch your tail

>>33147731
>>33147713
>>33147234
The Americans never sent the Soviet Union AP rounds for the 37mm. It's a mistranslating that made people think they were used in an anti armor role.

>>33151403
>The correct way of using an acronym is to fully spell-out the acronym when it is first used and then use the acronym itself later in the text

t. someone who's never operated a radio

File: Spitfire IIb.jpg (201KB, 690x459px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 690x459px

>>33152765
>I hate Spitfire-chan.
>I do all the work in Battle-of-Brittan and he gets all the pussy.


Sorry but it's hard not to love literally the sexist aircraft ever made

>>33147685
Also it doesn't mentioned the destruction of trucks, which are ultimately more important than the tanks.

>>33147260
F-82, more like PP-102 amirite guys

>>33152756
Oh you're one of THOSE people. The GAU-8 was absolutely intended as the main weapon system on the A-10A and it was supposed to kill tanks. Otherwise they would have told it to fuck off and put radar on it.

>>33153554

Sorry, bub, but it doesn't do anything for me.

>>33154639
>radar
>for bombs and TV guided missiles

Are you retarded?

>>33154254
I wonder how many of those tanks were abandoned for lack of spare parts/fuel.

File: Typhoon.jpg (192KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1024x768px

>>33147167

No, THIS is a tank buster.

P-51s were long range fighter escorts.

>>33147584

This picture better be a meme

Please tell me it is one

>>33154818
The Mavericks are their own thing and there is no reason why the radar couldn't be used for bombing. Hell with all the space saved you could probably add an electro-optical system, too.

>>33155277
>there is no reason why the radar couldn't be used for bombing
>radar guided bombs

>>33154818
Are you retarded?
It works just fine for the F-16, detect targets with radar, ID them with Lantirn before engaging with LGB's and Mavericks.

>>33155812
What are you talking about?

>>33155812

Modern radars can be used to detect things ground like tanks'n'shieeeet. Bombs can use any kind of guidance from GPS to laser or even be iron bombs.

>>33152462
Made me literally cry from laughter

>>33155937
That's not at all how it works. Educate yourselves you fucking retards

>>33153397
more like
>t. idiot who ignored that the context was regarding written communications, instead of radio where pro-words and other abbreviation codes are agreed upon prior to use

>>33153397
>t. someone who's never operated a radio

I didn't quite get that, please repeat :^)

>>33156583
>I can't prove you wrong, so I'll just call you wrong and leave it at that.

>>33156813
>doesn't know that an A-10 and F-16 literally both use CCRIP/IP modes, drop bombs, fire Mavericks, and deploy GBU's the same way

>>33156880
The other guy wrote "otherwise they would have told it to fuck off and put radar on it" and you took issue with that statement as though the A-10 wouldn't be able to use a radar "for bombs and TV guided missiles" even though radar is often used for ground attack work.
Just because you aren't using it to guide the munition itself doesn't make radar any less useful.

File: 880401-F-1234P-075.jpg (218KB, 1800x1211px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1800x1211px

>>33147167
>>33147243
You're right, P-51s and P-47s weren't built for dive bombing.

But the A-36 Apache, a specialized version of the airframe, was built specifically for low level ground attack and had dive brakes, and were known for being exceptionally accurate dive bombers, despite having a durability disadvantage from the liquid cooled inline engine

>>33153397
I'm sorry, are we on a radio-based image board? Are you operating a radio? Am I operating a radio? No? Then go fuck yourself and take your stupid acronyms with you.

Fucking acrofags and their bullshit.

File: p47.jpg (188KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 500x366px

>>33147365
Jug > tank all day, everyday

would have loved to see what a Skyraider could've done

>>33147685
>>33149087
These combined mean that a dude in a jerry rigged piper cub accounted for a large percentage of all allied aerial tank kills.

>>33154924
sweet jesus, Tiffys are beautiful, especially once they got dialed in for ground attack.

>>33157004
If it's literally not used in the deployment of the munitions, either through targeting or release, then his argument means nothing, especially considering the F-16 doesn't used ground radar with radar based ground ordinance.

But I guess its typical of/k/ to make things up

>>33157053
>I'm sorry, are we on a radio-based image board? Are you operating a radio? Am I operating a radio?

I mean, I don't have my ham license yet, but I'm pretty sure it's possible to bridge radio to the internet and shitpost through it.

Obviously that guy is still a retard, but it could be a fun experiment.

>>33154254
This. In WWII, CAS could be very useful at times, because the pilot could see the target himself, whereas artillery couldn't. However, the most efficient use of airpower in the war was in interdiction. It's impossible to determine how many AFVs were lost to operational causes as a direct or indirect result of interdiction missions.

>>33157246
Are you stupid? Despite the munitions not being actively guided by radar doesn't mean that a ground search radar wouldn't be immensely useful in actually finding the targets

>>33157414
It's actually not nearly as useful as you think, nor are you willing to admit it's not how the F-16 operates and find targets either.

>>>>>>education>>>>>>>>

File: 475.jpg (14KB, 400x221px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x221px

>>33157414
>F-16s have some sort of Apache-D esque ground radar..

anon, I have some bad news for you

File: 1468893297538.jpg (37KB, 600x528px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x528px

>>33152462

File: rawImage.jpg (136KB, 952x599px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 952x599px

Hi there.

File: 1467029737863.jpg (34KB, 287x252px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 287x252px

>>33157598
I hope you aren't imply that they don' have an air to ground mode.

>>33148643
>"The dog's name was Indiana!"

>>33157706
You literally dont understand any of the avionics or targeting systems...

You literally think a pilot just flips a switch and and little green blips just show up on his screen. You're retarded.

File: 1487191074109.jpg (49KB, 560x577px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 560x577px

>>33157654
*heart eye emoji*