United Kingdom (1942)
Anti-Tank Aircraft Design – None Built
History
Over 10 different designs by several aircraft companies were subsequently created for this program. A majority of them were of unorthodox design. Armstrong-Whitworth (AW.49) and Boulton-Paul (P.99) both created twin boom designs. Boulton-Paul also submitted a canard design labelled P.100 and a biplane design labelled P.101, the latter being seen as a safe alternative to the radical canard and twin boom designs prevalent through the program. Perhaps the most interesting of the designs was the submission by Martin-Baker.
The project wasn’t very impressive nor reasonable in the eyes of the Air Staff, especially compared to the other designs in the program. Its single large-caliber gun extremely limited its target range and it would only have been able to attack one of six predicted target types the program requested. The aircraft lacked any other offensive or defensive armament and would rely on its armor alone to protect itself, a gambit that other designs in the program resolved by following the armaments listed by the Air Staff. Attempts to add more ordnance such as additional guns, rockets or bombs to the wings would have added too much stress on the airframe. The main feature of the aircraft was the root of its problems, its gun. The gun itself couldn’t be removed from the airframe and an aircraft going into battle with a single weapon would be inefficient for resources. The Tankbuster didn’t meet the armament expectations and fell under the expected speed by 10mph (16 km a h). On April 15th, 1943, Air Marshall F J Linnell (who was a good friend of James Martin, a founder of the company) advised Martin-Baker to drop development of the Tankbuster in favor of continuing work on the more successful MB.5 project going on at the same time.
Near the later days of April 1943, the Air Staff brought the program the Tankbuster was designed for to an end. They concluded that, at the time, developing and producing an entirely new ground attack aircraft would impede the current war programs and that the submissions were too specialized in design compared to modifying aircraft already being produced for ground attack duties. One such aircraft they pointed to was the Hawker Hurricane Mk IV, a ground attacker version of the famous fighter which was performing successfully in the role and had started production in March of 1943. Later additions to the ground attack role would be the Hawker Typhoon, which became a scourge to German ground troops. Even if the program had continued towards production, it was significantly unlikely the Tankbuster would have been chosen for the role. The aircraft was way too specialized and disliked by the Air Staff, and Martin Baker was working on an aircraft that would yield much better results. Although the Tankbuster may have been the runt of a doomed program, it still proves to be an interesting, albeit flawed solution in the name of destroying enemy armor.
Design
The Martin-Baker Tankbuster was a twin-boom single-engine design. The aircraft would have been constructed entirely of metal. The airframe itself would be covered in an additional 1/2-inch (12.7mm) armor. This armor would weigh 4,900Ibs (2,223kg) on its own. The armor covered the entire body and also the engine cowling. What’s interesting to note is that the aircraft had two engine intakes, one facing forward and one facing the rear. The radiator and oil tank were mounted in the frontal fuselage. The radiator itself was armored by offset plates that would prevent bullets from ricocheting inside. The cockpit area had clear forward visibility, and would seat a single pilot. The canopy would most likely have had bulletproof glass to complement the rest of the armored body. For it’s engine, the Tankbuster would have mounted a Griffon II engine in pusher configuration. This is relevant to Martin-Baker’s other project, the MB.5, as this aircraft also used the Griffon. The reason the aircraft utilized a pusher configuration was it gave the pilot clear visibility in the front and the gun could be placed directly forward. The pusher configuration isn’t common because of the fact that it leaves the engine open to enemies that are chasing the aircraft. This would have been especially deadly for the Tankbuster, given it has no defensive armament. The tail section and wings would also be constructed of metal. The wings were wide to improve low level flight. There was an attempt to diversify the targets by adding additional weapons to the wings, but this would only overload them. The Tankbuster had a fixed tricycle landing gear. This decision was made to conserve interior space but would have slowed the aircraft considerably. The only armament the aircraft would have been armed with would be a 6-pounder cannon (57mm) that would be frontally mounted, supplied with 30 rounds of ammunition. The aircraft would only be allowed to target heavily armored targets. To assist in aiming, the gun was placed towards on horizontal axis. This would prevent the aircraft from pitching when the gun was fired.
Role
The Tankbuster’s design might seem odd by conventional aircraft standards, but every single feature the aircraft had was to assist in it’s role of attacking enemy armor. Long, flat wings would give the aircraft an edge in low-level flight. The pusher engine would give the aircraft a clear view and nothing to obstruct the cannon. The entire airframe being heavily armored would protect against AA fire and enemy aircraft. Going into battle, the Tankbuster would need escort fighters to protect against opposing interceptors. Once in the combat zone, the Tankbuster would begin its assault on enemy tanks. The De Havilland Mosquito also mounted the 6-pounder Molins gun and was also used in the ground-attack role, but only for a short time before switching to an anti-shipping role. It is likely the Tankbuster would have also undergone this change had it entered production.
Variants
- Martin-Baker “Tankbuster” – The only version of the Tankbuster drawn was the original design with a single cannon.
Operators
- United Kingdom – This aircraft would have been operated by the Royal Air Force had it been produced.
Gallery
Illustration by Haryo Panji https://www.deviantart.com/haryopanji
Sources
- Buttler, T. (2004). British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers, 1935-1950. Hinckley: Midland.
- Leszek A. Wieliczko, Myśliwce Martin-Baker, „Lotnictwo”, nr 9 (2016), s. 78-87, ISSN 1732-5323.
- Illustration by Haryo Panji https://www.deviantart.com/haryopanji