The Tank-Busting Role of Fighter Aircraft

There is a common perception about fighter aircraft that they are primarily designed for air-to-air combat and that their role against ground targets is limited to striking stationary positions such as enemy industrial areas, airfields, and other militarily significant structures like bridges and buildings. However, the extensive use of tanks during the Second World War placed an additional responsibility on the air forces the destruction of enemy military convoys, tanks, and combat vehicles during battle. In this domain, Germany achieved considerable success during the war, inflicting substantial damage on Allied tanks. Inspired by Germany’s achievements, the Allies also began developing dedicated anti-tank aircraft, which led to an era of intense competition, resulting in the creation of increasingly advanced tank-busting planes. In the early days, fighter aircraft relied on powerful cannons to destroy tanks. But as tank armor became thicker, these guns gradually became obsolete. Today, modern, lightweight, and highly effective anti-tank missiles have replaced them. At present, all major developed nations including the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France — are producing fighter aircraft designed for the anti-tank role. Among these, the American-built A-10 Thunderbolt commonly known as the A-10 Warthog stands out with a clear superiority over its counterparts.

Destroying a tank has always been a long-cherished dream of every attacking fighter-bomber aircraft, and the tank kill markings and other achievements displayed on an aircraft distinguish it from others. The destruction of tanks, as well as related targets such as artillery, military vehicles, missile batteries, radar sites, vital bridges, and airfield runways, generally falls into the same category. However, a tank is a moving, heavily armored, intelligent, and retaliatory ground weapon. Its destruction not only eliminates an effective component of the enemy’s power but also halts its advance while protecting one’s own territory and forces from damage. While destroying tanks moving in open fields and on highways is relatively easier, the destruction of hidden tanks or those concealed in narrow passes is a far more challenging task. Despite the availability of modern technology today, the anti-tank role remains a difficult mission, much like it was in the past. In this article, the tank-busting capability of air force aircraft will be examined in the context of the past, present, and future, as the first link in the sequence of destroying ground targets such as bridges and airfield runways. Over the past sixty years, significant advancements have been made in the anti-tank role. Alongside the development of new strategies, modern weaponry, superior equipment, and highly capable attack aircraft for tank destruction, tanks themselves have evolved. Their overall capabilities, offensive power, and defensive systems designed to protect against air attacks have also seen considerable improvement.

At the beginning of World War II, the weight of a medium tank was 12 tons, and it was equipped with a 30 mm (1 1/8 inch) caliber cannon. In contrast, a heavy tank weighed 35 tons and was armed with a 60 mm (2 3/8 inch) caliber cannon. By 1942, the German Tiger tank weighed 56 tons and was equipped with a 100 mm (4 inch) caliber cannon. In the early part of World War II, destroying light and medium tanks required a minimum distance of 40 meters (about 130 feet), which could only be achieved using heavy guns or bombs. Beyond the 40-meter radius, it was difficult to destroy a tank. By the middle of the war, directly destroying a tank was considered equivalent to rendering it inoperative. However, in most cases, the tank would only be damaged rather than completely destroyed. Often, rounds fired at the tank would miss the target, or strike at an angle or with force insufficient to cause critical damage—damage that could be repaired, allowing the tank to return to service, temporarily reducing enemy strength. To completely destroy a tank, more lethal and explosive weapons—such as bombs or cannons loaded with high-explosive materials—were required. Alongside the deadly nature of tanks, the effort to destroy them continued. Free-fall bombs, rockets, and particularly 20 mm caliber guns inflicted considerable damage on tanks. A bomb weighing 5 kilograms (about 11 pounds) or more was capable of disabling a tank, provided the weapon struck the tank directly at the proper angle and distance. Air force aircraft would destroy tanks with the aid of more powerful guns and bombs. Horizontal attack aircraft or dive-bombers attacked their targets using bombs, guns, or rockets, diving down on the target from a height at an angle. This technique was also referred to as “pop-up.”

This technique could succeed or fail depending on the pilot’s accuracy or inaccuracy. Low-level bombing and attacks generally produced better results, but escaping from ground fire became difficult for the aircraft. In operations aimed at destroying tanks or other targets, bombs were dropped to strike and explode upon impact. However, these bombs could be made even more destructive by fitting them with fuses. When dropped from aircraft, such bombs would detonate via fuse about 8 or 10 seconds later. In this way, the bomb would explode slightly above the ground, and its powerful pressure and blast would inflict greater damage on the target below, blowing apart the upper parts of the tank. To ensure the bomb exploded at the right time, the altitude and speed of the aircraft had to be carefully considered. In the autumn of 1942, Britain introduced the (Hurricane MK II D), a true tank-busting attack fighter aircraft. This aircraft was armed with two Vickers 40 mm (1 1/2 inch caliber) guns, each equipped with 12 rounds. In addition, it had two 0.330 inch (8 mm caliber) machine guns mounted for close combat. The pilot would keep the aircraft at an altitude of 15 meters (50 feet) and attack the target from a distance of 200 meters (2,000 feet) at a speed of up to 802 knots (583 kilometers per hour). Each gun would fire one round per trigger pull, and a trained pilot could fire approximately ten rounds during a single attack run, closing in to within 100 meters (330 feet) of the target. As the distance decreased, the impact of the fired round became more intense due to the reduced range.

In addition to the cannon, machine guns were also used to damage tanks. The Hurricane was an excellent machine for such attacks. It was the most suitable weapon for breaking through the defensive lines of tanks on the front lines, halting their advance, and countering other attacking machines. However, along with successes, ground resistance also brought the destruction of aircraft. The survival and effectiveness of the aircraft’s attack depended on the presence or absence of ground resistance, particularly anti-aircraft guns. In the autumn of 1942 in North Africa, commanders would often call upon the Hurricane to increase their firepower and destroy the enemy. However, in view of German air strikes, they would deploy mobile ground defense units alongside. On 25 March 1943, about ten Hurricane aircraft launched an attack at Tunis and El Hamma to stop the enemy’s advance. In this attack, six Hurricane aircraft fell victim to ground-based anti-aircraft guns. Miraculously, all the pilots survived, though injured, and returned to their units. In April, near the Kairouan area, eleven Hurricanes of the same (9th) squadron were dispatched. In this mission too, six aircraft were destroyed, and three pilots lost their lives. These aircraft, with the help of their heavy guns, destroyed many light tanks, while the heavy tanks sustained only minor damage.

In 1942, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) introduced twin-engine ground-attack aircraft (Henschel-129) equipped with Rheinmetall Mark 101 rapid-firing 30 mm caliber guns capable of engaging targets over a wide area around the cockpit. Despite its offensive capability, the HS-129 aircraft proved unsuccessful. Its engines were highly sensitive and often failed due to dust and sand in desert regions. Therefore, this aircraft was deployed at airfields closer to Russia for operations.

Approximately 60 of these aircraft were engaged in combat against Russia. In 1943, a modernized model of this aircraft equipped with more powerful 30 mm Mark 130 guns was introduced. These guns were significantly stronger than the previous ones. On 8 June 1943, at a location called Krash, a Henschel-129 aircraft conducted a reconnaissance flight and spotted about 40 Russian tanks from the Second SS Panzer Corps advancing without any ground protection. The pilot immediately reported this information to his base at Mikoianovka via radio. Without delay, 21 aircraft took off to engage these Russian tanks and unleashed all their firepower on them. An additional 4 aircraft were dispatched to support the mission. All these aircraft succeeded in destroying several tanks and damaging many others. The mission was considered a success. However, the claims made during this mission remained unclear, as there was a discrepancy between the German pilots’ reports and the actual losses suffered by the Russians.

The German Ju 87G (Junkers Ju 87G) tank-destroyer aircraft was introduced by the Germans in 1943. It was extensively tested and was equipped with two 37 mm (1 1/2 inch) cannons mounted under each wing. Each gun had a capacity of six ground clips. These cannons were not capable of destroying the frontal armor of the heavy Russian tanks, but later experiments revealed that targeting the engine compartment and rear sections of the tanks could yield success. Much like the British Hurricane IID, the German Junkers Ju 87G proved to be an excellent tank-destroyer and dive-bomber attack aircraft. It played a key role in strengthening Germany’s defensive lines and achieved remarkable successes despite enemy ground resistance. One notable pilot of the German Luftwaffe was Major Hans-Ulrich Rudel, who led numerous missions. Rudel was a Junkers Ju 87G pilot, renowned for his courage, fearlessness, and exceptional marksmanship. Rudel often engaged his targets from as close as 300 meters, which gave him only a brief window to aim, but due to the proximity, clear visibility of the target, and his accurate shooting, he was able to strike the rear, upper sections, or engine compartments of enemy tanks with great precision—making escape nearly impossible for his targets. By the end of the war, Rudel had destroyed 519 Russian tanks, a record that remains unmatched. Despite these significant achievements, Germany ultimately had to retreat and contract its sphere of war by the war’s conclusion.

With the onset of World War II, more advanced weapons began to be tested. Russia, along with other tanks, also started deploying heavy tanks in the war. To destroy these tanks, aircraft required more powerful guns. For this purpose, the Henschel-129 aircraft was equipped with more potent weapons, upgrading from 30 mm Mark 101 guns to 50 mm (2-inch) and, in some aircraft, even 75 mm (3-inch) cannons. These guns made it possible to destroy tanks more effectively; however, they also slowed down the aircraft during attacks, making them easier targets for enemy fighter planes and ground-based defenses. The German FW-190 ground-attack aircraft dropped cluster-type bombs on enemy tanks. These bombs (SD10) carried 10 kg shaped charge warheads that were designed to penetrate tank armor. On the Russian side, the single-engine Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik was deployed extensively as a ground-attack aircraft. The Il-2 was a low-flying attack plane protected by 8 mm thick steel armor around the cockpit, engine, and fuel tanks. The cockpit glass was made of thick layered glass to protect the pilot from enemy fire, and the steel shielding kept the aircraft safe from small-arms fire. About 36,136 Il-2 aircraft were produced—likely more than any other military aircraft in history. Despite this massive production, the Germans managed to destroy many of them, but Il-2s continued to pose a constant threat to German forces. The Il-2 was armed with 82 mm (3 1/4 inch) rockets and 132 mm (5 1/4 inch) rockets, which proved effective against tanks. These rockets could either completely destroy a tank or render it practically inoperable. Il-2 aircraft also used cluster bombs loaded with PTAB (shaped charge warhead) munitions that caused widespread destruction over large areas. Some Il-2 aircraft were fitted with 37 mm cannons, but these did not achieve much success. The Il-2 Shturmovik units claimed to have destroyed large numbers of German tanks and military vehicles, but the exact figures were never clearly verified, and the Soviet Union never felt the need to substantiate these claims.

At the end of 1942, the British Air Force increasingly relied on 3-inch rockets instead of guns for the tank-destroyer role. These rockets were equipped with a 27-kilogram warhead containing 7.7 kilograms of highly explosive material, making them extremely deadly against ground targets. After launch, the rockets reached a top speed of 1600 kilometers per hour (1000 miles per hour) within 1.5 seconds, proving highly effective against tanks. The Hawker Typhoon aircraft, the British Air Force’s premier fighter-bomber, was equipped with the best weapons for ground attacks. Armed with eight rockets, it would attack from an altitude of 5,000 feet, dive at a 30-degree angle, and fire its rockets in successive waves. The ideal firing range was about 191 meters, which allowed precise strikes. In addition, the Typhoon also engaged targets using its machine guns. For firing the 3-inch rockets, the angle of dive and the distance between the target and the aircraft were critically important. The pilot had to estimate these parameters, which was a very difficult task. A dive angle error of just 3 degrees or a 51% miscalculation in distance could cause the rocket to miss the target by up to 15 meters (about 50 feet). Moreover, aiming at moving targets was extremely challenging. Air resistance, gravity, and G-force pressures also complicated the process. Despite these challenges and occasional inaccuracies, the 3-inch rockets caused massive destruction due to their high speed and destructive power. However, many errors were made during firing. On August 1944, during the battle at Falaise Gap, Allied bomber aircraft carried out extensive sorties against German ground units. The Army Operations Research Team, monitoring ground movements, observed approximately 538 tanks, military vehicles, and artillery in the area. In response, Allied air forces launched attacks that destroyed 13 German tanks and self-propelled guns during the battle.

Eleven of these were destroyed directly by rockets, and two were destroyed by bombs. In March 1945, analysts at the Second Tactical Air Force Headquarters evaluated the performance of rockets during the war. According to a classified report, out of eight rockets fired from one aircraft, only one hit the target with accurate precision. In the airstrike at Falaise, only two percent success was achieved; however, despite this, the Allied Air Force managed to disrupt German supply lines, which caused many German tanks to become inoperative due to fuel shortages. During World War II, apart from other countries’ air forces, the American Air Force also conducted extensive operations against the Germans. In December 1944, at the Bulge, American Republic P-47 Thunderbolt aircraft fired a large number of 411 mm (1 4/5 inch) diameter M10 rockets. As usual, British Typhoon aircraft participated alongside American planes in these operations. The American and British aircraft claimed damage to 751 German tanks and other vehicles. In a subsequent operation, these aircraft destroyed 66 tanks and 34 other vehicles. According to analysts’ reports, the confirmed numbers increased to 57 tanks, 81 self-propelled guns, and 62 other vehicles destroyed. Additionally, four tanks, two self-propelled guns, and one military vehicle were partially damaged. The German Luftwaffe also tested the 8 cm (3 1/4 inch) Panzer Blitz rockets towards the end of the war, causing significant damage to Allied ground forces.

The battle against tanks continued until the end of World War II. After the war, all the involved countries conducted extensive research to strengthen their military power, developing new weapons and defense systems. During the Korean War, the Americans used advanced rockets of the 1945 vintage type and Napalm bombs. Napalm proved to be an effective and powerful weapon against military convoys, vehicles, and other targets. It spreads destruction over a wide area. Napalm is essentially a fuel tank-like container attached under the wings of an aircraft, filled with petrol jelly. When lightly pressured, it ignites and explodes, spreading fire over a large area and turning everything to ashes. Napalm bombs can be dropped from a height of 100 feet above the target, and the flames from a napalm bomb landing on a tank can cause significant damage by burning it. In the 1960s, better and more effective methods and weapons against tanks were tested. Slow World War II aircraft were replaced by fast McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom and F-105 Thunderchief fighter-bomber aircraft, which, due to their high speed, could evade ground resistance while delivering their weapons such as retard bombs, cluster bombs, rockets, general-purpose bombs, and other armaments. Thanks to these advanced weapons and systems, attacks became more accurate and efficient than before. The capacity to carry weapons increased, and their lethality multiplied several times compared to the past.

In the 1965 Indo-Pak War, the Pakistan Air Force carried out extensive operations against the advancing Indian ground forces. On September 6, 1965, the Indian ground forces launched attacks on Pakistan from multiple fronts as part of their advance towards Lahore. On September 8, in the southern region of West Pakistan, near the village of Gudro east of Karachi in Sindh, the enemy attacked with one battalion and two armored squadrons and immediately captured Gudro. Simultaneously, they advanced about fifteen miles from Gudro towards Khokhra Par, located on the railway line from the Rajasthan desert heading to Hyderabad and Karachi. The Pakistan Army requested air support from the Mauripur Airbase (present-day Masroor Airbase) in response. On September 9, F-86 Sabre jets, in just nine sorties, attacked the enemy’s supply lines and troop concentrations, forcing them to retreat back into Indian territory. During these operations, the jets destroyed at least 62 enemy military vehicles and ten railway wagons. On September 10, after further air strikes around Gudro and Munabao, the Pakistan Army captured Munabao and its railway station, about six miles inside the Indian border. From September 7 to 8, a T-33 trainer aircraft took off daily from Mauripur to attack enemy positions, completing 20 attacks and a total of 72 missions during the entire war.

From September 7 to 22, T-33 aircraft achieved the distinction of destroying 26 Indian artillery guns and 16 railway wagons, along with damaging several vehicles. During the same war, the Pakistan Air Force conducted nearly 500 missions with Sabre jets, engaging in air operations against the enemy. Remarkably, no Sabre aircraft were lost due to Indian anti-aircraft fire. A few were lost due to retaliatory fire or accidents, including one that exploded during a rail attack. Indian ground forces, despite their superior marksmanship, did not shoot down a single Sabre jet. However, due to the numerical superiority of Indian artillery during attacks on tanks, military vehicles, and troops, at least 58 Sabre jets — about half of the Pakistan Air Force’s Sabre fleet were damaged by Indian ground fire. In comparison, Pakistan Army’s anti-aircraft gunners shot down 72 Indian aircraft, while the Navy downed 3 planes. Pakistan Air Force aircraft skillfully evaded Indian air interventions, following textbook principles and standard training maneuvers to accurately strike their targets. They operated in coordinated formations, attacking sequentially while their wingmen provided cover and secured their rear.

It was common for Pakistan Air Force Sabre jets to sustain operations on a single target for up to thirty minutes. In contrast, Indian Air Force aircraft would usually make only one strike on a target and often fire shells indiscriminately before retreating. Between September 1 and 22, F-86 Sabres alone destroyed 149 tanks, 666 various types of vehicles, and one freight train. In addition, they damaged 56 tanks and 29 military vehicles. On the other hand, the Indian Air Force destroyed only one tank and damaged another when its track was blown off. Despite this, the Indian Air Force claimed the destruction of at least 120 Pakistani tanks. This discrepancy is attributed to Indian attacks occurring during dawn and dusk, with fog and mist causing many missed targets. Their claims were mostly accepted based on Indian pilots’ statements alone. In one incident, a Sabre formation under Squadron Leader Shad mistakenly attacked Pakistan Army tanks, thinking them to be enemy forces. Fortunately, Flight Lieutenant Mukhtar quickly identified the tanks as friendly. However, by that time, the Pakistan Army’s artillery had surrounded them, and due to accurate fire by the Army’s gunners, Flight Lieutenant Sadruddin’s No. 4 Sabre caught fire. He was forced to eject and saved his life by parachuting down.

The No. 32 Strike Wing, stationed in Sargodha, was also tasked with the role of tank destruction. For this purpose, Sabre jets were equipped with highly explosive anti-tank warheads—specifically, 2.75-inch folded-fin anti-tank rockets (FFAR). The combat strength of No. 32 Strike Wing included two squadrons, each organized with 12 Sabre jets. These aircraft were deployed from Mauripur to Sargodha between September 4 and 6. The two squadrons were led by Squadron Leader Azeem Dawood Potta of No. 17 Squadron and Squadron Leader Alaudin Bach of No. 18 Squadron. Along with other Sabres based in Sargodha, these units conducted aerial surveillance over Lahore, Amritsar Road, and Kashmir, remaining ready to support ground operations when needed. The Sabre jets were armed with rockets mounted in four pods under the wings, each pod holding seven FFAR rockets, equating to a total of 28 rockets per aircraft. Alternatively, the jets could carry eight 5-inch rockets. For specific targets, napalm bombs were used, and a .50 caliber Browning machine gun firing 300 rounds per minute proved highly effective against both hard and soft-skinned targets. The 2.75-inch rockets, small yet deadly, were considered the best general-purpose weapons. These rockets could be quickly loaded onto aircraft as needed. Although precise targeting akin to that with guns was not possible, firing all seven rockets simultaneously ensured a 75 to 80 percent success rate in destroying tanks. The effectiveness of this strike wing was demonstrated during operations in the Samba sector of Kashmir on September 10 and 11. Indian forces had a large concentration of armored vehicles at Sialkot and Jassar. Following focused attention by No. 32 Strike Wing and special operations over two days, 91 tanks and 100 military vehicles were destroyed. On September 9 and 10, to prevent the Indian advance in Chawinda, large numbers of Pakistan Army tanks and other equipment were transported by rail to northern areas near Kasur. The Indian Air Force’s advances were effectively countered by joint efforts of the Pakistan Air Force and Pakistan Army.

On September 7, under the leadership of Wing Commander Tawab, four Sabre jets were requested from Sargodha to support the Army at Samba Sector and at Charwa near Sialkot. During their operations, they destroyed numerous tanks and military vehicles belonging to the 14th Indian Infantry Division. On September 13, No. 32 Strike Wing of the Pakistan Air Force, led by Squadron Leader Bach, along with four Sabres flown by Flight Lieutenants Saleem, Amanullah, and Manzoor, attacked numerous enemy tanks and artillery positions in the Narowal sector in the morning. To support the Army, Sabre F-86 jets conducted more than 400 attacks in 481 sorties. After achieving air superiority, Sabres based in Sargodha flew 30 to 40 sorties daily in support of the Army, with only one aircraft lost due to an explosion caused by weapons on a cargo truck during an attack. Almost every Sabre from Sargodha sustained damage during ground operations, but despite this, the aircraft did not hesitate to remain on target for as long as thirty minutes. Between September 5 and 11, heavy ground shelling between Chawinda and Samba failed to stop the Sabre Strike Wing, which destroyed 10 tanks, 137 military vehicles, and two artillery pieces.

The next day, when the enemy was engaged in combat at Chawinda and Jassoran, the Pakistan Air Force aircraft destroyed an additional 81 tanks, 26 motor vehicles, and 12 artillery guns. The very next day, these same aircraft turned the Battle of Chawinda into a graveyard for the enemy’s Sherman tanks. On September 19, the Pakistan Air Force destroyed 19 tanks and 6 motor vehicles. In retaliation for the bloody defeat at Chawinda, India launched a massive attack on Lahore and Khemkaran on September 12. Although negotiations for a ceasefire agreement were underway, and India requested a 15-hour grace period from September 22 to notify its troops of the ceasefire, Pakistan was well aware of India’s intentions. On September 21, India deployed heavy artillery between Jallo and Attari to shell Lahore. The Pakistan Air Force launched a counterattack with eight Sabre jets from Wing No. 23. Squadron Leader Azeem Dawood Potta led four Sabres, while Aman led the other four. These aircraft were equipped with rockets and napalm bombs. To assist in precise targeting of enemy artillery, Pakistan Army artillery units used sensor smoke shells. Despite enemy attempts to deceive using false smoke signals and radio transmission (RT) jamming, the Pakistan Air Force achieved accurate strikes, destroying 15 medium and 5 heavy enemy guns, along with two tanks and several motor vehicles. The same Sabre jets destroyed three enemy tanks, one personnel carrier, four ammunition trucks, and other vehicles in the Guddu and Dilli sectors. Wagah, Attari, and Khemkaran were the regions where this wing had initiated ground attack operations on September 6 and remained active until the final phase. They added destruction of five more tanks and 12 motor vehicles to their tally. On September 22, in an effort to repel the Indian attempt to capture Khemkaran, the wing destroyed two more tanks, one medium artillery gun, and numerous motor vehicles. When enemy forces reinforced their attack at the BRB Canal, the Pakistan Air Force flew a total of 68 sorties without losing a single aircraft. In contrast, Pakistani artillery shot down one of the low-flying Indian Hunter jets. To break the momentum of Indian ground assaults in the Attari sector, four Pakistan Air Force B-57 Canberra jets conducted a daytime operation, dropping twenty-eight 1,000-pound bombs. These bombs destroyed two tanks and two motor vehicles hidden under trees and bushes. In addition to Sabre jets’ operations, these jets fired approximately 350,000 rounds from their 0.5-inch machine guns, inflicting heavy casualties on Indian troops. At 11:02 PM, the Pakistan Air Force conducted its final flight of the 1965 war.

In this war, the four members of Wing No. 32 who achieved success — Squadron Leader Azeem Dawood Potta, Flight Lieutenant Syed Mansoor-ul-Hasan Hashmi, Amanullah, and Saif Azam were awarded the Sitara-e-Jurat (Star of Courage). For operational support to the Army in the distant southern areas, a small force of Sabres led by Squadron Leader A.A. Randhawa flew from Mari Pur and conducted 33 operations against Indian forces in Rajasthan, destroying 30 tanks and 105 motor vehicles, disrupting enemy preparations and communications. Sabres from Mari Pur flew a total of 160 sorties, while Squadron 19 in northern West Pakistan, under the leadership of Jashlay Nuzai Haider, carried out vigorous operations throughout the war, flying 175 sorties. This squadron adopted the tactic of flying low to the target, deliberately attracting the heaviest ground fire to locate and engage targets. Other squadrons from Peshawar also conducted some operations, but Squadron 19 is distinguished for sustaining no aircraft losses despite employing the most dangerous tactics. This squadron destroyed 14 enemy aircraft, damaged 6 more, destroyed 47 tanks, 140 military vehicles, and 16 artillery pieces, and damaged 68 tanks and 12 vehicles. On September 8, during operations near Ramgarh Nala, close to Pathankot in Indian Kashmir, this squadron targeted well-armed vehicles and fuel supply trucks with their guns. After exhausting their rockets, they continued to attack enemy ground forces by targeting vehicle and tank engines, the anti-penetration insulation (API) systems, and the rear of tanks using their machine guns, achieving many successes. Thus, the Pakistan Air Force played a vital and effective tank-killing role in the 1965 war.

Squadron No. 17 remained active in the air for 361 hours during 104 combat sorties between September 6 and 32, destroying between 15 to 30 tanks, 100 to 150 vehicles, and inflicting casualties of 100 to 300 enemy soldiers. In the Arab-Israeli War, Israel also inflicted heavy losses on the enemy’s ground forces compared to the Arabs. In the 1967 war, the Israeli Air Force caused severe damage to Egyptian ground forces near the Suez Canal using guns, unguided bombs, rockets, and cluster bombs. Air operations against tanks showcased excellent performance of the aircraft. Along with the best types of planes, advanced equipment, guided and modern weapons brought great devastation, but tanks too were made stronger, more aggressive, and their protection was enhanced further.

In 1970, the first guided missile was fired from a fixed-wing aircraft, achieving 100% success. This was the American Hughes AGM-65 Maverick missile — a fully capable anti-tank missile. Since 1970, several advanced versions of this missile have been developed, and it is successfully used by air forces worldwide, including the Pakistan Air Force.Weighing 209 kilograms, including 59 kilograms of explosive material, this missile is a TV-guided thermal image infrared-guided missile. The missile’s front section houses a TV camera or a thermal image infrared sensor. It can be launched from up to 22 kilometers away. The missile is controlled via the image from the onboard camera displayed on a TV screen inside the aircraft. It can be maneuvered right, left, up, and down until the final moment from the aircraft, allowing extremely precise targeting. Thanks to the thermal image infrared system, the missile can hit targets even in darkness by detecting heat signatures on the battlefield. This missile was widely used during the 1990 Gulf War and the Yugoslavia Wars.

Since World War II, no aircraft has been able to truly specialize in the anti-tank role until 1976, when the United States introduced a highly effective and capable aircraft, the A-10 Thunderbolt. Until 1976, all aircraft were high-speed fighter-attack types and using them for the anti-tank role required many modifications, which also brought several challenges. The F-4 Phantom, Su-7, Mirage, and other aircraft were used in the anti-tank role but never achieved complete and satisfactory results. This was because flying at low altitude and low speed made these aircraft easy targets for ground surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft guns. In Vietnam and other conflicts, aircraft losses were high compared to ground damage inflicted. In light of all these experiences, the United States introduced the state-of-the-art Republic Thunderbolt A-10 aircraft. This aircraft performs extremely low-level flights at an appropriate speed with excellent maneuverability, and attacks with a “pop-up” maneuver. Due to its large variety of weapons, excellent navigation and attack systems, and its unique capabilities, it became the first choice of any ground-attack pilot. The Jaguar, Tornado, F-111, MiG-27, and Su-25 Frogfoot are excellent ground-attack aircraft, but the A-10 is in a class of its own. The anti-tank role requires a balanced speed of approximately 706 kilometers per hour (about 380 knots). For the A-10, two installed turbofan engines provide the perfect combination of moderate speed for targeting and high speed for escape from the battlefield. The A-10 is equipped with a 30 mm caliber rotating seven-barrel GAU-8 gun, which is unparalleled in lethality. The GAU-8 gun can pierce even the strongest steel armor of a tank and turn it into scrap. Its projectiles weigh 730 grams and are loaded with a highly explosive material mixed with depleted uranium. After firing, the bullets travel toward the target at a speed of 988 meters per second. The aircraft’s nose houses a drum magazine with a capacity of 1174 rounds.

The bullets fired by this gun are as large as the height of a pilot’s helmet and are highly lethal. This gun can strike targets at a distance of 1,800 meters (about 6,000 feet). Besides this gun, the aircraft can carry various types of weapons and other systems at 8 to 10 different hardpoints under its wide wings on the battlefield. These include two Sidewinder missiles for self-defense, electronic warfare equipment, navigation and attack support systems, Mark 82 laser-guided bombs, general-purpose bombs, cluster bombs, and other modern types of weapons. The A-10 was specifically designed for extensive operations against Russian tanks and can operate within a radius of 460 kilometers from its base when fully loaded. With internal fuel, it can remain airborne for up to 1.7 hours, and its endurance doubles when refueled mid-air.

In the 1991 Gulf War, A-10 aircraft participated in a conflict for the first time. The pilots of the A-10 claimed to have destroyed 987 Iraqi tanks and other vehicles during the war. However, after analysis by experts and other evidence, this number was later revised down to only 330. Iraq had deployed its units in southern Iraq and the deserts of Kuwait, where bulldozers dug 3-meter deep and wide trenches to hide tanks. These tanks were camouflaged to blend perfectly with the surrounding desert environment, making them appear as part of the desert’s hot sand both from the ground and from the sky. This camouflage made it very difficult for attacking aircraft and weapons like rockets to detect their presence. During this Gulf War, the 84th Tactical Fighter Wing’s General Dynamics F-111 aircraft were also deployed alongside other aircraft to attack Iraqi ground forces. These planes flew over Iraqi units and, equipped with Pave Tack and Paveway laser-guided bombs and special night-vision devices, were able to locate these hidden tanks. Due to the heat of the desert during the day, tanks blended with the environment, but at night, the cooler desert temperatures made these tanks visible and easier targets in the darkness.

In the night between February 5 and 6, a pair of F-111 aircraft from the 48th Tactical Wing conducted a trial attack. Each aircraft was equipped with 500-pound (GBU-12) Paveway laser-guided bombs. From an altitude of 5,500 meters (about 18,000 feet), these planes dropped laser-guided bombs on laser-designated tanks, and as a result, 7 out of 8 bombs hit their targets with 90% success. The F-111 planes outperformed the A-10 in this operation, and this tactic was further expanded. This wing and its crew were dubbed “tank plunking.” On the night of February 31-41 (likely a typo; probably meant February 13-14), 46 F-111 aircraft attacked Iraqi tanks, claiming the destruction of 132 tanks and other vehicles, and the attacks continued, but exact damage estimates were never confirmed. Due to this, many situations remained unclear. Allied aircraft claimed to have destroyed 920 Iraqi tanks, later revised down to 460. The captured damaged and destroyed tanks in Allied-controlled areas showed that these laser-guided bomb attacks shredded heavy tanks, and even those tanks that were not hit directly were disabled and taken out of the battle. The American A-10’s rival is the Russian Su-25 Frogfoot aircraft, which shares similar capabilities. Jaguar and Tornado aircraft also emerged as successful ground-attack planes. Despite advanced technology and equipment, identifying targets during night attacks remains difficult. In the recent Yugoslavia war, the Allies often bombed refugee convoys instead of military convoys. The British Harrier aircraft, known for its vertical takeoff and landing ability, is an effective plane for front-line and commando-style warfare. Britain has also developed a modern tank-killing missile called the Brimstone, similar to the Hellfire missile used on helicopters.

he Brimstone missile, measuring 8.1 meters in length and weighing 50 kilograms, can be mounted on aircraft in quantities ranging from 12 to 18. The U.S. Air Force and other air forces employ three primary attack tactics for low altitude strikes: the Loft attack, the Level Pass, and the POP-UP attack technique. In the POP-UP strategy, aircraft approach the target at low altitude and then suddenly gain altitude just before reaching the target, diving down to release their weapons precisely on the target.

In addition to these tactics, strategies such as Split Attack, Trap Attack, and Echelon Attack are also employed. In these approaches, one aircraft locates and engages the target initially, while another aircraft delivers the final, decisive blow to ensure the complete destruction of the target. Modern technology has further enhanced these capabilities with the crucial role of satellites. Thanks to the Global Positioning System (GPS), attacking aircraft can strike while staying beyond the effective range of ground resistance and surface-to-air missiles. In a recent test, a B-2 bomber equipped with GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs was able to release a bomb from an altitude of 44,000 feet, which exploded just 3 meters away from the target. This precision capability has introduced a new dimension to aerial assault. Based on past and present experiences, new weapons are continuously being developed to halt this “elephant on the ground” — the mighty tank.