# Attack aircraft



## bob44 (Feb 3, 2013)

Which where the best, most successful attack aircraft? Such as the P47, A20, Mossie, Typhoon ect. Would you rather have single or twin engines?


----------



## davebender (Feb 3, 2013)

Gen Patton had P-47 support to knock out Metz forts during fall of 1944. They proved incapable of hitting forts with 2,000 lb bombs so U.S. 3rd Army was held up for three months.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 3, 2013)

Since you can't put a 2000lb on a P-47 ( put one under one wing and nothing on the other?) I am not surprised the P-47s failed to take out the Forts with them.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Feb 3, 2013)

Slow-But-Deadly or Tubby-Beast-Flying... but my bias is showing...


----------



## GregP (Feb 3, 2013)

The A-20 was a very good attack bomber as were the Mosquito, the Ju-88, and the P-47, which delivered a LOT of ordnance during the war and did not earn its reputation for its failures, but for its successes. The Do-17 wasn't bad and neither were some of the Soviet attack planes. The Il-2 was VERY difficult to shoot down and pressed the attack. 

It is perhpas good to remember that the Soviet attack planes prevailed in the war, so they weren't ineffective. 

The Japanese Aichi D3A Val Dive Bomber was perhaps one of the most effective of the war in terms of hitting what was being aimed at.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Feb 3, 2013)

IMO that's not terribly important. What matters is having enough power to provide decent performance while carrying a full payload.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Feb 3, 2013)

bob44 said:


> Attack aircraft
> Which where the best, most successful attack aircraft? Such as the P47, A20, Mossie, Typhoon ect. Would you rather have single or twin engines?



Well, the P-47 wasn’t an attack aircraft, it was a high-altitude pursuit plane pressed into service as a ground pounder, like almost all of the Western allied nations S/E fighters. Same with the Typhoon, it was a interceptor that ended up as a low alt tactical aircraft.

A20 was just a a BD-7 with a few machine guns in the nose. The Mosquito was probably more designed for the fighter/bomber role than any of your examples.

Realistically, there are only a handful of competitors for best dedicated attack aircraft of the war. The Il-2 and Il-10 families and the Tu-2 for the Soviets, the Ju-87 and HS-129 from Germany, the A-26 from the US (and perhaps the A-36). The Douglas SBD Dauntlesses and TBD Devastator rate mention in the Pacific, as does the Val.



davebender said:


> Gen Patton had P-47 support to knock out Metz forts during fall of 1944. They proved incapable of hitting forts with 2,000 lb bombs so U.S. 3rd Army was held up for three months.


 
Under Operation Madison, P-47s conducted dive bombing attacks against Metz with (mostly) 500 lbs bombs. In Zaloga’s ‘Metz 1944: Patton's Fortified Nemesis’, the attacks are described as “reasonably accurate” but “not effective in demolishing the thick earth and concrete protecting the forts.”

Post battle analysis showed that the only weapon that was consistently effective against the structures was 2000 lb semi-AP bombs.

The same book describes P-47’s “smashing” a German counterattack with air support and also breaching a dam with 1000 lb bombs.


----------



## davebender (Feb 3, 2013)

> P-47s conducted dive bombing attacks against Metz with (mostly) 500 lbs bombs.


Most Metz forts were built during the 1890s. By 1944 every competent military intelligence officer in the world knew the roofs were made of reinforced concrete 2 1/2 meters thick.

Why would you attack such a target with bombs you know are too small for the job?


----------



## ShVAK (Feb 3, 2013)

I guess it would depend on the theater. 

For carrier operations in the PTO you're not going to have twin engine craft available until very late in the war, so I'd say SBD would be my choice in that environment. F4U a VERY close second. D4Y Judy was notable for its speed (relative to other dive bombers) but that didn't seem to save it over the Marianas. 

In the ETO/MTO? In an AA rich environment I'd want two engines, preferably radials and a good turn of speed along with decent defensive capabilities. A-26, Mosquito, A-20, Ju 88, P-38, Typhoon (after problems with the Napier Sabre were sorted out). P-47 and Whirlwind would be in a tier slightly under those. 

In the Eastern Front the focus is on armor, accurate firepower and the ability to operate out of the most primitive airstrips--not so much on speed. So the choices would be Ju 87G, Il-2/10, even the Hs 123. Hs 129 was pretty successful considering how limited its service was, and the crappy engines it was saddled with. 

The Hurricane IID was a solid CAS/anti-armor platform over North Africa. Not sure what the RA and LW fielded successfully in that role over Africa other than the Stuka.


----------



## bob44 (Feb 4, 2013)

Perhaps I should expand by saying, Iam looking for any type of aircraft that was used most successfully at low level bombing, dive bombing, straffing a target. Using bombs, cannons, guns, rockets and such.


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 4, 2013)

Beaufighter anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2013)

bob44 said:


> Perhaps I should expand by saying, Iam looking for any type of aircraft that was used most successfully at low level bombing, dive bombing, straffing a target. Using bombs, cannons, guns, rockets and such.



Unfortunately, dive bombing (true dive bombing) and strafing are rather different requirements and required different aircraft. True dive bombers (dive brakes) rarely carried enough forward firing machineguns/cannon to be really good strafers and planes with large forward firing batteries of guns rarely had dive brakes. 

B-25s worked pretty good in the Pacific but they were in no way a dive bomber. They also would have been a poor choice in Europe in 1944 against large numbers of AA guns. 

If you mean 60 degree and under dive attacks as used by many fighters it changes things some what but it leaves just about _EVERY_ dive bomber out.


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 4, 2013)

The A-35B's had a decent forward firepower of 6x 50cals, alas none saw combat AFAIK.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2013)

Wildcat said:


> Beaufighter anyone?


 
For me, please.
Now, if someone could explain it to me whether it was ever using its dive brakes to perform dive bombing...



Shortround6 said:


> Unfortunately, dive bombing (true dive bombing) and strafing are rather different requirements and required different aircraft. True dive bombers (dive brakes) rarely carried enough forward firing machineguns/cannon to be really good strafers and planes with large forward firing batteries of guns rarely had dive brakes.
> 
> B-25s worked pretty good in the Pacific but they were in no way a dive bomber. They also would have been a poor choice in Europe in 1944 against large numbers of AA guns.
> 
> If you mean 60 degree and under dive attacks as used by many fighters it changes things some what but it leaves just about _EVERY_ dive bomber out.



Maybe the Ju-88 (dive bomber variant) with decent forward-firing battery would not be a long stretch, or maybe an A-20 with dive brakes installed. The A-36 have had a decent MG armament, being a dive bomber with modest engine power.
Pe-2 was also a dive bomber, maybe it sould have 2 pairs of Shvak cannons installed?


----------



## Grampa (Feb 4, 2013)

The main benefit whit a twin-engine is that when the other engine is out, you have a second that can take you home.
A single-engine is that who whouldent whant to have over 600Kg of iron armour at the front that protect you from enemy fire at the front.


----------



## wiking85 (Feb 4, 2013)

Do the Whirlwind and Tempest count?


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> For me, please.
> Now, if someone could explain it to me whether it was ever using its dive brakes to perform dive bombing...



Beaufighter had dive brakes





tomo pauk said:


> Maybe the Ju-88 (dive bomber variant) with decent forward-firing battery would not be a long stretch, or maybe an A-20 with dive brakes installed. The A-36 have had a decent MG armament, being a dive bomber with modest engine power.
> Pe-2 was also a dive bomber, maybe it sould have 2 pairs of Shvak cannons installed?



Forward firing battery is at the expense of bombs or fuel. Diving bombing works really well when the opposition doesn't have much in the way of AA guns. 

You don't just add dive brakes to airplanes that don't have them. Structural strengthening is required, not only around the dive brakes to keep them from ripping out but if n the wings, the wing may need to be beefed up to prevent wing failure.
You also have to pull out, Normal dive bombers pulled 5-6 "G"s in a normal attack, and were built heavier than fighter aircraft. Bombers (or even A-20s) were not built to do 5-6 "G" maneuvers. Or at least not many 
Yes you could beef the plane up but without increasing the gross weight it cuts into fuel/bomb load. Increasing gross weight increases runway requirements and affects climb. You may also get into a weight spiral, can the landing gear/tires take the increased weight or do they need to be beefed up? 

the A-36 was one of the few exceptions and it was carrying about 650lbs worth of guns and ammo in the wings. Perhaps it could have gone to a pair of 1000lb bombs under the wings if it only had the fuselage guns???

PE-2 was also rather limited as to payload. you are replacing one 7.62mm MG and one 12.7mm MG with two 20mm cannon and how much ammo? 100 rounds of 20mm ShVAK ammo weighs about 18.3kg without links. 

And two 20mm ShVAK cannon are not a great strafing armament. Better than what the PE-2 had but if it is no better than an LA-5 why bother?


----------



## CORSNING (Feb 4, 2013)

Many good attack planes throughout the war. But for 1945, IF I had to fly an attack mission into hostile territory and was given a choice of mounts: F4U-4. I could drop two of those 1000 lbs. bombs (possibly eight rockets also) and once the ordinance was dropped, have the speed to escape or the performance to go one on one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Beaufighter had dive brakes



The manual (here , pg. 10 of manual) states that Beaufighter can be equipped with them.



> Forward firing battery is at the expense of bombs or fuel. Diving bombing works really well when the opposition doesn't have much in the way of AA guns.



Agreed; no free lunch.



> You don't just add dive brakes to airplanes that don't have them. Structural strengthening is required, not only around the dive brakes to keep them from ripping out but if n the wings, the wing may need to be beefed up to prevent wing failure.
> You also have to pull out, Normal dive bombers pulled 5-6 "G"s in a normal attack, and were built heavier than fighter aircraft. Bombers (or even A-20s) were not built to do 5-6 "G" maneuvers. Or at least not many
> Yes you could beef the plane up but without increasing the gross weight it cuts into fuel/bomb load. Increasing gross weight increases runway requirements and affects climb. You may also get into a weight spiral, can the landing gear/tires take the increased weight or do they need to be beefed up?
> the A-36 was one of the few exceptions and it was carrying about 650lbs worth of guns and ammo in the wings. Perhaps it could have gone to a pair of 1000lb bombs under the wings if it only had the fuselage guns???



Again, no free lunch. One need to asses what is needed, and go for that. Holds true also for 'level bombers' even more - MG ('solid') nose means bombardier is not in the bomber.



> PE-2 was also rather limited as to payload. you are replacing one 7.62mm MG and one 12.7mm MG with two 20mm cannon and how much ammo? 100 rounds of 20mm ShVAK ammo weighs about 18.3kg without links.
> And two 20mm ShVAK cannon are not a great strafing armament. Better than what the PE-2 had but if it is no better than an LA-5 why bother?



Indeed. With 2 ShVAKs, the bomb load is down, from 1600 kg max to maybe 1400. 
The La-5 makes for a lousy bomber, while Pe-2 can bomb, even if a pair of ShVAKs replaces the MGs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 4, 2013)

Most sources on the Beaufighter say one plane was used to test the air brakes, how many were later fitted ( if any) is usually skipped. 

You can stuff an existing bombers nose with guns ( or hang them on the sides or under the wings) and sacrifice bomb load. It may require a bit of re-balancing. It does not require new spars or new wing skins or other modifications (re-stressing) of the air frame like trying to get the airplane to dive bomb would. B-25s carried 8-12 forward firing .50 cal guns making them equal to at least 2 normal American fighters for strafing. They could also use parachute retarded bombs on the strafing runs. A-20s with solid noses carried 6 guns ( a few had 8 ) which also makes for a decent but not spectacular strafer. 

I think what is being looked for here is planes that would be _good_ at these jobs, not just a plane that can do it in a pinch. To be good at it it has to offer something that other planes in an air force's inventory _cannot_ do or cannot do well. 

Many of the IL-2s had 23mm cannon which made them much more dangerous to light armor or even transport than the ShVAK cannon. The ShVAK was pretty good but it had neither the explosive per round or the armor penetration of the Hispano. They also carried four 7.62 high rate of fire machine guns (equal to six of most other countries) for unprotected targets. Using PE-2s to strafe, even with two 20mm guns is a poor return on investment. Let them bomb, get back to base and re-arm and fly again. Stafing exposes two engines and 3 crew men to ground fire for little return. Same return as exposing one engine and one crewman using a fighter. 

In many cases the US used light/medium bombers as strafers because the fighters couldn't reach the targets. And/or the strafers acted as flak suppression to allow better bomb placement. A-20s and B-25s do make better targets for AA fire than fighters. 

As the war went on the more powerful engines were used planes could undertake more jobs. A B-25 has more power than any He 111 until they finally put Jumo 213s in the last batch or two and it has more power than most JU-88s. The JU-88s need the BMW 801 or Jumo 213 engines to get into the same power class.


----------



## vinnye (Feb 4, 2013)

Hurricane IID ?
Caused quite a lot od damage in the Desert.
Carried a variety of armament and made good use of an airframe that was no longer competative as a fighter.


----------



## jim (Feb 4, 2013)

I would choose Me 410 because combines all the mentioned mission requirements
1) Could dive bomb ( not 90 degress of course)
2) Had internal bomb bay = high penetration speed
3) Powerful nose armament for strafing
4) Decent defensive armament, decent armor
5) Two engines safety
6) Very good performance and manouverability for a twin engined aircraft and good range
7) Ability to accept a great collection of weapons 
8 ) Acceptable handling
9) All metal construction
10) Development potential
i cannot find a more full package for the attack role
Especially a version with BMW 801s 1,65 ata (2000ps ), as fitted to ground attack Fw190s would be formidable


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 4, 2013)

For LW ground pounders the BMW 801 seems like a natural choice. The 1,58/1,65 ata manifold pressure was being used also in fighter 190s.
The Me-410 with powerful nose armament would mean bomb bay is full, so no bombs there?


----------



## jim (Feb 4, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> For LW ground pounders the BMW 801 seems like a natural choice. The 1,58/1,65 ata manifold pressure was being used also in fighter 190s.
> The Me-410 with powerful nose armament would mean bomb bay is full, so no bombs there?


 
the B1 variant had 2x20mm 2x13mm standart at its nose . That s pretty good strafing armament to go along the bomb load . 
what i dont know is if would be possible to use the defensive Mg 131 to strafe the masses of soviet troops
Besides B1 could mount 4x50kgr in exterior racks. And a dedicated CAS/BAI version could add more exterior bomb racks. With the available power a big load was possible


----------



## Grampa (Feb 4, 2013)

I whouldent go for the Me 410 or other similare plane who are in same size or are bigger. In the late war German whondered what is that prevent most for the pilots for doing an successfull attack on the heavy defended enemy bomber and targets on the ground, so they compared all the combat report on every warplane they been used in interceping, low level attack and dive-bombning and that led to an surprisingly resault for the german analysts. they had expected that it is the lack of firepower or bombload that gives most negativ resault for a attack on the target. Instead It whas the big size, especially the frontal area on the plane that degenerate most a succesfull attack. Bigger front target are easier to hit than slower. The Me 410 may be little fast and have big firepover and bombload, but you can see that is a big plane whit a big frontal area. So if I whold chose I whould then go for the Hs 132 if it whas available, It's fast whitch give a little to short time for the defender to shoot at it, and the small frontal area it have gives a small chance for the defenders to hit it.


----------



## davebender (Feb 4, 2013)

Unlike USA, Germany cannot afford to wait until the war is half or two thirds over before fielding effective aircraft. And I don't see any way of getting a reliable BMW801 engine into service during 1939.

Twin engine CAS aircraft powered by BMW132 radial is possible during 1939 or 1940.


----------



## nuuumannn (Feb 4, 2013)

Why is it that whenever anyone mentions a German aircraft someone always comes along and starts saying that; "if they did this or this or this, then that might have happened"? Let's re-examine the thread purpose as Bob44 intended it.



> I am looking for any type of aircraft that *was* used most successfully at low level bombing, dive bombing, straffing a target. Using bombs, cannons, guns, rockets and such.



German aircraft that proved their worth as GA types include the Bf 110, Ju 87 and of course the Fw 190F, all doing an excellent job of it. Other types that were good at it include the Beaufighter, P-47, Mosquito, Typhoon, F4U, IL-2, Pe-2, B-25, A-20 etc. I also agree that twins offer advantages over single-engine types, although when some twins lost power in one of their engines, all they did was take the crew safely to the crash site on the only working one.


----------



## wiking85 (Feb 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> Unlike USA, Germany cannot afford to wait until the war is half or two thirds over before fielding effective aircraft. And I don't see any way of getting a reliable BMW801 engine into service during 1939.
> 
> Twin engine CAS aircraft powered by BMW132 radial is possible during 1939 or 1940.


What about the BMW 139 instead of the BMW 801? Apparently the problems with the 139 was fixable:
BMW 801 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The main concern was providing cooling air over the cylinder heads, which generally required a very large opening at the front of the aircraft. Tank's solution for the BMW 139 was to use an engine-driven fan behind an oversized prop-spinner, blowing air past the engine cylinders, with some of it being drawn through S-shaped ducts over a radiator for oil cooling. However this system proved almost impossible to operate properly with the BMW 139; early prototypes of the Fw 190 demonstrated terrible cooling problems. Although the problems appeared to be fixable, since the engine was already fairly dated in terms of design, in 1938 BMW proposed an entirely new engine designed specifically for fan-cooling that could be brought to production quickly.


----------



## wiking85 (Feb 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> Unlike USA, Germany cannot afford to wait until the war is half or two thirds over before fielding effective aircraft. And I don't see any way of getting a reliable BMW801 engine into service during 1939.
> 
> Twin engine CAS aircraft powered by BMW132 radial is possible during 1939 or 1940.


What about the BMW 139 instead of the BMW 801? Apparently the problems with the 139 was fixable:
BMW 801 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The main concern was providing cooling air over the cylinder heads, which generally required a very large opening at the front of the aircraft. Tank's solution for the BMW 139 was to use an engine-driven fan behind an oversized prop-spinner, blowing air past the engine cylinders, with some of it being drawn through S-shaped ducts over a radiator for oil cooling. However this system proved almost impossible to operate properly with the BMW 139; early prototypes of the Fw 190 demonstrated terrible cooling problems. Although the problems appeared to be fixable, since the engine was already fairly dated in terms of design, in 1938 BMW proposed an entirely new engine designed specifically for fan-cooling that could be brought to production quickly.


----------



## davebender (Feb 4, 2013)

BMW801 prototype first ran during April 1939. The engine required another 3 years of development before it was reliable and even then it required C3 fuel to produce an adequate amount of power.

BMW139 prototype may be fixable but development is likely to take just as long.


----------



## stug3 (Feb 4, 2013)

A-36 Apache


----------



## mike siggins (Feb 5, 2013)

id go with the corsair for the allies and fw190 for the germans even ruddel flew one ocasionaly


----------



## vinnye (Feb 6, 2013)

I would go for the Henschel HS129 if I were wanting a ground attack aircraft for the LW. Twin engined, armour tub and good firepower.
No doubt the FW 190 could do this role - but in my opinion it would be better used against your oponents ground attack aircraft or bombers.


----------



## gjs238 (Feb 6, 2013)

bob44 said:


> Which where the best, most successful attack aircraft? Such as the P47, A20, Mossie, Typhoon ect. Would you rather have single or twin engines?


What did the US develop and field post-war?
- Douglas A-1 Skyraider
- Martin AM Mauler
If the "best, most successful attack aircraft" were twin-engined jobs, I would ASSume that's what would have been developed, but since single-engine jobs were developed it may be safe to ASSume those were the most effective.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 6, 2013)

Being carrier-borne, the single engine plane was a mandatory thing? 
Plus, not many engines from 2000-2500 HP were available for the combatants of ww2, so 2 x 1500 (give or take) was some healthy middle ground. We can also note that USAF quickly discarded A-24, A-25 and similar planes from inventory, that should make a hint. Other combatants also quickly found out that an attack plane ith single ~1500 HP engine was a cold meat on the table for any competent fighter AAA force.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 6, 2013)

As Tomo has noted the Navy used single engine attack planes. The Air Force seemed to be quite happy with the A-26 for quite a number of years. Granted the Air Force did by SkyRaiders.


----------



## VBF-13 (Feb 9, 2013)

jim said:


> I would choose Me 410 because combines all the mentioned mission requirements
> 1) Could dive bomb ( not 90 degress of course)
> 2) Had internal bomb bay = high penetration speed
> 3) Powerful nose armament for strafing
> ...


A few others would fit into that category, I'm sure. Throw out your #5 and the F6F rates as a very formidable bombing-fighting threat, as well as sturdy and easily-maintenanced. There are others, too. You ask me, we're basically talking style, here, or preferences. On any given day, in top trim, right out of the factory, I can be sold on virtually any of these aircraft referenced.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 4, 2013)

A bomb explodes off the port bow of a Japanese destroyer during the Bismarck Sea Battle.






A dramatic aerial view of a Japanese destroyer as an American plane sweeps over the vessel.






A Japanese merchant ship stopped and on fire after being attacked by American aircraft.






A Japanese merchant ship under attack. The deck cargo of landing craft can be clearly seen.






From the wartime records of the US Fifth Air Force:
_Both tactically and strategically, this was an outstanding operation. Besides the ships sunk, from 59 to 83 planes had been shot down and at least 9 others damaged. The Army Air Forces lost 1 B-17 and 3 P-38′s in combat, and a B-25 and a Beaufighter through other causes. Total Army Air Forces personnel losses came to 13 while the Japanese lost approximately 12,700 officers and men. Entirely unassisted, the Fifth Air Force, besides disposing of large numbers of airmen and sailors, wiped out an entire division of troops.

Thus the Fifth Air Force, operating in conjunction with our amphibious, naval and land forces in and around the Solomons and New Guinea, had seized the initiative in the Southwest Pacific. For the first time in that theater we were able to strike at times and places of our own choosing. _



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVLV67xILI4_


----------



## Poor Old Spike (Mar 4, 2013)

Give me a Mosquito..
Even though it was relatively small, it's raw brutal power enabled it to carry a 4000lb bomb load like the 'cookie' below.
It could quickly deliver its load to a target, and then get out quicker, unlike larger lumbering bombers.
Maybe the Allies should have used more aircraft like it for pinpoint precision bombing against factories etc rather than relying on less-precise wholesale carpet bombing-








Mosquitos clobber the Gestapo building in Oslo





_"It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again"— Hermann Göring, 1943_

Modern video from cockpit, the powerful engine sound is like music-

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfQQWOsoB8_


----------



## vinnye (Mar 4, 2013)

The Mossie was indeed a wooden wonder.
I also have a bit of a soft spot for the Beaufighter - I would not want to be in a ship that was in its sights or in a tank for that matter!


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2013)

4,000 lb cookie was relatively inaccurate. It's about the last weapon ground pounders would want for CAS.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 4, 2013)

Mosquito was hardly a 'raw power' machine - seem much more like a triumph of aerodynamics?


----------



## Poor Old Spike (Mar 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> 4,000 lb cookie was relatively inaccurate. It's about the last weapon ground pounders would want for CAS.



I should imagine in a low-level pointblank attack a Mosquito couldn't miss something like a factory no matter what type of bombs they were carrying.
By contrast, standard level-bombing at high altitude by other bombers was hopelessly inaccurate and wasteful, even assuming they managed to get to the target without being intercepted and shot down.
The Mosquito was so fast it was almost immune to interception.


----------



## davebender (Mar 4, 2013)

That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.


----------



## tengu1979 (Mar 5, 2013)

I will still not negate the IL-2 from the equation. With correct tactics and fighter cover they could really be deadly. Especially the PTAB bomblets raged havoc on the ground. If only they had better engine to carry all that mass around.


----------



## stug3 (Mar 27, 2013)

A lorry passes by a sign that warns of the danger of low-flying enemy aircraft in the Western Desert, 22 March 1942.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 27, 2013)

davebender said:


> That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.


 
No, Mossie daylight bombers lost fewer of their number to Luftwaffe aircraft at low level than high.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 28, 2013)

The Bf-110F2 was an excellent midwar GA A/C. They were used in russia, the med, norway, north Afrika and the west and gave an excellent account if themselve.
It featured more improved cockpit and engine armour, could carry two ts of bombs and had relatively good low level performances with Db601E.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2013)

Hi Mhuxt, where did you get the combat loss data?

I have a list of all Mosquito losses by aircraft number, but it doesn't say if they were combat losses, operational losses, or anything ... just "lost." Got it at: Mosquito Losses by Squadron and have no idea if the data are valid or not, but the losses are listed by aircraft number. According to the list, there were 7,781 Mosquitos built with 6,710 being built during WWII. 516 were lost in WWII (7.7%) and another 20 were lost post-war.

As I said above, there is no breakout as to what type of loss each was. Several could have been lost to termites for all the information given.

Now that I found this list, I need to look for loss totals for some other types. I don't know if an overall loss rate of 7.7% is high or low. It is very high for a combat loss rate, but many aircraft had substantial losses in training and operational use other than combat. Some were lost when other aircraft collided with them on the ground in a crowded parking area. Some weerre even lost when they were rammed by a truck on the ground. Some were lost to mundane mid-air collisions in both clear and IFR skies.

Interestingly enough little to no explanatory text is shown. If I had to take an educated guess, I'd say this list includes losses from all causes. It might be a good list (who would fake Mosquito loss data? Only us WWII aircraft nuts are probably interested anyway) but also might not be. I'd like to see it verified from at least some other source before taking it as probably true.


----------



## GregP (Mar 28, 2013)

Using a link provided by our friend Vincenzo (post: Air Force losses in WWII) I downloaded the data for RAF Bomber Command for WWII. My intent was investigatory only.

I find Bomber Command flew 372,6550 sorties and had 8,617 losses for an average loss rate of 2.3%. The planes with the lowest loss rate for bomber command were the Mustang and Beaufighter with zero losses in a combined 18 missions (not much contribution there or Bomber Command didn’t have but one of each?), followed by the B-17 with 7 losses in 1,517 sorties, followed by the Liberator with 3 losses in 615 sorties, followed by the Mosquito with 229 losses in 39,487 sorties for a 0.6% loss rate per sortie. The Lightning was next with a 2.0% loss rate and everything went up from there. The Lancaster and Hallifax were about in the middle with 2.2% loss rate for both and the Manchester was highest at 5.8%. 

Interestingly enough the Fairey Battle had a lower loss rate than the Lancaster at 2.1%, but only flew 287 sorties with 6 losses. Perhaps the Battle was used by other commands more or was withdrawn early. 6 Losses don’t seem to me to amount to much in a war, so the explanation has to be losses by other commands.

You can get the data at: BC - Group Stats

Thanks again, Vincenzo!


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 28, 2013)

Hi Greg,

Variety of sources - Chorley's Bomber Command Losses, the on-line txt file of Mosquito aircraft (actually a transcription of the data in the Air Britain serial number books), Tony Woods' Luftwaffe claims lists, some squadron histories and various bits and pieces on the net. 

Most importantly, there's a full list of sorties undertaken by 105 Squadron and 139 Mossies when they were in 2 Group in '42 and '43 in Sharp Bowyer's book on the Mosquito; that list also includes a brief descriptor for the sorties which provides information as to high / low-level. 

Nota bene - I'm speaking about the unarmed Mossie bombers, not the cannon/mg-armed FB.VI fighter-bombers which were in 2 Group from late '43 through the end of the war, which rarely if ever encountered Luftwaffe fighters, as I was posting in response to a comment re: Mossie vulnerability to aircraft at high or low altitude.

I actually put all the Mossie Day Bomber stuff which I had together in an Excel file and posted it up here for anyone interested to download, will see if I can find the link and re-post.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 28, 2013)

Vincenzo's link is a good one for BC Mossie info, as it separates out the various types of Mossie sorties (RCM, Weather, Night-Fighting, Bombing)

Found the file I was looking for, was initially posted in the "Metal Mosquito" thread. Info I posted at the time (including stuff about the switch from high- to low-level sorties and the effect on losses) was:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...4693-metal-mosquito-day-moss-loss-vs-bc-2.zip Brief file I put together on daylight Mosquito bomber losses. Go through it from the first tab down. First tab shows overall losses, looks pretty high. Second tab shows that as time went on, the overall loss rate diminished. Third tab shows how the loss rate was brought down, by looking at loss rate over the previous 100 sorties. Fourth tab shows the trendline (logarithmic) for the previous 100 sorties. Fifth tab contrasts the prevoius graph with BC night losses by month. Fifth to seventh show all of the above, with info for the two squadrons, 105 and 139. Eighth tab shows how and when the focus changed from high- to low-level sorties. Next shows high vs low vs monthly loss rate, and trend of monthly loss rate. Next shows aircraft sorties by size of formations dispatched. Next shows both high/low and size of formation. Next tab ("format size pivot") is just data for the graph. Final tab with any meaning for the current discussion is "format size losses" which shows that the most effective / low-loss raids were at low level, by formations of 6-12 aircraft, also reason for losses - note losses through collision on raids with more than 12 aircraft.

Loss info tab has description of individual losses.

The rest is calculations / data for the graphs. 


In terms of the current thread and my assertion that daylight Mossie bombers were less vulnerable to LW aircraft at low level than at high level, have a squizz at the tab entitled "FomationSizeLosses". You'll see that the crews of 105 and 139 undertook 220 sorties at high level and suffered 9 losses to aircraft (6 to 190s, 3 to 109s), and 507 sorties at low level, during the courses of which they suffered 11 losses to aircraft (9 to 190s, 2 to 109s). Quick calculation says these are loss rates to aircraft only of 2.2% at low level, 4.1% at high level.

There's also a couple of graphs which show the switch from high to low level, one has the monthly loss rate included.


Also Nota Bene - all of the above is an ongoing work in progress, I change it as I find new / more precise information.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 28, 2013)

A comprehensive list of all Mossies and their fate.

http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_DH98 prodn list.txt

Aircraft Type : Operational Losses by Night and Day

BC - Statistics

Other stats given, so take a look.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 29, 2013)

Yes, that txt link is the one which seems to have been transcribed from the Air Britain serials books. They don't seem to give dates on/off squadrons for the Mossies, in contrast to some of the other aircraft types, think the Spitfire info on the same site has dates on and off. 

This makes it hard to do any kind of graphing of force strengths. 

I also believe it means that "Struck Off Charge" notations in many cases happen well after the point at which the airframe is no longer flying.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 29, 2013)

GregP said:


> I have a list of all Mosquito losses by aircraft number, but it doesn't say if they were combat losses, operational losses, or anything ... just "lost." Got it at: Mosquito Losses by Squadron and have no idea if the data are valid or not, but the losses are listed by aircraft number. According to the list, there were 7,781 Mosquitos built with 6,710 being built during WWII. 516 were lost in WWII (7.7%) and another 20 were lost post-war.



I did a quick calculation using a spreadsheet on 8thAF losses during WW2, which is by no means complete. It adds up to 1,901 B-17s lost. From a production of 12,731 (from Wiki) that works out to be 15%. That is not including B-17s lost by other commands in other theatres.

Of the post war losses of the Mosquito, one is LR503, which performed 213 missions before being sent back to Canada for a display tour. It crashed after hitting a flag pole atop a building.

F For Freddie - Calgary's VE Day Tragedy


----------



## dobbie (Mar 29, 2013)

A lot would depend on enemy air....if I had to fight my way out, Id probably want an air cooled fighter-the P47 and Corsair come to mind. If the enemy air cover was suppressed to a good degree, a gunned up B25 or A26 would get my vote. Liquid cooled engines are not a great idea for mud movers.


----------



## stug3 (Jun 6, 2013)

A Mark IID Hurricane of 6 Squadron at Shandur, Egypt with Vickers Class "S" 40 mm (1.57 in) guns and Vokes Sand Filter, 1942






RAF Hurricane Mark IV with Vickers Class "S" 40 mm (1.57 in) guns, 1943


----------



## stug3 (Aug 30, 2013)

Swastika in the Gunsight: Memoirs of a Russian Fighter Pilot, 1941-45

_Soon, all of us (the army pilots, too) were ordered to assemble in one place. ‘Ahead of us,’ Dzyuba waved a pointer at the map, then at a large photo, ‘is Gorodyets aireld. It is situated 25 kilometres south of Luga. As you see, there are Ju 88s on the airfield. They are refuelling. The photo was taken two hours ago. Evidently, the bombers recently flew in from somewhere. Your task is to destroy them on the airfield. At its northern end, twenty-five Me 109 fighters can be counted. Follow my orders — then they won’t take off. From our airfield, make for Samro Lake, then to Gorodyets. In the area shaded red,’ Col Dzyuba again raised his pointer, ‘are partisans. In the event of a forced landing, come down here. . . .’

Having defined the duties of the leading group, Dzyuba gave the command, ‘Go to it!’ Eight Il 2 Stormoviks, eighteen Hurricanes, seven Kittyhawk fighters and one Pe 2 aircraft taking photographs rose into the air. Fifteen of the Hurricanes were armed with rockets. Cameras had been fitted in two of the fighters (Maj Myasnikov’s and mine), in order to take pictures._

Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmoviks










Soviet P-40s


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> Most Metz forts were built during the 1890s. By 1944 every competent military intelligence officer in the world knew the roofs were made of reinforced concrete 2 1/2 meters thick.
> 
> Why would you attack such a target with bombs you know are too small for the job?



Because you didn't have anything better available? I wonder if they could have developed an AP version of Bat or a 2000# version of AZON in time....


----------



## davebender (Sep 3, 2013)

1944 USA had plenty of large bombs in production. If they weren't available to CAS units operating in France then U.S. Army Air Corps supply officers screwed up.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 3, 2013)

Trying looking at post #3 again, You can't put a 2000lb on a P-47. you can't put a 1600lb on a P-47. You can stick a pair of 1000lb bombs on, one under each wing and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage. 

Blaming supply officers for not supply bombs that you can't mount on the aircraft doesn't explain the situation.


----------



## muscogeemike (Sep 3, 2013)

I've always thought the P-61 would have been a hell of an attack plane. Fast, maneuverable, firepower and could carry a large payload.


----------



## pattle (Sep 5, 2013)

What about the Lancaster, for example the eagles nest and dam busters raids both low level precision raids.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 5, 2013)

pattle said:


> What about the Lancaster, for example the eagles nest and dam busters raids both low level precision raids.



I'm sure that Tallboys could have done interesting things to a fortress. The questions are a) were they available and b) did Patton ask for them? Knowing only his reputation, I'm not sure if he'd ask for that sort of help.


----------



## davebender (Sep 5, 2013)

What does that matter? 

The best attack aircraft tend to be slow which improves weapon delivery accuracy. Dive bombing helps a lot too.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Dive bombing works great if the defenders have a second or 3rd rate air defense system. It doesn't work very well if the defenders have a first rate air defense system. The dive bomber spends too much time exposed on an easily predicted flight profile/plan. This is one reason dive bombing went out of 'fashion'.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 5, 2013)

I think dive bombing as a tactic was replaced by evolving fighter bomber technology such as rockets, napalm and the use of jets and helicopters. As far as WW2, it was the most accurate method of bombing a relatively small target from the air. I dont think casualty rates for DBs were higher than high altitude heavies, nor were they more vulnerable, the horrendous losses of pre-escort HA missions being the main factor in my reasoning.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Dive bombing remained a good tactic in the Burma theater until the end of the war but then the Japanese army didn't have the AA guns that Germany or the Allies did.


----------



## pattle (Sep 5, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> I'm sure that Tallboys could have done interesting things to a fortress. The questions are a) were they available and b) did Patton ask for them? Knowing only his reputation, I'm not sure if he'd ask for that sort of help.



Harris never liked his Lancasters being used in this way and he would have done his best to make them unavailable, national pride may have prevented Patton from asking for this kind of help but I think there were other American Generals that would have just done what was needed and not even have considered pride. The Lancaster could carry out tricky low level raids but it was not the right plane for this sort of thing, I think they just used it when there was no other way.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Tallboys don't work if dropped at low altitudes. Piercing bombs (armor, concrete, rock or just dirt) need a certain minimum altitude to drop from in order to reach the velocity needed to reach their "proof" figures. Dropping a bomb from 1/2 it's "rated" height is like taking 1/2 the powder out of an anti-tank round.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stug3 (Sep 29, 2013)

Fw 190A-5 with the under-wing WGr 21 rocket-propelled mortar. The weapon was developed from the 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 infantry weapon.


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2013)

Battle of Fort Driant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Only if they can be delivered accurately enough to hit a fort. Otherwise they will be no more effective then this P-47 delivering 500 lb bombs against Fort Driant.


----------



## Juha (Sep 29, 2013)

davebender said:


> Battle of Fort Driant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only if they can be delivered accurately enough to hit a fort. Otherwise they will be no more effective then this P-47 delivering 500 lb bombs against Fort Driant.
> 
> View attachment 244306



If they can hit bridges and tunnels or Tirpitz, why would they be unable to hit a fort?


----------



## Milosh (Sep 29, 2013)

davebender said:


> Battle of Fort Driant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Only if they can be delivered accurately enough to hit a fort. Otherwise they will be no more effective then this P-47 delivering 500 lb bombs against Fort Driant.
> 
> View attachment 244306



There was a reason they were called 'earth quake' bombs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 29, 2013)

> There was a reason they were called 'earth quake' bombs.



Indeed. The 12,000 lb Tallboy and 22,000 lb Grandslam didn't need to hit their targets to be effective at destoying them. A list of the use of Tallboys and Grandslams during the war here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_(bomb)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_bomb

Reactions: Like Like:

1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> What does that matter?
> 
> The best attack aircraft tend to be slow which improves weapon delivery accuracy. Dive bombing helps a lot too.



Only if you dont care about survivability, or arent serious about getting airborne. Like the germans. 

The Germans didnt care about speed, and for a time they had high accuracy levels. then the allies arrived and the germans couldnt fly anymore. Which is a whole lot less effective than flying and missing


----------



## cimmex (Oct 3, 2013)

Flying and missing, means waste resources is more effective, really a great statement…


----------



## Aozora (Oct 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> *Would you rather have single or twin engines?*
> IMO that's not terribly important. What matters is having enough power to provide decent performance while carrying a full payload.





davebender said:


> *Mosquito was so fast it was almost immune to interception.*
> 
> That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.





davebender said:


> *Fast?*
> What does that matter?
> 
> The best attack aircraft tend to be slow which improves weapon delivery accuracy. Dive bombing helps a lot too.



So what is required is an attack aircraft with decent performance at low altitude which can fly slow so as to ensure good weapon delivery accuracy, preferably with bombs capable of penetrating 2.5 metres of reinforced concrete; it can't be a Mosquito because that was too slow to escape interception at lower altitudes, and not the P-47 because it was apparently incapable of hitting a fort, and neither of them were dive bombers?

That just leaves -errr-


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 3, 2013)

davebender said:


> That only holds true at 30,000 feet where Mosquitos normally operated. Flying at CAS altitude with a bomb load is a different matter.



Ummm not quite. Depends on the Mossie and the engines (60 series, 100 series or 20 series). FB VIs were Merlin 20s, later model ones with Merlin 25s with 25lb boost were pretty fast at low level. Fast enough (plus the night fighter ones) for anti-V1 work.

I have seen the film of the Jerico operation, including the in cockpit ones. At one point the nav tells the pilot 'snappers' as a couple of German fighters were on their tail ... kept going and lost them.

The (often discussed here) Banff strike wing, again using FB VIs (except for the Tse Tse ones) were fast enough not just to get away from German fighters ... but to actually fight them.
So the low level Mossies were pretty hot at low level. The 2nd TAF used them right through 44 and 45, alone or as pairs doing deep strike work with acceptable losses (say compared to the heavy bombers or Tiffies).

So no need to worry about their ability down low. Carrying bombs (2000lb internal, 1000 external in the MK VI) and/or rockets they packed a heck of a punch. Plus 4x20mm and 4x0.303 with a lot of ammo.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 3, 2013)

Aozora, the finest dive bomber was the Spit. Contentious statement I know, but Spits actually took out more MET than Tiffies did in the 2nd TAF.

There were several reasons, that wonderful elevator authority and light weight meant it could (and did) attack with extreme dive angles (70+) right down low and still pull out.
Much lower than the 'heavies' like the P-47 or Tiffie which would 'mush' on pull out, therefore had to pull out higher, while the Spit boys could dive lower and pull higher G (tighter pull out).
Took some practice but being able to do that fast meant better survivability and good accuracy. This was done a lot against the V1 targets, but also right through 44 and 45 against tactical targets in the 2nd TAF.
There is a study that was done on G levels and the Spit boys were regularly pulling far more G than the P-47 or Tiffie boys.
The best for that sort of stuff was the clipped wing IXs or XVIs. Fast low down, good dive bombing ability, great roll rate, climb and turn. Anything from a low level straff to dropping a bomb.

But for the concrete bunkers there actually wasn't much available. None of the planes mentioned here could carry a bomb big enough (no matter how accurate they were). Only the 4 engined 'heavies' could do that and they didn't have the accuracy. Napalm helped a little bit, but not a lot. Basically the TAC air was useless against them.

In D Day and the Normandy campaign the ones that did that stuff a lot were the battleships, dropping huge shells (their contribution now long forgotten). 
By the time the Allies got to the West wall (naturally out of ship cannon range), these became a real problem.

The British didn't have it quite so bad, since they had their 'funnies' tanks, but the Americans really struggled, basically (because Bradley rejected the 'funnies' as he also rejected the 17 pounder Firefly Shermans) down to the combat engineers. Lost a lot of people because of those rather silly decisions (but then again he was rather a silly General).


----------



## Milosh (Oct 3, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Aozora, the finest dive bomber was the Spit. Contentious statement I know, but Spits actually took out more MET than Tiffies did in the 2nd TAF.



Disagree. The P-51 as the A-36 was a better dive bomber.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 3, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Disagree. The P-51 as the A-36 was a better dive bomber.



Too slow as it used dive brakes. By even 43 a slow dive braked dive bomber could not exist against reasonable AA. Dive bombing had to be fast.

The A-36 was a good concept, but (there is always is a but) by 43 it was too slow (much slower than a normal P-51A) and slow dive bombing was a recipe for suicide.

What you needed (and an upgraded A-36 could have done the job, but they never did that) was a plane that could go fast at (say 10,000-15,000ft), dive deeply (70 degrees or more) , pull out on the deck and pull away fast. There was one Allied plane that could do that, the Spit. Even a Mustang couldn't pull that sort of G low down off of a steep dive right to the deck.

The other TAC ones used rockets or shallow bombed (Tiffies, P-47s, Mossies, et al)


----------



## Milosh (Oct 3, 2013)

Be sure, 390mph in a dive is too slow. Bomb release could be as low as 2000' which does not leave much room for the pull out.

A little article on the Spit and dive bombing, Spitbomber > Vintage Wings of Canada

Fl Lt Raymond Baxter .....”approach made at 8,000 ft .... never below 5,000 ft .....speed reduced to 200 knots ..... rolled ..... target lined up in the centre of the unlocked gyro-gunsight .... throttled back and trimmed into what was effectively a hands-off dive at about 70 degrees .... Once trimmed, and with the throttle pulled back, the Mk XVI held very steady when hurtling groundward, which allowed you to make full use of the excellent Mk II gunsight ...... the gunsight graticule was brought to bear on the target .... We never really monitored our dive speeds .... I think 360 mph was a typical maximum ..... bombs (presumably only 250-lbs under the wings) usually released at 3,000 ft – no lower than 1,500 ft – and the aircraft was then pulled out to escape at low level. An experienced pilot could bomb accurately to within 25 to 30 yards”. If the bombs failed to release, then the aircraft would usually break up during the attempted pull-out.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 3, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Aozora, the finest dive bomber was the Spit. Contentious statement I know, but Spits actually took out more MET than Tiffies did in the 2nd TAF.
> 
> There were several reasons, that wonderful elevator authority and light weight meant it could (and did) attack with extreme dive angles (70+) right down low and still pull out.
> Much lower than the 'heavies' like the P-47 or Tiffie which would 'mush' on pull out, therefore had to pull out higher, while the Spit boys could dive lower and pull higher G (tighter pull out).
> ...


 
The fighter bomber rendered the purpose built dive bomber redundant, except in some theatres where the fighter/AA defences were relatively light - the low speeds of the like of the Ju 87 made it very difficult for escorting fighters which either had to slow down and weave to keep up the Ju 87 showed just how vulnerable 

While the Spitfire did a fine job with 2 TAF it did have its problems with deformed wings with when it was pressed into the dive attack role, which is one reason the clipped wings were adopted on the Mk XVIs. In general the fighter bomber superseded the purpose built dive bombers - except in theatres where the opposition had light fighter opposition and unsophisticated flak defences - for the reasons you've described; high speed low down to get in fast, climb to altitude quickly, dive, then get away again at high speed and low altitude where it was able to defend itself against opposition fighters.

I cannot think of any bunker busting bombs that were able to be used by either dive bombers or fighter bombers during the war - even with the Ju 87 available and at peak accuracy in 1940 the Germans still needed troops on the ground with hollow-charge explosives to disable the outer defences of the forts at Eban-Emael, which were protected with a mere 1.5 metres of reinforced concrete. 

There was a German AP bomb available which could penetrate 2.5 metres of concrete - this was the PC 1600 production of which was stopped in October 1942; weighed 3,527 lbs so couldn't be carried by fighter or dive bombers

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HxDQdIZYoE_

some interesting comments on the Spitfire dive bombing by an SAAF pilot:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmskTpbCW3w_

Both did a great job and stating which was better is impossible to say without a detailed analysis of their combat records when operating purely as dive bombers. The A-36 could carry 500 lb bombs under the wings, while the Spitfire could carry one under the fuselage, but it couldn't operate as a proper dive bomber because it didn't have the release gear needed to avoid hitting the propeller at angles over about 50 degrees.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2013)

The A-36 proved itself many times over, even as late as 1944, where a flight of 4 successfully attacked a heavily defended rail depot in Italy in foul weather. Even after taking damage, the lead element of the flight still delivered accurate hits to it's target and withdrew safely to a friendly airbase.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 3, 2013)

cimmex said:


> Flying and missing, means waste resources is more effective, really a great statement…



Actually yes. At best, under the most ideal circumstances aircraft flying in direct support were responsible for about 2-4% of casualties. Yet the mere fact that aircraft are overhead can provide firepower modifiers for the ground forces in various ways, to the tune of more than 60%. in other words, aircraft over an army's head improves its efficiency by more than 60%. 

Its one of the main reasons the German Army was so inneffective in its operations in the last 2.5 years of the war. 

Aircraft effectiveness as a battelfield modifier has virtually nothing to do with its ability to kill things. Its ability to fly, be seen and survivie has much to do with it. The Germans never got that


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Aircraft effectiveness as a battelfield modifier has virtually nothing to do with its ability to kill things. Its ability to fly, be seen and survivie has much to do with it. The Germans never got that


In the early stages of the war, the Germans excelled at using airpower to augment their ground forces. Both with level bombing and dive bombing and GA by the fighters, the Wehrmacht was able to enjoy success.

With the loss of air superiority came the loss of safety for the ground troops meaning they were no longer able to get full Luftwaffe support for the infantry/armor with air-strikes or air-support when the enemy pressed their positions but instead had to not only worry about defending thier positions from Allied ground forces but were forced to modify thier movements due to punishing Allied air attacks.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Actually yes. At best, under the most ideal circumstances aircraft flying in direct support were responsible for about 2-4% of casualties. Yet the mere fact that aircraft are overhead can provide firepower modifiers for the ground forces in various ways, to the tune of more than 60%. in other words, aircraft over an army's head improves its efficiency by more than 60%.
> 
> Its one of the main reasons the German Army was so inneffective in its operations in the last 2.5 years of the war.
> 
> Aircraft effectiveness as a battelfield modifier has virtually nothing to do with its ability to kill things. Its ability to fly, be seen and survivie has much to do with it. The Germans never got that



Just a question. Is it possible that even though they might have only caused 2-4% of the casualties that they caused the right casualties or some casualties that were a sticking point for the ground forces?


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 4, 2013)

Another question. Did the Allies ever achieve air superiority to such an extant that it was feasible to re-introduce dedicated dive bombers to the ETO?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2013)

It is not just air superiority that allowed dive bombers to operate and be effective. It was the lack of numbers of effective AA guns. The Dive bomber attack profile gives the defenders too much warning and tracking time. Trading a number of aircraft for an important bridge is one thing, trading aircraft for trucks or a couple of pill boxes is another.


----------



## Rufus123 (Oct 4, 2013)

There was not ever that many A-36's where there?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 4, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> There was not ever that many A-36's where there?


About 500 were built between 1942 and 1945 with roughly 300 being deployed in the MTO mainly with the 27th FBG.

The A-36 also saw service in the CBI


----------



## Milosh (Oct 4, 2013)

Serial numbers of the A-36 were 42-83663/84162 = 500


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 5, 2013)

Wildcat said:


> Another question. Did the Allies ever achieve air superiority to such an extant that it was feasible to re-introduce dedicated dive bombers to the ETO?



Nope, because of the German mastery of light flak. By the time of Normandy flying low and slow was suicide against the German 20mm, etc flak guns.
Clostermann tells of an attack on a German airfield they went in with 8 ... came out with 2. And that was in Tempests.

Tiffie guys had the sort of loss rates that the heavy bombers had, second only to U-Boat crews in 'the most suicidal jobs in WW2' competition. I (though I haven't checked them) the P-47 people probably had similar experience in the 9th and 19th TAC US airforces.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Clostermann tells of an attack on a German airfield they went in with 8 ... came out with 2. And that was in Tempests.



Must be one of Clostermann's embellishments as there was only one day, April 24 1945, when 6 Tempests were lost. They were from 4 different squadrons (222, 486, 33 (2), 56 (2)) and were at different locations (Ratzeburg, Hamburg, Konigsmoor, Schonberg, Pritzwalk (2)). Flak and small arms fire were the reason for the losses tho.


----------



## Aozora (Oct 5, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Must be one of Clostermann's embellishments as there was only one day, April 24 1945, when 6 Tempests were lost. They were from 4 different squadrons (222, 486, 33 (2), 56 (2)) and were at different locations (Ratzeburg, Hamburg, Konigsmoor, Schonberg, Pritzwalk (2)). Flak and small arms fire were the reason for the losses tho.


 
Ah yes - _The Big Show_...unfortunately, while Clostermann's book can be exciting and sometimes interesting, it should be treated as a work of fiction unless there is corroborating evidence: in another instance he told a fairly gruesome tale of how Wing Cdr. Brooker, C/O of 123 Wing, supposedly died in a fiery crash after being hit by flak on 16 April 1945, with Clostermann as a wing man and eyewitness. Sadly for the truth Clostermann wasn't on the mission and no-one knows what happened to Brooker except that the armed recce flight was bounced by Fw 190s.


----------



## Cave Tonitrum (Oct 5, 2013)

As for single vs. two engines for attack planes, there was an interesting exchange noted at the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference related to fighter bomber survivability.

Page 87:

*Colonel Garman*: "I can speak only for the African theatre and only for a particular type of operation. The P-38 was used at low altitude on many occasions and we found that it was quite vulnerable to ground fire - any type of ground fire, even small arms fire. But other planes also experienced that same ground fire and the radial engines brought the planes home. You can't lay down any hard and fast rule and say the in-line engine is no good at low altitude as far as ground fire is concerned, It all depends on the operation entirely."

*Lieutenant Colonel Tyler*: "We have data which shows that in the entire European theatre the P-47 is much better able to take punishment and return after any sort of mission - either ground attack or any mission which incurs damage. That may be due to the P-47 airplane or due to the air-cooled feature. We don't know which, but it certainly can take it better than other types."


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2013)

Some people _claim_ the P-40 was better than the P-38 because all the important stuff was in the nose. Minor hits from the behind the cockpit to the tail didn't do much ( killed the radio?) The P-38 had stuff stretched out over quite a distance. Radiators were almost half way from the wing to the tail. 
In the CBI theater the P-38 was noted for having by far the the lowest losses for ground attack missions. However they were only a few squadrons of P-38s in theater so perhaps the the sample is too small for an accurate analysis.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Oct 6, 2013)

That's a good point SR. It is not so much whether a liquid cooled engine is inherently more vulnerable, rather how the radiator and piping are set up and protected.

Shoving everything into a chin radiator (and especially if you then armoured it, which never seemed to have been done) as per the P-40, Tiffie and Tempest seems inherently less vulnerable than say the Spit/109 under wing type, the rear fuselage Mustang type or the rear stuff in the booms of a P-38.

Not sure about the in-wing type that the Mossie used. It was vulnerable to debris from planes they attacked exploding or breaking up. But I have absolutely nothing about its vulnerability to ground fire (if anyone here knows anything please enlighten us). At least its piping runs were short


----------



## Milosh (Oct 7, 2013)

The Typhoon had nose armour.


----------

